Well the encryption approach works by encryption. I take it you are asking how the turning on and off works. Remember that you need four satellites to get a fix, it matters where they are relative to each other or dilution of precision will trash your accuracy, so they don't have to make it so that you can't see any satellites. Even if four are occasionally visible the system could be made so unreliable as to be of little practical use. And the DoD has been known to shift the orbits to change the coverage over areas of interest (although that presumably reduces the satellite life, so it's probably a last resort). That means that the area of bad coverage will be big, but significantly less than half the globe. And, of course, Europe never knows what the DoD is going to put in the next generation of satellites.
I was working with ESA on identifying the requirements for such a system almost 20 years ago. My time was paid for by the aviation industry; I don't know where the ESA funding was coming from, but as well as ESA personnel I was working alongside folks from quite a few other individual EU States. The main focus was EGNOS, true, but we were already looking at Galileo.
It takes them eight hours to orbit, so there's plenty of time for them to turn on and off (or, more likely, turn encryption on and off). You need four satellites to get a fix, so they can control it for smaller regions than "half the globe". Still pretty big, though, which is presumably why Clinton's announcement and most subsequent announcements have referred to "regions".
That looks like a Mac specific problem. On Windows I still have a decent amount of bar to click on, although I'm not sure it would be right to call it a title bar because it doesn't contain a title.
Then I repeat: it's not just recent. Galileo was approved more than 15 years ago, and the planning and negotiations go back quite a bit further. The UK distrust of the USA goes back to at least 1776.
It might not be a bad thing. But it might be a bad thing if the body setting the pricing were an uncontrolled monopoly, which is what worried Europe enough to invest in the Galileo programme.
The US does have the declared capability to turn off satellites when they orbit over particular world regions. More to the point, they have the capability to encrypt, and could sell decryption cards to individual users. Oh, and the satellites broadcast a lot more than just a time signal; the receiver needs to know the position of the satellite and its health status too.
The problem is this design doesn't conform to the user interface design standards of the OS in question and clashes with
the expectations of the average user./quote.
[citation needed]. Note that guidelines and style guides are not standards.
Why? It does everything I want just fine. Actually, it's a 2.0GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo processor and does everything my employer wants just fine, because it's my work computer.
Yes, I do, and I also read the official air crash investigation reports as part of my work. Getting rid of air corridors isn't necessarily as bad an idea as you think if it's done right.
NATO is irrelevant to this. The DoD declared back in the 90s that in a conflict situation they would consider any GPS augmentation ground station to be a valid military target whether or not it was on friendly soul.
This is total BS because the EU is going broke fast and they want to launch a billion dollar+ program (yes, Euro billion plus, whatever) for duplication?
No, they don't want to launch the programme. They launched the programme something like twenty years ago. They want to continue the programme, which is coming to fruition.
The EU also gains the UK a "sodding fortune". You might not have noticed that the migration laws work both ways. The company I work for (almost all of whose employees are British) works globally and gets a lot of its work from within the EU precisely because of EU procurement regulations, common European standards, ease of travel and working rights. You don't like immigration? Well, you need to send the Anglo Saxons and the Celts back: Keep Britain Beaker! (But wait! Oh noes! Even the beaker people came from Spain originally!)
Try getting your information on Europe from somewhere other than the Daily Mail and Murdoch.
Nowhere near as easily. To shut off GPS in a region the DoD just has to press a couple of buttons in Colorado (IIRC). To shut off Galileo in a region they have to get jammers into the region itself, and those jammers are a target. Or they could do what they've said they would do as a first measure -- work with the Board of Trade to apply economic sanctions to the operators of Galileo to force them to shut it down.
Everybody is thinking about war. I was involved, in a small way, with the planning of Galileo, and one of the very big concerns in Europe was that the US could start charging for the use of GPS. The technology is already on the GPS satellites, and it could be done regionally (with fairly big regions, but enough to keep it free in the US whilst charging in Europe and Asia if not in Canada and Mexico). The free availability of GPS without selective availability is subject to annual presidential review. Considering the extent that the world is dependent on GPS now, if the USA started charging it would have the rest of the world over a barrel. Galileo isn't so much about military competition as commercial competition.
