A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...58c48975 9881

K=D8HB wrote:
A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an
April Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...lites.html?ex=
=3D1104168601&ei=3D1&en=3D4e6b58c489759881

Asinine beyond belief. I'm thinking maybe I should trash my 300 page
National Georgraphic world atlas before Kerik catches me with it. But
QRX a minnit, there's some new incoming stuff about Kerick . .

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/15/2004 10:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: t

A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an April
Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ellites.html?e
x=1104168601&ei=1&en=4e6b58c489759881

I'd ask you where you've been, Hans, but I know the question's rhetorical.

Slick Willy specifically stated that he was authorizing the deactivation
of accuracy inhibitors for non-military users based upon the pemise that
American military commanders could re-activate it, or the President could order
it's complete isolation from non-authorized users. That was in 1993 or 1994, I
believe.

WHY, Hans, would the United States NOT act to either "desensitize" the GPS
net, or completely remove it from use for the criteria set forth in the
article...?!?!

Is it your contention that, given a set of "extreme criteria" (attack on
the United States, overt acts of war, etc), that we should leave the net "open"
regardless...???

What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW!

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "K=D8HB"
Date: 12/15/2004 10:23 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: t

A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be
an April
Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ellites.html?e
x=3D1104168601&ei=3D1&en=3D4e6b58c489759881

I'd ask you where you've been, Hans, but I know the question's
rhetorical.

Slick Willy specifically stated that he was authorizing the
deactivation
of accuracy inhibitors for non-military users based upon the pemise
that
American military commanders could re-activate it, or the President
could
order
it's complete isolation from non-authorized users. That was in 1993
or 1994,
I
believe.

IIRC, the accuracy inhibition was turned off just before Gulf War 1
(1991) and
President Clinton simply decided not to turn it back on.

Also IIRC, the effect of accuracy inhibition was to degrade the
accuracy of
"civilian" users to about plus-minus 30 feet.

WHY, Hans, would the United States NOT act to either "desensitize"
the
GPS
net, or completely remove it from use for the criteria set forth in
the
article...?!?!

The article talks about shutting it off. Or parts of it. Seems to me
that
capability should have been a part of it from day one.

I think Hans' point may be that we have become so dependent on GPS
that turning
it off would hurt us more than it would stop the terrorists. The 9/11
attacks
didn't depend on GPS in any way.

There's a reality out there which has been completely missed in this
thread. GPS is not the only game in the sat-nav biz. The Russians have
a similar system up and running and I understand that it's very good.
The EU just announced that they are tossing a massive pile of funds at
the development and deployment of their new system. The Japanese are
mulling the same possibility. Sat-nav systems are not about this
"national security" crappola, it's about a global free-market
competition for YOUR MONEY.

The messages I'm getting are (a) If the androids in DC shut down or
disable precision GPS "in the name of national security" all we'll have
to do eventually is switch to one of it's competitors who could care
less about what the androids do to GPS. (b) GPS will be, or maybe
already is, a lump of artifact technology vs. these newer systems and
could quite conceivably wind up withering to nothingness on this basis.



Or it may be that openly talking about what you're going to do
removes a level
of protection. Terrorists with any sense (yes, an oxymoron) know now
that they
shouldn't depend on GPS.

Is it your contention that, given a set of "extreme criteria"
(attack on
the United States, overt acts of war, etc), that we should leave the
net
"open" regardless...???

What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW!
=20
Sure it is.=20
=20
73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

Kelly says, """There's a reality out there which has been completely
missed in this
thread. GPS is not the only game in the sat-nav biz."""

It might as well be. Accurate, reliable...

Kelly says, """ The Russians have a similar system up and running and I
understand that it's very good."""

Is it like their weather satellites that they turn off over the
Americas to save power?

Kelly says, """The EU just announced that they are tossing a massive
pile of funds at
the development and deployment of their new system."""

Bout time they did something other than mooch off of our system.

Kelly says, """The Japanese are mulling the same possibility."""

ditto.

Kelly says, """Sat-nav systems are not about this "national security"
crappola,"""

Sure it is. That's we we designed in Selective Availability,
Encryption, and the ability to turn it OFF. It is a DoD Weapons
System, after all.

Kelly goes on to say, """it's about a global free-market competition
for YOUR MONEY."""

Odd, I don't recall ever seeing a user fee implemented for the Air
Force's GPS.

Kelly, using his "real military experience," goes on to say, """The
messages I'm getting are (a) If the androids in DC shut down or disable
precision GPS "in the name of national security" all we'll have to do
eventually is switch to one of it's competitors who could care
less about what the androids do to GPS. (b) GPS will be, or maybe
already is, a lump of artifact technology vs. these newer systems and
could quite conceivably wind up withering to nothingness on this
basis."""

Wowee, Kelly is getting messages from the Pentagon (hi, hi). They are
telling him that the Euro system is doing their damndest to be
compatible with the USA system. Real military experience and not a
clue.

Kelly, BOL grasping the concept, the execution, and the reality of GPS.

K=D8HB wrote:
A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an
April Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...lites.html?ex=
=3D1104168601&ei=3D1&en=3D4e6b58c489759881

Check this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6728968/

"Military weapons system"? Myabe in 1985. This is not 1985. Heh.=20

w3rv

"""Military weapons system"? Myabe in 1985. This is not 1985. Heh.
w3rv"""

Wonder when the B-52 was built?

bb wrote:
"""Military weapons system"? Myabe in 1985. This is not 1985. Heh.
w3rv"""

Wonder when the B-52 was built?

Burke I just gotta give you an A+ for all the effort you put into
tossing out the most irrelevant posts in this NG and making sure all we
all know that you're the Commander of the Village Idiots.

Sir.

w3rv

K=D8HB wrote:
A friend sent me the link below. At first I thought it had to be an
April Fool
joke, but apparently The Shrub really IS that stupid!


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...lites.html?ex=
=3D1104168601&ei=3D1&en=3D4e6b58c489759881


Like I been saying . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4115761.stm


w3rv

wrote

Like I been saying . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4115761.stm

"By the end of the decade, a global independent
satellite navigation system, under civil control, will
be available to all."

but..... but..... Brain said it's supposed to be a "weapons system"!?!?

Not to worry, the Shrub will send up some B58's to bomb them out of the sky.

dit dit

de Hans, K0HB