Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/16/2004 4:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

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.

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

Nope. It was still active. President Clinton made a point of announcing
the intent to remove the inhibitors and making it more accurate for civilian
applications.

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

As opposed to the almost 300 yard to 1/2 mile "accuracy" that it was at
before, it was a MAJOR improvement to non-US Armed Forces users.

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.

It was.

Where were you?

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.

No, Jim...it would "inconvienience" us...It would not hurt us.

And the "hijack an aircraft and use it as a missle" thing is unlikely to
happen again.

Just think how much more damage Saddam's SCUD's could have caused had they
had GPS navigation rather than their antiquated Soviet inertial navigation.

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.

You mean they shouldn't depend on GPS AFTER the first volley of
attacks, don't you...?!?!

As of RIGHT NOW, anyone with the money and desire to do so can use GPS
against us. So, Jim, in YOUR estimation, how many lives are worth the
inconvienience of not having a moving map display in your Escalade...???

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!

Sure it is.

No, it was not.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)



What was stated in the article is NOTHING NEW!

Sure it is.


No, it was not.


You are correct, Steve. Nothing new here at all. In fact I am surprised
that the story was even written, except maybe as just a reminder.
Shutting down the system has been a part of the system since day one.

Allowing the system to be more accurate was more of an economic
decision than malfeasance by a former president. I suspect that
considering the economic impact of the use of accurate GPS, any sitting
president would have made the same decision.


What is worrisome is that IF the system is shut down even temporarily,
the effects could cause as many problems as they prevent. We are *that*
dependent on GPS.

Here is just one (admittedly scary) example:

In Oregon, there is a pilot project using GPS.

http://www.odot.state.or.us/ruftf/faq.html

http://economics.about.com/od/taxesa...ileage_tax.htm



Don't like paying gasoline taxes? In Oregon, you will be able to forgo
them by allowing them to track the mileage that you drive within the
state. Your GPS simply reports your position as you drive around the
state. When you gas up at the pump, a sensor subtracts the tax on the
gas, and you don't pay the tax until you get a statement (presumably on
your credit card.

Aside from the obvious Big Brother aspect of this scheme, if the GPS
were to go down, there would be lots of money lost.


As an aside, is this creepy or what? I can foresee a time when the
records of *everyone* driving near a crime scene could be subpoenaed and
you'll have to prove that it was not you who murdered the person and
dumped their body in the creek, etc., etc,etc.

- Mike KB3EIA -

A little less Orwellian is that the cellular sites all use the GPS time
signals to synchronize their switching. It's gotta be very precise or
it no workee.

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 12/16/2004 4:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

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.

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

Nope. It was still active. President Clinton made a point of
announcing
the intent to remove the inhibitors and making it more accurate for
civilian
applications.

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

As opposed to the almost 300 yard to 1/2 mile "accuracy" that it was
at
before, it was a MAJOR improvement to non-US Armed Forces users.

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.

It was.

Where were you?

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.

No, Jim...it would "inconvienience" us...It would not hurt us.

And the "hijack an aircraft and use it as a missle" thing is unlikely
to
happen again.

Just think how much more damage Saddam's SCUD's could have caused had
they
had GPS navigation rather than their antiquated Soviet inertial
navigation.

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.

You mean they shouldn't depend on GPS AFTER the first volley of
attacks, don't you...?!?!

As of RIGHT NOW, anyone with the money and desire to do so can use GPS
against us. So, Jim, in YOUR estimation, how many lives are worth the
inconvienience of not having a moving map display in your Escalade...???

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!

Sure it is.

No, it was not.

73

Steve, K4YZ


Steve,

Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've
handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact
purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine
says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a
manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00).

Take these same folks (most likely the ones that will ultimately earn big
money - engineers don't), put 'em on a 50 foot boat out for a cruise - and
the GPS shuts down. Now what do they do?

Reach for a direct satellite cell phone. Ooops - maybe they turned them off
too?

Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that
will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells
less able to act. No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will
probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to you,
right? Or are you pro terrorist?

Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if
we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for
terrorists to communicate over.

Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some
10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not,
we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of
becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make
his place in history.

I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it
is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S.

