No, but it says that it is ONE of the functions, "voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications." and that is enough.
Note that is the basis and purpose of the regulations, not a declaration of the basis and purpose of the Amateur radio services
This is most effective if you install and maintain the repeater, then you could make design decisions that will effect what area should be covered by your repeater:)
You talk about how much wholesale Internet costs, but this just isn't wholesale so the comparison is not realistic. You mention $25/Mbps, which is a reasonable per Mbps price *IF* you are buying 100mbps, with a 3 year contract.
No, that was reasonable 5 years ago.
Nowadays even $25/Mbps is a pretty high price, for a 1 year contract, in most wholesale markets, and that includes protection (meaning, the upstream is supposed to provide diverse paths, even if a link to one of their transit providers fails), guarantees you that speed with high levels of availability.
Consumers in fact get no guarantees that the bandwidth is always available to them, the actual speed avail at any moment in time may be half or less of the 1Mbps or so they get promised in the advertising.
The service is much less than what an ISP gets.
But the reason for bringing all this up is to point out that the level of markup is not reasonable
The ISP is buying that 1 megabyte of data transfer for $0.009 or less, and devaluating it by oversubscribing -- by selling that same megabyte of transfer time to 100+ people, and marking it up 400x.
Of course ISPs have their own per-user costs of building their own network, as well, but no other than other providers.
This is obviously abusing a semi-monopoly to conduct price gouging, and the government should intervene.
Typical prices ISPs will pay for is the mere one-time cost of network equipment plus ~$25/Megabit/Mo, for a commitment to transfer data, the price is typically the same no matter how much data's transferred as long as the 95th-percentile traffic rate's not over the commit (95th percentile billing on a burstable link), otherwise known as $25,000/month per gigabit.
Sometimes an ISP might buy more bandwidth at different times of the day than others, but, in any case, they would do that because the cost is less, not more than the typical market rates.
Over a 1000Mbps backhaul, approximately 800 customers can be downloading 1 Megabit continuously 24/7, at an approximate avg cost to the ISP of $3125 per customer for that data, but in that case, 324000MB is transferred per customer on avg per month, resulting that each Megabyte transferred costs the ISP approximately $0.009 per megabyte.
Web hosting providers will typically charge $0.15 to $0.80 per GB per month on average.
Roger's "overage pricing" is like 4X the rate charged by even the most greedy of hosting providers.
a random selection from the most active seeded files on the trackers they used. Each file was manually checked to see whether it was being legally distributed.
Note "from the most active seeded files"
In other words, this doesn't really mean that only "0.3% of BitTorrent Files" are definitely legal..
far more might be legal but not among the top active torrents.
That could mean there are plenty of legal torrents, but they don't make the list of top active ones, because (perhaps) illegal ones are more popular for an audience that is larger.
Doesn't negate that there are plenty of legal torrents, Linux ISOs, etc, and BitTorrent is commonly used as a legal distribution mechanism.
But they are looking at public free-for-all trackers which are already potentially biased towards containing spam and other crap that you would expect people on any pre-bittorrent P2P system to be offering.
In fact, their study only applies to the most active torrent files.
I am not surprised that if you consider only the most active seeded files, that a lot of them are illegal, especially in regards to music files.
But if you use a methodology that doesn't artifically limit your sample to the most active torrent files as indicated by TPB or isoHunt, something completely different may be found.
IOW: researchers, take yer study and shove it until you can uh stop using a biased sampling method like "most active".
This is like taking a survey of FTP servers, and only looking at ones that report having the most users connecting, and allow anyone to upload any file, and others to immediately download it.
To claim 0.3% of files on FTP are definitely legal.
Well, the basis of communist philosophy is there should be no private property.
The health care bill did not abolish private property, it is fundamentally socialist, not communist.
Obviously "redistribution" does not make much sense if you abolish private property, there is nothing in the first place to transfer, the government owns it all.
I doubt any of those people would support a measure abolishing private property.
Also, it's not like the health care bill hurts them.
The Health care bill hurts employees and small business, not big corporations and people with fortunes like Soros, Buffet, etc.
HTH: the people with big fortunes are exactly the people the health care bill is least harmful too; their support for the measure is not surprising.
Communism is a different road to possibly an at least superficially similar outcome.
Neither promote natural selection, except for the small number of people sly enough to get into protected government positions.