Yes, it will mean more code, but the extra code would have to be optimized code, therefore the bloat should be pretty much unmeasurable. unless you are REALLY anal retentive.
Er -- non sequitur alert. Optimised code can still be bloat. And although one extra option might not make a significant difference, there's an indefinitely large number that users are likely to ask for. If they did them all then it will be serious bloat. If they refuse, despite users asking, how would that differ from what they are doing now? If people want options they can use Firefox. It's not coincidence that Firefox is a lot slower.
How could it possibly not add bloat? It would need extra code to handle the user preference and the variant layouts. That's exactly what bloat is, extra code to handle loads of extra options and functions. Yes, this is only one option, and wouldn't make much difference in itself, but how many other things might users want to configure? Sooner or later either Google are going to have to say, "no", or there will be a notable performance hit. If there's a performance hit then Chrome loses one of its main benefits, and as soon as they say, "no" we get exactly this sort of howling about ignoring the users. Google needed the courage to take a stand and say "we are marketing on speed rather than confugurability" and let the market decide whether that's a viable market position.
And remember, those who commented were those who looked up a bug report about the tabs being under the location bar. Users who were happy with the way things are would never have seen the discussion, so it was hardly likely to be a representative selection of users.
It's a usability request. There are a number of situations, such as via a terminal server, where there is a screen element at the top of the screen. It also means moving the mouse further every time you switch tabs.
Or they could [Ctrl][Tab] between tabs. And if Google moves the tabs below the location bar, that screen element will obscure the location bar, and the user will have to move the mouse further to access that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the encryption approach works by encryption. I take it you are asking how the turning on and off works. Remember that you need four satellites to get a fix, it matters where they are relative to each other or dilution of precision will trash your accuracy, so they don't have to make it so that you can't see any satellites. Even if four are occasionally visible the system could be made so unreliable as to be of little practical use. And the DoD has been known to shift the orbits to change the coverage over areas of interest (although that presumably reduces the satellite life, so it's probably a last resort). That means that the area of bad coverage will be big, but significantly less than half the globe. And, of course, Europe never knows what the DoD is going to put in the next generation of satellites.
I was working with ESA on identifying the requirements for such a system almost 20 years ago. My time was paid for by the aviation industry; I don't know where the ESA funding was coming from, but as well as ESA personnel I was working alongside folks from quite a few other individual EU States. The main focus was EGNOS, true, but we were already looking at Galileo.
It takes them eight hours to orbit, so there's plenty of time for them to turn on and off (or, more likely, turn encryption on and off). You need four satellites to get a fix, so they can control it for smaller regions than "half the globe". Still pretty big, though, which is presumably why Clinton's announcement and most subsequent announcements have referred to "regions".
That looks like a Mac specific problem. On Windows I still have a decent amount of bar to click on, although I'm not sure it would be right to call it a title bar because it doesn't contain a title.
The point is that they can say, "no" to as many user requests as they like. Google is not a democracy governed by all of its users.
Then I repeat: it's not just recent. Galileo was approved more than 15 years ago, and the planning and negotiations go back quite a bit further. The UK distrust of the USA goes back to at least 1776.
It might not be a bad thing. But it might be a bad thing if the body setting the pricing were an uncontrolled monopoly, which is what worried Europe enough to invest in the Galileo programme.
The US does have the declared capability to turn off satellites when they orbit over particular world regions. More to the point, they have the capability to encrypt, and could sell decryption cards to individual users. Oh, and the satellites broadcast a lot more than just a time signal; the receiver needs to know the position of the satellite and its health status too.
but I think this is mainly French nationalism and a reflection of the world's recent distrust of the US.
Oh, it's not just French and it's not just recent.
The problem is this design doesn't conform to the user interface design standards of the OS in question and clashes with the expectations of the average user./quote. [citation needed]. Note that guidelines and style guides are not standards.
