Bush to consider shutting down GPS in extreme emergency

No. It's hellishly expensive without GPS, since it generally requires
moving the clocks physically or investing in extremely expensive,
specialized communication links.

GPS makes it all vastly easier and cheaper and more accurate.

 

It's not much of a point, since it's extremely impractical to do.

The same can be said of electricity. And yet doing without electricity
would be a worldwide catastrophe.

 

No, the real question is cost effectiveness. It makes no difference
that something can be done if it's too expensive to be practical.

No, it's not, because there's no easy way to synchronize it with other
clocks.

 

Or you can just replace the people who think that it's okay to turn off
GPS.

 

Time synchronization is one example.

Name the cases in which terrorists can be stopped by turning off GPS.

Time standards have more stringent requirements than data networks.

 

Only slightly less than half. The satellites are in very high orbits.

 

Sam

Your mantra seems at what cost for so many commercial activities. At what
cost of human life due to a possible terrrorist attack does it offset your
growing concerns over commercial impact. 10 dead, a 100, a 1,000, ????
Where is the trade off point in your mind?

In mine, the saving of the life of a single individual is enough for me.

Neither you nor anybody in this group knows for certain what threats we
face now or may face in the future. I have a full faith in our government
that they will endeavor to do the best they can to protect us. I am
comforted in knowing that they are looking at all scenarios on my behalf.

I have been following these threads and find them to be "straw dog"
arguments. That political motivation is behind them is unquestionable
since the thread topic is "Bush to consider shutting down GPS in extreme
emergency". Would the topic "Kerry to consider shutting down GPS in
extreme emergency" even be started or would it be toned down to read "The
DOD to consider shutting down GPS in extreme emergency"? I have no doubt
that Bush did not write the document that has everyone buzzing about. So
why do you accuse Bush? A political target that you disagree with?

Juergen Nieveler and a few others have by far presented the most compelling
arguments. My compliments to them. It seems that crass commercialism takes
precedence over human life judging by some of the comments in these
threads.

I particularly enjoyed the counterpoint by Jeff:
"The terrorists have won when the victim starts blaming themselves for
being
attacked."

Now sit back and ask yourself, what is the likelihood of GPS being
disabled? Where is your trade off point in human life lost to terrorist
attack versus commercial interests? Could civilian GPS even be used by the
terrorists requiring it to be selectively shutdown? Don't you really feel
better knowing that your government is actually planning ahead for your
protection?

Now will somebody please give me the name of a company that depends on GPS
timing signals down to the nanosecond for their business to operate and
does not have a contingency plan? Just one company please!

 

Sam

Your mantra seems at what cost for so many commercial activities. At what
cost of human life due to a possible terrrorist attack does it offset your
growing concerns over commercial impact. 10 dead, a 100, a 1,000, ????
Where is the trade off point in your mind?

In mine, the saving of the life of a single individual is enough for me.

Neither you nor anybody in this group knows for certain what threats we
face now or may face in the future. I have a full faith in our government
that they will endeavor to do the best they can to protect us. I am
comforted in knowing that they are looking at all scenarios on my behalf.

I have been following these threads and find them to be "straw dog"
arguments. That political motivation is behind them is unquestionable
since the thread topic is "Bush to consider shutting down GPS in extreme
emergency". Would the topic "Kerry to consider shutting down GPS in
extreme emergency" even be started or would it be toned down to read "The
DOD to consider shutting down GPS in extreme emergency"? I have no doubt
that Bush did not write the document that has everyone buzzing about. So
why do you accuse Bush? A political target that you disagree with?

Juergen Nieveler and a few others have by far presented the most compelling
arguments. My compliments to them. It seems that crass commercialism takes
precedence over human life judging by some of the comments in these
threads.

I particularly enjoyed the counterpoint by Jeff:
"The terrorists have won when the victim starts blaming themselves for
being
attacked."

Now sit back and ask yourself, what is the likelihood of GPS being
disabled? Where is your trade off point in human life lost to terrorist
attack versus commercial interests? Could civilian GPS even be used by the
terrorists requiring it to be selectively shutdown? Don't you really feel
better knowing that your government is actually planning ahead for your
protection?

Now will somebody please give me the name of a company that depends on GPS
timing signals down to the nanosecond for their business to operate and
does not have a contingency plan? Just one company please!

 

Sam

Your mantra seems at what cost for so many commercial activities. At what
cost of human life due to a possible terrrorist attack does it offset your
growing concerns over commercial impact. 10 dead, a 100, a 1,000, ????
Where is the trade off point in your mind?

In mine, the saving of the life of a single individual is enough for me.

Neither you nor anybody in this group knows for certain what threats we
face now or may face in the future. I have a full faith in our government
that they will endeavor to do the best they can to protect us. I am
comforted in knowing that they are looking at all scenarios on my behalf.

I have been following these threads and find them to be "straw dog"
arguments. That political motivation is behind them is unquestionable
since the thread topic is "Bush to consider shutting down GPS in extreme
emergency". Would the topic "Kerry to consider shutting down GPS in
extreme emergency" even be started or would it be toned down to read "The
DOD to consider shutting down GPS in extreme emergency"? I have no doubt
that Bush did not write the document that has everyone buzzing about. So
why do you accuse Bush? A political target that you disagree with?

Juergen Nieveler and a few others have by far presented the most compelling
arguments. My compliments to them. It seems that crass commercialism takes
precedence over human life judging by some of the comments in these
threads.

I particularly enjoyed the counterpoint by Jeff:
"The terrorists have won when the victim starts blaming themselves for
being
attacked."

Now sit back and ask yourself, what is the likelihood of GPS being
disabled? Where is your trade off point in human life lost to terrorist
attack versus commercial interests? Could civilian GPS even be used by the
terrorists requiring it to be selectively shutdown? Don't you really feel
better knowing that your government is actually planning ahead for your
protection?

Now will somebody please give me the name of a company that depends on GPS
timing signals down to the nanosecond for their business to operate and
does not have a contingency plan? Just one company please!

 

No. Each satellite broadcasts to nearly half the planet at any given
instant, not to some narrow swath on the ground.

 

Done.

 

All the satellites work the same way.

Typically nearly half the constellation is visible at any given instant
from any given point.

Nope, it doesn't work that way.

 

It's pretty much identical to a global shutdown.

The chances of them relying exclusively on GPS are also very slim, if
one assumes that civilian users have contigency plans. Why would
terrorists not have contingency plans at least as elaborate as those of
civilians?

No, not from the air. All jamming is done with local transmitters.

It didn't end when the World Trade Center was destroyed, either,
although you'd never know it from the hysteria and paranoia that that
event seemed to produce.

If your terrorist plans are critically dependent on GPS, you might want
to consider backups.

 

You have to survey to produce a map.

And it's more accurate.

Yes. Especially in a war zone. Getting lost is a serious problem in
wartime.

It doesn't matter, since U.S. people are demanding it, too.

So would GPS.

That depends on your equipment. One reason why the military insisted on
SA was that the civilian GPS was about a hundred times more accurate
than they had expected. And it's even more accurate now.

So can a surveyor's GPS equipment, even using civilian GPS.

I'll believe that when I see it.

 

Yes.

 

You can use GPS to measure it.

In time, yes.

I don't think it would be much of a problem for surveyors. But they
aren't the only users of GPS.

 

And not even that, if you have plenty of time to make observations.

 

That leaves only a few hundred zillion square kilometres of
unrestricted, unmarked ocean to navigate.

 

Who gives money to the Pentagon?

 

No airline would continue to operate if it had to run all aircraft on
only a single engine.

Not for NORMAL COMMERCIAL SERVICE.