A legal system allows the inattentive pedestrian to sue the hybrid driver and take away the $$$, OR a communist system prevents there from being a hybrid driver or person with the $$$ in the first place (it follows since they don't have $$$, there's nothing to sue for).
Either way anyone wanting to drive a hybrid is going to get hit by red tape.
Let's keep in mind this is a professor emeritus of Spanish. He evidently doesn't know jack about quantitative analysis.
Yes... I doubt a professor of Spanish would know much about Chemistry, but I don't see how it's relevant to the situation at hand.....
There are on the order of what, 100 million vehicles on the road, and maybe 1% of them are hybrids. So if pedestrian kills by the other 99% of vehicles drop by 1%, hybrids could be 99 times more deadly than them and you wouldn't notice from this guy's analysis.
In the US that's true.
In other countries, there are much larger proportions of hybrids.
If there is such a small number of hybrids on the road in the US, maybe it's not a good idea to be making guesses about what the safety issues could be?
And only rely on solid data with statistically significant results, for guiding policy?
Presumably, it costs something to design and install noise makers in all these vehicles.
Maybe it's not the right idea.
Maybe there is something else that could be done for the same cost, that would provide better safety benefits for pedestrians than noisemakers.
For example: rather than noise alerting the pedestrian to the presence of a vehicle, noise alerting the driver to the presence of the pedestrian.
The lawyers hired by the family members of said (former) less attentive pedestrians will remove the greenbacks from the hybrid-drivers and hybrid manufacturers.
IOW: the less attentive, and those they put in charge, always have the last laugh, because they are larger in number
Natural Selection no longer stands on its own.
There's a new principle in play called the principal of affirmative action specifically in the form of the law of lawsuits, to help level the playing field and give the inattentive, less intelligent, less talented, etc, an advantage.
For centuries, the inattentive and less intelligent have been oppressed by the attentive, smart, and more talented individuals in all endeavors.
But the new way is in the process of totally eliminating that. In fact, when all is said and done, the slower, less intelligent, less attentive will have the advantage, and they will be the ones that survive and reproduce, thanks to concerted efforts of the public educational systems to make sure that artificial handicaps and obstacles are placed in the way.
Sounds like a good use for it would be a LART to use against snobby PC bigots.
Drop it on a certain Anonymous Coward who insists on complaining about the perfectly rational, excellent, and even superior decision made in the past to buy an Apple computer.
err, even that's too complex, we need just one statement
"."
Only statement in the programming language should be "." denoting read software owner's mind and do exactly what they need to be done.
If the user is ever confused, the software must take the exactly correct action to rectify the situation.
No formatting C: just because the user blithely clicked 'Yes' to a confirmation, when the user has been mixed up the concepts of formatting and defragging.
On the other hand, if they intend to wipe the drive and re-install the OS and all software, while preserving all user data, then the OS must start and finish all this within 15 seconds, without asking any questions.
I compare the risk of designers being crowdsourced as similar to the risk of engineering jobs being outsourced.
It was only a matter of time before this would start to happen.
In the same way that news reporters may be getting replaced by Twitter, the Phone book may be getting replaced with Facebook, and CDs were replaced with MP3s.
You just gotta take the change and live with it, all professions will be effected as technology, the internet, and massive scale multi-user interactions become more pervasive and extensive.
If you do consistently excellent work, and consistently meet client needs, you can charge for it. If you are a hack then the pressure will expose you as such.
The thing is, with crowdsourcing and more competition... the clients of designers who currently "meet clients needs" and do excellent work
may try the service and soon find, while their designer of choice WAS meeting their needs, and they were very happy before,
They find that people competing in a contest more than just meet their needs and what they asked for they exceed their expectations.
IOW, they could get superior results from the contest medium, even if they were exuberant and perfectly happy with a paid designer before.
Or it was less expensive to get the same great result.
They didn't have to pay someone who's built a business on providing the service to people.
Suddenly the skilled professional designers who have had years of professional training and huge portfolios great work may find themselves on a level playing field with random people who hardly know about anything at all and just have a natural talent.
I can see why pro designers wouldn't like this.
They have a lot to fear really.
The profession "graphics designer" could cease to exist, or the expectations of pay could drop, for most jobs, where the crowdsourcing alternative exceeds or adequately replaces them.