I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They
raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did.
Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find
that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far
more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name.
LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising
the generic prices up close to the brand name prices.

How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I
not surprised?

Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply
self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: Problem for boaters and APRS?
From: "JAMES HAMPTON"
Date: 12/16/2004 7:24 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote in message
...


Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've
handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact
purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine
says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a
manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00).


You're preaching to the choir here, Jim.


Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that
will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells
less able to act.


Dunno about you, Jim, but I am pretty much able to communicate world wide
on a semi-reliable basis without Internet capability.

If I were a combatant in a remote area without satellite, I betchya I
could get a message to where I wanted it to go, and get instructions in return.
(And for Lennie and Brian's benefit, that's even withOUT a code key at
hand...)


No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will
probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute. Sounds good to you,
right? Or are you pro terrorist?


Hardly. But the terrorists are pretty well funded...certainly a lot
better than my own personal budget! But I can still communicate without the
Internet...Wanna bet they can


Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if
we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for
terrorists to communicate over.


How much MORE ya wanna bet that we can do exactly that if we thought it
was in our best interests to do so?


Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some
10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not,
we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of
becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make
his place in history.

I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it
is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S.


Mostly because their version of the FDA is more liberal in drug trial
testing, among other things. Also, the government controls healthcare.


I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They
raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did.
Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find
that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far
more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name.
LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising
the generic prices up close to the brand name prices.

How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I
not surprised?


Less than $3000 a year for a family of four, no deductibles (unless I go
"out of plan").


Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply
self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did.


You're almost absolutely right...Until we demand tort law reform, cap
damages limits and demand that health care conglomerates like HCA, Tenet, and
others put the public ahead of profits, we very well may..at least as far as
healthcare goes.

Our economic deficits are due MOSTLY to OUR gluttonous consumerism, and
unless WE decide that we want to put the good of the Nation ahead of the good
of our selves, then you are again correct...we may very well implode.

Implode is the right word, Steve. Our almost inconcievable national
debt is being propped up by foreign money propping up the dollar.
Problem is that as the dollar gets weaker, at some point two things are
going to happen:

1. Other countries, including the one that is pumping the most money
into the US, are going to look elsewhere for the place to put their money

2. The dollar will cease to be the worlds preferred currency.

At that point, we will be hurting. No amount of blaming the "other"
party is going to make a bit of difference. This is some pretty basic
economic truth, no conspiracy theories or whackiness needed. Just check
out who the biggest investor in the US is at this time.

Anyone that isn't scared ****less is not paying proper attention.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

Folks have become so dependent upon modern conveniences. Many times I've
handed money to some kid at a cash register and he/she punches in the exact
purchase price and *not* the amount of money I forked over. Now the machine
says zero change. I've seen them resort to calculators and one had to get a
manager (no calculator and she couldn't subtract $12.35 from $20.00).

I've seen that sort of thing - and also bright young people of the same age who
could make change and do much more complex calculations in their heads. All
depends on what the educational priorities are.

Take these same folks (most likely the ones that will ultimately earn big
money - engineers don't), put 'em on a 50 foot boat out for a cruise - and
the GPS shuts down. Now what do they do?

Become a statistic. Heck, a lot of folks I know can't even figure out which way
North is on a clear night.

Reach for a direct satellite cell phone. Ooops - maybe they turned them off
too?

Satellite phones are known to be used by terror groups. Yet they are allowed to
use those assets against us.

Come to think of it, if they shut the communications satellites off, that
will severely limit communications overseas and make any terrorist cells
less able to act. No Internet from overseas and telephone calls will
probably be in the neighborhood of $15.00 per minute.

And unlike a satellite call, "wired" calls can be traced to their source.

Sounds good to you,
right? Or are you pro terrorist?

Indeed.

Better get a letter off to the White House now! We can *really* be safe if
we shut down the communications satellites! No overseas Internet for
terrorists to communicate over.

Ooops ... I forgot. Russia has made many more launches than we have. Some
10 times in a couple of years. Europe, Japan .... say, believe it or not,
we don't have the exclusive anymore. In fact, we might be in danger of
becoming a bit player. Maybe that is why Bush wants to push for Mars. Make
his place in history.

