I was reading pokey back then, around '97 I guess, while interning at IBM. Sometimes it would genuinely make me laugh, sometimes it would make me think. I've always loved stuff that fucks with your head, though.
Therefore, do not drink and drive!!!
I already use my iPhone as a meditation timer and to read Sutras online. In fact, there are several apps available specifically for this purpose.
So, this is just an extension of that.
Anything that helps you in your practice can't be bad!
...not hardly. It requires Windows-based drivers to access the device as a regular hard drive for non-music files (unless someone's hacked it for Linux).
Microsoft makes this a requirement for any device that is licensed to play Microsoft DRMed music.
Besides, isn't this review like, two years too late?
GPS and Galileo:
where are we
headed?
David Last
University of Wales, UK
jdl@navaid.demon.co.uk
ABSTRACT
Many in Europe see a combination of GPS and
Galileo as the basis of a viable future Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). This paper
argues that, although Galileo and GPS may well
complement one another, they are so dissimilar in
important aspects as to make combining them in this
way exceptionally difficult. The attempt to do so has
already led to tensions between the US and Europe.
Although GPS serves both civil and military functions,
it was originally a military system and is still operated
by the armed forces of a single nation. It plays a vital
role in the security of the US and of European NATO
members, in addition to the commercial benefits it
brings to both regions. Galileo, in contrast, will be a
civil system, operated by the many nations of the
European Community, with others possibly
contributing, too. Although both systems offer open,
free-to-air access, Galileo promises additional
commercial services, on a user-pays basis, with real-time
integrity and legally-enforceable service
guarantees.
The two systems will be obliged by technical and
commercial pressures to share common frequency
bands and to employ compatible codes, timing
sources, and geodetic frameworks; users' receivers
will need to accept both sets of signals. Galileo thus
requires US cooperation for its commercial success,
while at the same time apparently threatening US
national security and industrial advantage! Not
surprisingly, the process of combining these two
disparate systems into a single entity has been
fraught with difficulties.
A modus operandi now appears to have been
reached by the US and Europe. This paper examines
the compromises on which it is based. It notes the
significant challenges that Galileo still has to
overcome, and it questions the degree to which
Europe's ambition to be independent of the US in
GNSS has survived the realities of combining the two
systems. The paper argues, however, that what has
been achieved bring us much closer to the objective
of a truly global satellite navigation system, a goal of
great value.
INTRODUCTION
GPS and Galileo are both Global Navigation Satellite
Systems. Most people regard them as very similar to
one another, using the same principles and
frequencies, virtually the same thing. We see them as
complementary. Well, complementary they may be;
those who will use combined GPS-Galileo receivers
will neither know, nor care, that there are two
separate systems. But similar they are not; and if we
ignore the profound differences between them, we
put both at risk.
Think of their origins. GPS started life as a military
system. It now serves both military and civil functions,
but when push comes to shove, as in the recent US-EU
tensions, the military requirement prevails.
Galileo, in contrast, started life as a civil system. Only
gradually have questions of its possible military role
emerged.
GPS is the sole property of a single nation; others
may use it on terms that suit that nation's interests.
That is clear. It is entirely reasonable. But, an
inevitable consequence is that GPS looks inwards, to
the US. Galileo belongs to the many nations of the
European Community. It is outward-looking; those
countries have welcomed, and sought, the active
participation of other nations, including China, India,
and Canada [1].
But these are just a few of the profound differences
between the two systems. There are also differences
of radio frequencies, codes, modulations, of time
standards and geodetic frameworks. One system is
free of charge, the other operate under the user-pays
principle. One is run by the military, the other will
involve a public-private partnership. Then, GPS is
now a mature system; it has been a stunning
success. Galileo is essentially a proposal and has still
not disturbed the heavens or the ether. Glen
Gibbons said recently: "It would be hard to imagine a
more different approach to participation in defining,
deploying, and operating a system than that between
GPS and Galileo" [2
Slashdot Mirror
I was reading pokey back then, around '97 I guess, while interning at IBM. Sometimes it would genuinely make me laugh, sometimes it would make me think. I've always loved stuff that fucks with your head, though. Therefore, do not drink and drive!!!