Graphics artists might have to go back to school or switch fields, if they went into the job for profits, or were used to the fact the explosion of the world wide web and e-commerce made the design profession so important and lucrative....
Only to the extent a job really does require special ability, special skills, or peculiarly uncommon knowledge to perform, will they have any sort of robust protection against crowdsourcing, outsourcing, etc.
Crowdsourcing only works for abilities the masses have and that the masses are willing to share/compete for an award using, rather than receiving payment.
99designs should work just fine and have great results, even if every professional designer in the world vows to never compete or submit any design on it.
PR stands for public relations, i.e. public image protection, and not: People's Right to know.
You cannot really ever trust a company covering their own relief/cleanup/repair efforts in an objective way.
They have a vested interest in making themselves look as good as possible, while attributing any issues or setbacks, either to someone else, or to some "inherent difficulty", even if actually due to management failure.
We should probably distinguish between simple coding mistakes and fundamental security flaws in standards-defined protocols.
Just because some flaws are complex enough that it may justifiably and reasonably take more than 2 weeks to deliver a patch does not mean there is a free pass to be laid back and wait that long to patch all flaws.
It's not justifiable to wait 30 days to fix a one-line coding mistake that allowed a buffer overflow or underflow condition.
Which would seem more appropriate, if the security issue has to be exploitable to get it at least.
$3133 is chump change compared to what, shall we say, sale of a security flaw to others with ahem questionable intent, would probably garner (at Google's expense)
The problem with traditional complexity rules is they forbid a lot of strong passwords, while leaving open a lot more weak ones.
They rule out more strong passwords than weak passwords they rule out.
Complexity rules encourage the users who would otherwise pick stronger passwords instead, to pick weaker passwords, because the complexity rules are draconian, destroy creativity in password selection, by stunting the user's chance to be creative in coming up with a strong password, they require a simpler a password to be able to remember it while meeting the rules.
Complexity rules can also reduce security, because hackers can predict how people will respond to complexity requirements, and what types of passwords are likely to be chosen, and what modifications to inherently weak passwords are likely to be done to meet the bare minimum requirements.
With concrete password selection rules, the 'hacker' also can know which passwords they should not waste time trying with brute force.
Password selection should involve the user asking the computer if a password is OK to use, first.
The computer answering yes/no, and giving suggestions for [similar] passwords that would be stronger, if the answer is NO.
It should be easy to select a password that will be accepted. Strong passwords must never be rejected.
None of this "You must have 10 characters, at least one upper, at least one lower, at least one number, at least one symbol"
Where did we go wrong?
The most important thing is the password is not too similar to something someone else has tried or used, and it its not short (less than 5 characters).
Passwords with high entropy are secure, regardless of whether or not they have a symbol, numeral, or uppercase letter.
Example very strong passwords that don't meet the traditional "complexity" rules (before they are posted here)
haoajtXvk
rabzrlknslurp
kazbhaplinux rulzaok
tubeeornawttu beevewwyevil
therare4ways2s k1nacatnn
seastronngpaaswords areazytumakee
uhaveknowchanceof guesssingthiskode
tryanhackokeyedaru
alljoorsecyurity areblong2metrewwly
Examples of grossly insecure (guessable) passwords that DO meet all "traditional" complexity requirements:
(1) At least 10 characters, (2) at least one upper, (3) at least one lower, and (4) at least one symbol
Abc123456789
)(*&^%$#@!cbA
qwertyuiopQWERTYUIOP
Passw0rd!!
L3tMe1n!!!
p@ssw0rds!
Administrator1!
Mypassw0rd!
(User's name, followed by SSN entered as the password)
(User's name followed by DOB, entered as their password)
It's indeed a good idea to check google street view first... you wouldn't want to accidentally run into a local quantum singularity, a giant bug, or fire
Slashdot Mirror
No, but it says that it is ONE of the functions, "voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications." and that is enough.
Note that is the basis and purpose of the regulations, not a declaration of the basis and purpose of the Amateur radio services
This is most effective if you install and maintain the repeater, then you could make design decisions that will effect what area should be covered by your repeater :)
You talk about how much wholesale Internet costs, but this just isn't wholesale so the comparison is not realistic. You mention $25/Mbps, which is a reasonable per Mbps price *IF* you are buying 100mbps, with a 3 year contract.