No, there's admission that a very small number of people (as a proportion of their userbase) are known to want this feature.
Why? It does everything I want just fine. Actually, it's a 2.0GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo processor and does everything my employer wants just fine, because it's my work computer.
Yes, I do, and I also read the official air crash investigation reports as part of my work. Getting rid of air corridors isn't necessarily as bad an idea as you think if it's done right.
NATO is irrelevant to this. The DoD declared back in the 90s that in a conflict situation they would consider any GPS augmentation ground station to be a valid military target whether or not it was on friendly soul.
This is total BS because the EU is going broke fast and they want to launch a billion dollar+ program (yes, Euro billion plus, whatever) for duplication?
No, they don't want to launch the programme. They launched the programme something like twenty years ago. They want to continue the programme, which is coming to fruition.
The EU also gains the UK a "sodding fortune". You might not have noticed that the migration laws work both ways. The company I work for (almost all of whose employees are British) works globally and gets a lot of its work from within the EU precisely because of EU procurement regulations, common European standards, ease of travel and working rights. You don't like immigration? Well, you need to send the Anglo Saxons and the Celts back: Keep Britain Beaker! (But wait! Oh noes! Even the beaker people came from Spain originally!)
Try getting your information on Europe from somewhere other than the Daily Mail and Murdoch.
Nowhere near as easily. To shut off GPS in a region the DoD just has to press a couple of buttons in Colorado (IIRC). To shut off Galileo in a region they have to get jammers into the region itself, and those jammers are a target. Or they could do what they've said they would do as a first measure -- work with the Board of Trade to apply economic sanctions to the operators of Galileo to force them to shut it down.
Everybody is thinking about war. I was involved, in a small way, with the planning of Galileo, and one of the very big concerns in Europe was that the US could start charging for the use of GPS. The technology is already on the GPS satellites, and it could be done regionally (with fairly big regions, but enough to keep it free in the US whilst charging in Europe and Asia if not in Canada and Mexico). The free availability of GPS without selective availability is subject to annual presidential review. Considering the extent that the world is dependent on GPS now, if the USA started charging it would have the rest of the world over a barrel. Galileo isn't so much about military competition as commercial competition.
Yes, it will mean more code, but the extra code would have to be optimized code, therefore the bloat should be pretty much unmeasurable. unless you are REALLY anal retentive.
Er -- non sequitur alert. Optimised code can still be bloat. And although one extra option might not make a significant difference, there's an indefinitely large number that users are likely to ask for. If they did them all then it will be serious bloat. If they refuse, despite users asking, how would that differ from what they are doing now? If people want options they can use Firefox. It's not coincidence that Firefox is a lot slower.
Speak for yourself! But next time I'm designing a web form I'll remember to put a pop-up keyboard on screen so you can use that to enter your data.
Sorry, typo in my post. I'm on your side!
s/have/hate to have/
Sorry.
How could it possibly not add bloat? It would need extra code to handle the user preference and the variant layouts. That's exactly what bloat is, extra code to handle loads of extra options and functions. Yes, this is only one option, and wouldn't make much difference in itself, but how many other things might users want to configure? Sooner or later either Google are going to have to say, "no", or there will be a notable performance hit. If there's a performance hit then Chrome loses one of its main benefits, and as soon as they say, "no" we get exactly this sort of howling about ignoring the users. Google needed the courage to take a stand and say "we are marketing on speed rather than confugurability" and let the market decide whether that's a viable market position.
And remember, those who commented were those who looked up a bug report about the tabs being under the location bar. Users who were happy with the way things are would never have seen the discussion, so it was hardly likely to be a representative selection of users.
It's a usability request. There are a number of situations, such as via a terminal server, where there is a screen element at the top of the screen. It also means moving the mouse further every time you switch tabs.
Or they could [Ctrl][Tab] between tabs. And if Google moves the tabs below the location bar, that screen element will obscure the location bar, and the user will have to move the mouse further to access that.