In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong problems and
fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view.

I see some real good research on diabetes. Why am I not surprised that it
is coming out of Great Britain, rather than the U.S.

Priorities.

I note that one medication I had was $120.00 for a 30 day supply. They
raised my co-pay to $48.00 (40%). They told me to get a generic. I did.
Now I only pay $8.00. It works just great! I was really surprised to find
that the cost of the generic was $98.00!!! The insurance company pays far
more now for me to use "generic" ($90.00) than the "brand" ($72.00) name.
LOL. Bush has sure covered the drug companies so well that they are raising
the generic prices up close to the brand name prices.

How long a drive is it from Rochester to Canada, Jim? How much do you think
those same medications, made in the same factories, cost in Toronto or
Montreal?

How's your health insurance? Nice and cheap? Low deductibles? Why am I
not surprised?

Mine's pretty good but but it's not cheap. And every year the deductibles go
up.

Our biggest danger is likely not external; I suspect that we may simply
self-destruct like the U.S.S.R. did.

I think that in some ways that process has been going on a long time. For
example - remember when a high school education and some specialized training
and skills would get the average person a good job? And when most of those jobs
paid enough in salary and benefits to support a middle class family?

I don't think we'll see an implosion - rather, just a gradual slide. A little
bit here, a little bit there, until more people wake up.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73 de Jim, N2EY

"In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong
problems and
fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view."

Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy?

It will be interesting to hear what your NPR trained mind will come up
with.

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...
"In some ways it's the '60s all over again. Focusing on the wrong
problems and
fighting the wrong enemy. Most of all, a short-term point of view."

Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy?

It will be interesting to hear what your NPR trained mind will come up
with.


Well, if Jim (N2EY) doesn't mind me jumping in here ...

My own beliefs are that the free market is not necessarily the right place
for certain things. Would we have all of the nice communications satellites
if the government had not been in a space race with Russia (and spent many
billions of dollars)? Now, of course, it is moving into commercial market,
but without the government lead, I doubt we'd have nearly the communications
capability that we currently have.

The federal deficit is enormous; so is the imbalance of trade. I would
probably start (and get promptly voted out of the White House LOL) with
getting some experts and deciding and a good gasoline rationing plan (not
the odd/even stuff from the 70s).

Allow so many gallons per licensed driver in a household (no, you don't get
more because you have a truck, SUV, RV, two Jaguars and three motorcycles),
plus some additional for school age children. Take the numbers and come up
with a limit to reduce oil consumption by 10%. Each year, reduce it a bit
more. Some folks wouldn't use their allotment, and they'd be entitled to
turn it into an "open" account. They would receive cash equal to the
unpurchased gasoline. Anyone who wishes could purchase gasoline credits
from that account. The government would, of course, tack on about a 50%
tax, both to pay for this rationing plus bring a few extra dollars into the
treasury.

Over a few years, folks would be looking once again for fuel efficient
vehicles. If someone really wants to buy a Dodge Viper with a 500
horsepower 10 cylinder engine, they could. They could also expect to be
purchasing from that fund of unused gas rations (with the extra surcharge).
However, if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 25 or 30
percent, we'd be in better shape (both in the trade balance department as
well as in better shape in case of an oil embargo).

Let us not kid ourselves, however. Currently, I believe we only produce 25%
of the oil we consume. I think it was a bit more than 50% back in the days
of the oil embargo.

This might be a reasonable place to start.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - not going to start with the FCC auctioning of spectrum. That is crazy
enough, but doesn't help the foreign trade deficit.

In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes:

Well, if Jim (N2EY) doesn't mind me jumping in here ...

Not at all!

My own beliefs are that the free market is not necessarily the right place
for certain things. Would we have all of the nice communications satellites
if the government had not been in a space race with Russia (and spent many
billions of dollars)? Now, of course, it is moving into commercial market,
but without the government lead, I doubt we'd have nearly the communications
capability that we currently have.

Valid point! OTOH, do we really have a "free market" at all?

Consider transportation - the airlines didn't build the airports, or the air
traffic control system, or the weather service that reports on conditions at
flying altitudes. Nor did the bus and trucking industries build the interstates
or the bridges and tunnels. Construction of significant parts of the railroad
system was not funded by the railroads, nor were the canals and river systems.