I already use my iPhone as a meditation timer and to read Sutras online. In fact, there are several apps available specifically for this purpose. So, this is just an extension of that. Anything that helps you in your practice can't be bad!
http://www.jazzyengineering.com/ Check them out. I installed one of their kits in my 2005 Outback and it works great!
Mod parent up!
If he's worried about security, shouldn't he be named Mr. SSH? Everyone knows Mr. Telnet is less secure.
Please read my post. We're talking about DRMed music files here. I also have an iHP-120 and it doesn't play DRM WMA.
"...is OS-agnostic"
...not hardly. It requires Windows-based drivers to access the device as a regular hard drive for non-music files (unless someone's hacked it for Linux).
Microsoft makes this a requirement for any device that is licensed to play Microsoft DRMed music.
Besides, isn't this review like, two years too late?
GPS and Galileo: where are we headed? David Last University of Wales, UK jdl@navaid.demon.co.uk ABSTRACT Many in Europe see a combination of GPS and Galileo as the basis of a viable future Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). This paper argues that, although Galileo and GPS may well complement one another, they are so dissimilar in important aspects as to make combining them in this way exceptionally difficult. The attempt to do so has already led to tensions between the US and Europe. Although GPS serves both civil and military functions, it was originally a military system and is still operated by the armed forces of a single nation. It plays a vital role in the security of the US and of European NATO members, in addition to the commercial benefits it brings to both regions. Galileo, in contrast, will be a civil system, operated by the many nations of the European Community, with others possibly contributing, too. Although both systems offer open, free-to-air access, Galileo promises additional commercial services, on a user-pays basis, with real-time integrity and legally-enforceable service guarantees. The two systems will be obliged by technical and commercial pressures to share common frequency bands and to employ compatible codes, timing sources, and geodetic frameworks; users' receivers will need to accept both sets of signals. Galileo thus requires US cooperation for its commercial success, while at the same time apparently threatening US national security and industrial advantage! Not surprisingly, the process of combining these two disparate systems into a single entity has been fraught with difficulties. A modus operandi now appears to have been reached by the US and Europe. This paper examines the compromises on which it is based. It notes the significant challenges that Galileo still has to overcome, and it questions the degree to which Europe's ambition to be independent of the US in GNSS has survived the realities of combining the two systems. The paper argues, however, that what has been achieved bring us much closer to the objective of a truly global satellite navigation system, a goal of great value. INTRODUCTION GPS and Galileo are both Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Most people regard them as very similar to one another, using the same principles and frequencies, virtually the same thing. We see them as complementary. Well, complementary they may be; those who will use combined GPS-Galileo receivers will neither know, nor care, that there are two separate systems. But similar they are not; and if we ignore the profound differences between them, we put both at risk. Think of their origins. GPS started life as a military system. It now serves both military and civil functions, but when push comes to shove, as in the recent US-EU tensions, the military requirement prevails. Galileo, in contrast, started life as a civil system. Only gradually have questions of its possible military role emerged. GPS is the sole property of a single nation; others may use it on terms that suit that nation's interests. That is clear. It is entirely reasonable. But, an inevitable consequence is that GPS looks inwards, to the US. Galileo belongs to the many nations of the European Community. It is outward-looking; those countries have welcomed, and sought, the active participation of other nations, including China, India, and Canada [1]. But these are just a few of the profound differences between the two systems. There are also differences of radio frequencies, codes, modulations, of time standards and geodetic frameworks. One system is free of charge, the other operate under the user-pays principle. One is run by the military, the other will involve a public-private partnership. Then, GPS is now a mature system; it has been a stunning success. Galileo is essentially a proposal and has still not disturbed the heavens or the ether. Glen Gibbons said recently: "It would be hard to imagine a more different approach to participation in defining, deploying, and operating a system than that between GPS and Galileo" [2