No, that was reasonable 5 years ago. Nowadays even $25/Mbps is a pretty high price, for a 1 year contract, in most wholesale markets, and that includes protection (meaning, the upstream is supposed to provide diverse paths, even if a link to one of their transit providers fails), guarantees you that speed with high levels of availability.
Consumers in fact get no guarantees that the bandwidth is always available to them, the actual speed avail at any moment in time may be half or less of the 1Mbps or so they get promised in the advertising.
The service is much less than what an ISP gets.
But the reason for bringing all this up is to point out that the level of markup is not reasonable
The ISP is buying that 1 megabyte of data transfer for $0.009 or less, and devaluating it by oversubscribing -- by selling that same megabyte of transfer time to 100+ people, and marking it up 400x.
Of course ISPs have their own per-user costs of building their own network, as well, but no other than other providers.
This is obviously abusing a semi-monopoly to conduct price gouging, and the government should intervene.
Typical prices ISPs will pay for is the mere one-time cost of network equipment plus ~$25/Megabit/Mo, for a commitment to transfer data, the price is typically the same no matter how much data's transferred as long as the 95th-percentile traffic rate's not over the commit (95th percentile billing on a burstable link), otherwise known as $25,000/month per gigabit.
Sometimes an ISP might buy more bandwidth at different times of the day than others, but, in any case, they would do that because the cost is less, not more than the typical market rates.
Over a 1000Mbps backhaul, approximately 800 customers can be downloading 1 Megabit continuously 24/7, at an approximate avg cost to the ISP of $3125 per customer for that data, but in that case, 324000MB is transferred per customer on avg per month, resulting that each Megabyte transferred costs the ISP approximately $0.009 per megabyte.
Web hosting providers will typically charge $0.15 to $0.80 per GB per month on average.
Roger's "overage pricing" is like 4X the rate charged by even the most greedy of hosting providers.
a random selection from the most active seeded files on the trackers they used. Each file was manually checked to see whether it was being legally distributed.
Note "from the most active seeded files"
In other words, this doesn't really mean that only "0.3% of BitTorrent Files" are definitely legal.. far more might be legal but not among the top active torrents.
That could mean there are plenty of legal torrents, but they don't make the list of top active ones, because (perhaps) illegal ones are more popular for an audience that is larger.
Doesn't negate that there are plenty of legal torrents, Linux ISOs, etc, and BitTorrent is commonly used as a legal distribution mechanism. But they are looking at public free-for-all trackers which are already potentially biased towards containing spam and other crap that you would expect people on any pre-bittorrent P2P system to be offering.
In fact, their study only applies to the most active torrent files.
I am not surprised that if you consider only the most active seeded files, that a lot of them are illegal, especially in regards to music files.
But if you use a methodology that doesn't artifically limit your sample to the most active torrent files as indicated by TPB or isoHunt, something completely different may be found.
IOW: researchers, take yer study and shove it until you can uh stop using a biased sampling method like "most active".
This is like taking a survey of FTP servers, and only looking at ones that report having the most users connecting, and allow anyone to upload any file, and others to immediately download it.
To claim 0.3% of files on FTP are definitely legal.
Well, the basis of communist philosophy is there should be no private property.
The health care bill did not abolish private property, it is fundamentally socialist, not communist.
Obviously "redistribution" does not make much sense if you abolish private property, there is nothing in the first place to transfer, the government owns it all.
I doubt any of those people would support a measure abolishing private property.
Also, it's not like the health care bill hurts them. The Health care bill hurts employees and small business, not big corporations and people with fortunes like Soros, Buffet, etc.
HTH: the people with big fortunes are exactly the people the health care bill is least harmful too; their support for the measure is not surprising.
Communism is a different road to possibly an at least superficially similar outcome. Neither promote natural selection, except for the small number of people sly enough to get into protected government positions.
A legal system allows the inattentive pedestrian to sue the hybrid driver and take away the $$$, OR a communist system prevents there from being a hybrid driver or person with the $$$ in the first place (it follows since they don't have $$$, there's nothing to sue for).
Either way anyone wanting to drive a hybrid is going to get hit by red tape.
Let's keep in mind this is a professor emeritus of Spanish. He evidently doesn't know jack about quantitative analysis.
Yes... I doubt a professor of Spanish would know much about Chemistry, but I don't see how it's relevant to the situation at hand.....