The federal deficit is enormous; so is the imbalance of trade. I would
probably start (and get promptly voted out of the White House LOL) with
getting some experts and deciding and a good gasoline rationing plan (not
the odd/even stuff from the 70s).

You have identified two of our biggest problems: dependence on imported
petroleum products and the trade deficit.

Allow so many gallons per licensed driver in a household (no, you don't get
more because you have a truck, SUV, RV, two Jaguars and three motorcycles),
plus some additional for school age children. Take the numbers and come up
with a limit to reduce oil consumption by 10%. Each year, reduce it a bit
more. Some folks wouldn't use their allotment, and they'd be entitled to
turn it into an "open" account. They would receive cash equal to the
unpurchased gasoline. Anyone who wishes could purchase gasoline credits
from that account. The government would, of course, tack on about a 50%
tax, both to pay for this rationing plus bring a few extra dollars into the
treasury.

Over a few years, folks would be looking once again for fuel efficient
vehicles. If someone really wants to buy a Dodge Viper with a 500
horsepower 10 cylinder engine, they could. They could also expect to be
purchasing from that fund of unused gas rations (with the extra surcharge).
However, if we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 25 or 30
percent, we'd be in better shape (both in the trade balance department as
well as in better shape in case of an oil embargo).

I agree with the goal but not the method. The problem, as I see it, is that
there would be too many ways around the system for some people, and it would be
too bureaucratic. But the goal is right.

The Europeans and Japanese control oil consumption by taxing the fuel at the
pump, and then using the taxes to fund energy-efficient alternatives to the
private auto. That's why their transit systems are so pervasive and so popular:
they don't expect transit to make money or even pay for itself.

The big questions a how to reduce consumption without serious negative
economic effects on industries like agriculture? And how do we make the changes
permanent?

In a larger sense, overall energy policy needs to change. Which isn't going to
be popular, because it influences our way of life in all sorts of ways - more
fuel-efficient cars, less driving, more transit, more fuel-efficient homes and
businesses, living in denser communities with sidewalks and town centers rather
than in sprawl.

This isn't primarily a technological problem, it's an attitude and policy
problem. Gasoline is actually so inexpensive in the USA that it 'doesn't pay'
to conserve it. Example: Suppose you drive 15,000 miles a year. If you drive a
vehicle that gets 15 mpg, and you pay $2/gallon, your annual fuel cost is
$2000. A vehicle that gets 30 mpg saves you half that, but it's only $1000 a
year - less than $20/week. A 45 mpg vehicle saves you only $333 more. While
these costs aren't small, they are only a small part of the total cost of a
vehicle, when you look at car prices, insurance, repair/maintenance, etc. Plus
when you look at the effect of inflation, $2/gal gasoline today is less
expensive in inflation-adjusted dollars than $1/gal ~20 years ago.

Shrub talks about hydrogen power but doesn't explain where all the hydrogen is
supposed to come from. US carmakers push, and US drivers buy, SUVs rather than
cars, and the govt. reinforces the sales by classifying SUVs as "trucks".

Let us not kid ourselves, however. Currently, I believe we only produce 25%
of the oil we consume. I think it was a bit more than 50% back in the days
of the oil embargo.

From what I've read recently, back in the '70s we imported one-third and
produced two-thirds. Today it's the other way around.

It should be remembered that a lot of our imported oil comes from places like
Canada, Mexico and Nigeria, and not from the Middle East. The significance of
Middle East oil is two fold:

1) Oil companies are multinational, and aren't going to freeze, strand and
starve Western Europe so Americans can drive SUVs.

2) The big producers like SA have enormous influence on price.

This might be a reasonable place to start.

Yep. But it's not popular.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - not going to start with the FCC auctioning of spectrum. That is crazy
enough, but doesn't help the foreign trade deficit.

Agreed!

73 de Jim, N2EY

No, Jim doesn't mind. Of course not.

It gives him an excuse for not answering the questions I asked.

Jim, what are the right problems to focus on? Who is the right enemy?
Thanks, bb