These limitations are built into civillian receivers using the "P" signals. AFAIK which is not much, this does not exist in regular C/A recievers, however, they do have the same types of limitation inherent in the coarse signal. The DoD can grant per case permission to use the "P" signals in devices, but they will only work with the above limits. Plus there is also the "Y" signals which is addedd to the "P" for anti-spoffing capablity.
The 100M error attributed to SA is the maximum error that can be affected. There is also a large amount of error in the C/A signal itself without the P signal, so consumer stuff will still be ~100 times less acurate than military. The whole point is that with SA you could be right on, you just wouldn't know it since the error moves around a lot.
As far as terrorists go, the Soviet GLONASS system is apparantly almost as accurate as GPS with no encryption.
My interpretation of that statement in the press-release was that in 1996, they planned to eliminate the use of SA in GPS satellites by 2006 at the latest -- we are 6 years ahead of schedule.
Or 20 years behind schedule. Ronald Reagan (2 presidents before Clinton for all you 13 year olds) asked congree to turn off SA when he was president. The DoD "claimed" at the time that they would have to orbit new satellites to do so. Bush (not that one) did the same. This doc from 1996 outlines the plan for the president to evaluate SA each year and turn it off by 2006. Bear in mind, however, that GPS is currently funded through 2006.
Ever read your About: boxes? They're licensed to you, not owned by you. Right, but I own the disks it came on and can do with them as I please. The thing next door to 'reverse engineer' is 'modify the operation of'; and over-clocking kinda, sorta fits the bill. No, I can certainly modify the operation of the software for my own use. I just can't modify it and distribute it. Same with proccessors. While there can be nothing illegal about me overclocking (and they certainly can make it impossible if they want) I can't make and sell Celeron knock offs overclocked or not. You buy the product, you not the IP. When ford makes a car it costs them x dollars. They sell it for x+profit dollars. You can then feel free to resell if you like. When Intel makes a chip it costs them x dollars. They sell it for x+profit dollars. You can then feel free to resell if you like. When evil software company makes an OS it costs them x^n dollars. If they sell it for x^n+profit^n dollars we would all have to get together to buy it. Instead they license it to us, and charge us much much less. If they gave you the right to freely distribute it, each copy of windows would cost like $100,000.
Why was this post modded up? Jabber completly contradicts himself in the first paragraph when he says: The DVD (DeCSS) fiasco has called the bluff of hardware 'ownership' , and been slapped down for it. We buy the disc, but we apparently only LICENSE THE RIGHT (or privilege if you ask the RIAA) to use the content. I get it, you mention RIAA, or DeCSS and you get points, alright fine. For anyone who cares it has been a long standing basis since the beginning of copyrights that you buy the hardware, but license the software. You can burn a book, but you can't copy it. Software, music, sculpture, photographs ARE ALL THE SAME. Most EULA's say the same thing as the Copyright page in a book - you can read this but don't copy it. Lots of companies sell "hardware licenses" for computers, and they go back to the days before computers as well. Ever lease a car or an apartment? The lease says, "you can do x and y, but not z. If you do z this contract is void and we get our hardware/car/refrigerator back and you owe us a $xxx penalty."
Try #5,265,8 88 they have also patented the network version of the kiosk. Still, not a real description of any invention, just, "hey, we could do this on net!"
Slashdot Mirror
The 100M error attributed to SA is the maximum error that can be affected. There is also a large amount of error in the C/A signal itself without the P signal, so consumer stuff will still be ~100 times less acurate than military. The whole point is that with SA you could be right on, you just wouldn't know it since the error moves around a lot.
As far as terrorists go, the Soviet GLONASS system is apparantly almost as accurate as GPS with no encryption.
Or 20 years behind schedule. Ronald Reagan (2 presidents before Clinton for all you 13 year olds) asked congree to turn off SA when he was president. The DoD "claimed" at the time that they would have to orbit new satellites to do so. Bush (not that one) did the same. This doc from 1996 outlines the plan for the president to evaluate SA each year and turn it off by 2006. Bear in mind, however, that GPS is currently funded through 2006.
Ever read your About: boxes? They're licensed to you, not owned by you.
Right, but I own the disks it came on and can do with them as I please.
The thing next door to 'reverse engineer' is 'modify the operation of'; and over-clocking kinda, sorta fits the bill.
No, I can certainly modify the operation of the software for my own use. I just can't modify it and distribute it.
Same with proccessors. While there can be nothing illegal about me overclocking (and they certainly can make it impossible if they want) I can't make and sell Celeron knock offs overclocked or not.
You buy the product, you not the IP. When ford makes a car it costs them x dollars. They sell it for x+profit dollars. You can then feel free to resell if you like. When Intel makes a chip it costs them x dollars. They sell it for x+profit dollars. You can then feel free to resell if you like. When evil software company makes an OS it costs them x^n dollars. If they sell it for x^n+profit^n dollars we would all have to get together to buy it. Instead they license it to us, and charge us much much less. If they gave you the right to freely distribute it, each copy of windows would cost like $100,000.
Why was this post modded up? Jabber completly contradicts himself in the first paragraph when he says:
The DVD (DeCSS) fiasco has called the bluff of hardware 'ownership' , and been slapped down for it. We buy the disc, but we apparently only LICENSE THE RIGHT (or privilege if you ask the RIAA) to use the content.
I get it, you mention RIAA, or DeCSS and you get points, alright fine. For anyone who cares it has been a long standing basis since the beginning of copyrights that you buy the hardware, but license the software. You can burn a book, but you can't copy it. Software, music, sculpture, photographs ARE ALL THE SAME. Most EULA's say the same thing as the Copyright page in a book - you can read this but don't copy it.
Lots of companies sell "hardware licenses" for computers, and they go back to the days before computers as well. Ever lease a car or an apartment? The lease says, "you can do x and y, but not z. If you do z this contract is void and we get our hardware/car/refrigerator back and you owe us a $xxx penalty."
Try #5,265,8 88 they have also patented the network version of the kiosk. Still, not a real description of any invention, just, "hey, we could do this on net!"