There are on the order of what, 100 million vehicles on the road, and maybe 1% of them are hybrids. So if pedestrian kills by the other 99% of vehicles drop by 1%, hybrids could be 99 times more deadly than them and you wouldn't notice from this guy's analysis.
In the US that's true. In other countries, there are much larger proportions of hybrids.
If there is such a small number of hybrids on the road in the US, maybe it's not a good idea to be making guesses about what the safety issues could be?
And only rely on solid data with statistically significant results, for guiding policy?
Presumably, it costs something to design and install noise makers in all these vehicles. Maybe it's not the right idea. Maybe there is something else that could be done for the same cost, that would provide better safety benefits for pedestrians than noisemakers.
For example: rather than noise alerting the pedestrian to the presence of a vehicle, noise alerting the driver to the presence of the pedestrian.
How about drivers get some sort of machine to do this instead? That way they won't be distracted.. an even bigger safety win.
The lawyers hired by the family members of said (former) less attentive pedestrians will remove the greenbacks from the hybrid-drivers and hybrid manufacturers.
IOW: the less attentive, and those they put in charge, always have the last laugh, because they are larger in number
Natural Selection no longer stands on its own. There's a new principle in play called the principal of affirmative action specifically in the form of the law of lawsuits, to help level the playing field and give the inattentive, less intelligent, less talented, etc, an advantage.
For centuries, the inattentive and less intelligent have been oppressed by the attentive, smart, and more talented individuals in all endeavors.
But the new way is in the process of totally eliminating that. In fact, when all is said and done, the slower, less intelligent, less attentive will have the advantage, and they will be the ones that survive and reproduce, thanks to concerted efforts of the public educational systems to make sure that artificial handicaps and obstacles are placed in the way.
Sounds like a good use for it would be a LART to use against snobby PC bigots.
Drop it on a certain Anonymous Coward who insists on complaining about the perfectly rational, excellent, and even superior decision made in the past to buy an Apple computer.
Bonus points if you make it openly viewable, post a link in the comments to this article, AND it stays up and responsive despite the slashdot effect.
They can use one my three implementations instead:
*(&theRightThing) = theProfitableThing;
doTheRightThing();
OR (simpler)
_((makeItSeemRight *)( doWhatIWant ))();
OR
item = new Thing;
[item makeThisEasy];
[item makeEveryoneElseThinkThisIsTheRightThing];
[item doIt];
See, that's too complex.
needs to be: readMyMind();
err, even that's too complex, we need just one statement
"."
Only statement in the programming language should be "." denoting read software owner's mind and do exactly what they need to be done.
If the user is ever confused, the software must take the exactly correct action to rectify the situation.
No formatting C: just because the user blithely clicked 'Yes' to a confirmation, when the user has been mixed up the concepts of formatting and defragging.
On the other hand, if they intend to wipe the drive and re-install the OS and all software, while preserving all user data, then the OS must start and finish all this within 15 seconds, without asking any questions.
I compare the risk of designers being crowdsourced as similar to the risk of engineering jobs being outsourced. It was only a matter of time before this would start to happen. In the same way that news reporters may be getting replaced by Twitter, the Phone book may be getting replaced with Facebook, and CDs were replaced with MP3s. You just gotta take the change and live with it, all professions will be effected as technology, the internet, and massive scale multi-user interactions become more pervasive and extensive.
If you do consistently excellent work, and consistently meet client needs, you can charge for it. If you are a hack then the pressure will expose you as such.
The thing is, with crowdsourcing and more competition... the clients of designers who currently "meet clients needs" and do excellent work may try the service and soon find, while their designer of choice WAS meeting their needs, and they were very happy before,
They find that people competing in a contest more than just meet their needs and what they asked for they exceed their expectations. IOW, they could get superior results from the contest medium, even if they were exuberant and perfectly happy with a paid designer before.
Or it was less expensive to get the same great result. They didn't have to pay someone who's built a business on providing the service to people.
Suddenly the skilled professional designers who have had years of professional training and huge portfolios great work may find themselves on a level playing field with random people who hardly know about anything at all and just have a natural talent.
I can see why pro designers wouldn't like this. They have a lot to fear really. The profession "graphics designer" could cease to exist, or the expectations of pay could drop, for most jobs, where the crowdsourcing alternative exceeds or adequately replaces them.
Graphics artists might have to go back to school or switch fields, if they went into the job for profits, or were used to the fact the explosion of the world wide web and e-commerce made the design profession so important and lucrative....
Only to the extent a job really does require special ability, special skills, or peculiarly uncommon knowledge to perform, will they have any sort of robust protection against crowdsourcing, outsourcing, etc.
Crowdsourcing only works for abilities the masses have and that the masses are willing to share/compete for an award using, rather than receiving payment.
99designs should work just fine and have great results, even if every professional designer in the world vows to never compete or submit any design on it.
PR stands for public relations, i.e. public image protection, and not: People's Right to know.
You cannot really ever trust a company covering their own relief/cleanup/repair efforts in an objective way. They have a vested interest in making themselves look as good as possible, while attributing any issues or setbacks, either to someone else, or to some "inherent difficulty", even if actually due to management failure.
No... Windows dwarfs Linux in size, plain and simple. Linux has become bloated over the years, but not as bloated as Win32.
And windows has a ton of massive APIs, Libraries and platform SDKs, each really quit emassive, and all a 'core part' of the windows OS.
Gigabytes, probably over 5gb is quite likely I would say, if you include resource objects that are part of sources in Win32 environment.
Even in Windows '95 days, Windows was always considered bloated, and Linux was lean and mean.
If you take just a few of the Win32 APIs, they are easily larger than the Kernel and Xorg combined.
We should probably distinguish between simple coding mistakes and fundamental security flaws in standards-defined protocols.
Just because some flaws are complex enough that it may justifiably and reasonably take more than 2 weeks to deliver a patch does not mean there is a free pass to be laid back and wait that long to patch all flaws.
It's not justifiable to wait 30 days to fix a one-line coding mistake that allowed a buffer overflow or underflow condition.
Naw, an elite sum would be $31,337.
Which would seem more appropriate, if the security issue has to be exploitable to get it at least.
$3133 is chump change compared to what, shall we say, sale of a security flaw to others with ahem questionable intent, would probably garner (at Google's expense)
The problem with traditional complexity rules is they forbid a lot of strong passwords, while leaving open a lot more weak ones. They rule out more strong passwords than weak passwords they rule out. Complexity rules encourage the users who would otherwise pick stronger passwords instead, to pick weaker passwords, because the complexity rules are draconian, destroy creativity in password selection, by stunting the user's chance to be creative in coming up with a strong password, they require a simpler a password to be able to remember it while meeting the rules.
Complexity rules can also reduce security, because hackers can predict how people will respond to complexity requirements, and what types of passwords are likely to be chosen, and what modifications to inherently weak passwords are likely to be done to meet the bare minimum requirements.
With concrete password selection rules, the 'hacker' also can know which passwords they should not waste time trying with brute force.
Password selection should involve the user asking the computer if a password is OK to use, first. The computer answering yes/no, and giving suggestions for [similar] passwords that would be stronger, if the answer is NO.
It should be easy to select a password that will be accepted. Strong passwords must never be rejected.
None of this "You must have 10 characters, at least one upper, at least one lower, at least one number, at least one symbol"
Where did we go wrong?
The most important thing is the password is not too similar to something someone else has tried or used, and it its not short (less than 5 characters).
Passwords with high entropy are secure, regardless of whether or not they have a symbol, numeral, or uppercase letter.
Example very strong passwords that don't meet the traditional "complexity" rules (before they are posted here)
Examples of grossly insecure (guessable) passwords that DO meet all "traditional" complexity requirements:
(1) At least 10 characters, (2) at least one upper, (3) at least one lower, and (4) at least one symbol
Lots of others.
In that case, i've got to get one of those Intel many cores 48-core chips....
Basically, equivalent to a 4 foot penis. Now what woman wouldn't LOVE that?
Yeah... that's why we need 4-spindle hard drives -- or SSDs, but SSDs are expensive.
It's indeed a good idea to check google street view first... you wouldn't want to accidentally run into a local quantum singularity, a giant bug, or fire
Sounds like you need to get a sign posted on your street pointing seekers of the ice cream shoppe in the er right direction :)
There's some logic to that.... if the GPS and mapping is in error, alter reality, so the GPS is accurate.
It is probably cheaper than fixing all those maps.