The Plane Crash That Gave Us GPS 236
HughPickens.com writes: Sarah Laskow reports at The Atlantic about the aftereffects of the KAL 007 incident, where the Soviet Union shot down a passenger plane on September 1, 1983. All 269 passengers were killed, including a U.S. Congressman en route from New York City to Seoul via Anchorage. At first, the Soviet Union wouldn't even admit its military had shot the plane down, but the Reagan administration immediately started pushing to establish what had happened and stymie the operations of the Soviet Aeroflot airline. It is widely believed that Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was already well off course when the crew routinely radioed that it was over its proper ''way point,'' or checkpoint, at a 90-degree angle to Shemya Island in the West Aleutian chain. Ultimately, the Boeing 747 jumbo jet cut across the lower tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula and the southern tip of Sakhalin Island, where it was shot down by a Soviet fighter.
This resulted in President Reagan making a notable choice. While this choice was reported at the time, it was not the biggest news to come out of this event: Reagan decided to speed up the timeline for civilian use of GPS. The U.S. had already launched almost a dozen satellites into orbit that could help locate its military craft, on land, in the air, or on the sea. But the use of the system was restricted. Now, Reagan said, as soon as the next iteration of the GPS system was working, it would be available for free. It took more than $10 billion and over 10 years for the second version of the U.S.'s GPS system to come fully online. But in 1995, as promised, it was available to private companies for consumer applications. It didn't take long, though, for commercial providers of GPS services to start complaining about the system's "selective availability" which reserved access to the best, most precise signals for the U.S. military. In 2000, not that long before he left office, President Clinton got rid of selective availability and freed the world from ever depending on paper maps or confusing directions from relatives again.
This resulted in President Reagan making a notable choice. While this choice was reported at the time, it was not the biggest news to come out of this event: Reagan decided to speed up the timeline for civilian use of GPS. The U.S. had already launched almost a dozen satellites into orbit that could help locate its military craft, on land, in the air, or on the sea. But the use of the system was restricted. Now, Reagan said, as soon as the next iteration of the GPS system was working, it would be available for free. It took more than $10 billion and over 10 years for the second version of the U.S.'s GPS system to come fully online. But in 1995, as promised, it was available to private companies for consumer applications. It didn't take long, though, for commercial providers of GPS services to start complaining about the system's "selective availability" which reserved access to the best, most precise signals for the U.S. military. In 2000, not that long before he left office, President Clinton got rid of selective availability and freed the world from ever depending on paper maps or confusing directions from relatives again.
Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure any Slashdot post invoking both of these political figures will attract only the most calm and well-reasoned discussion.
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:5, Funny)
These guys are just an actor and a saxophone player, what's there to talk about?
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:4, Interesting)
The actor was actually a union boss that took on the studios for the benefit of the actors, [theatlantic.com] and won.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
... made of government employees.
Many private sector unions are corrupt, but we can deal with that. We can't have corrupt government unions-- because those affect every one of us by become parasites of the public interest.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're referring to the Air Traffic Controllers you may wish to consider this quote [ucsb.edu] from that Tea Party wacko known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt: (emphasis mine)
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to r
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] Public sector workers are subject to abuse, just as private sector workers are. They both need and deserve union representation and collective bargaining.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They may or may not need collective bargaining; I am honestly undecided on that point and could go either way. I do however firmly agree with the points I emphasized from the second quoted paragraph, specifically, "Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Governm
Re: (Score:2)
Public sector workers have protections that workers in private industry don't, such as the many protections in civil service.
Citation needed, because that statement reeks of pure FUD. I can refute that, at least anecdotally. My local county employees have no additional protections other than their union agreement. Even their union protections are occasionally short circuited as all county employees (including managers) are members of the same union.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it works much the same as in the private sector... if the government unions increase wages too much, the budgets aren't increased to match so there's a reduction in staff - though usually through people retiring or leaving rather than firing, though that occasionally happens too when they relocate functions. Creating new government positions goes all the way up to the political level, neither the head of my section, department, division or top leader can create a new permanent position. If they ha
Re: (Score:3)
The air traffic controllers union strike was mostly about improvements in working conditions, not wages. ATC is a famously difficult job that burns people out in a few years.
It's true that the union made a bad decision when they accepted a no-strike contract. But they assumed that the government would negotiate with them in good faith. The Reagan administration did not; they made an offer and said "take it or leave it", and Reagan's offer did not include any of the changes in work conditions that the union
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If public service workers received all the same perks as a congressman or president, they wouldn't need a union.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because he knew it would turn into exactly what it turned into: a mutual feedback loop between politicians and unions, with very little restraining growth in numbers or benefits, unlike private sector unions.
It's pretty much taking a collapse of the local tax bases to reign it in as jobs flee.
No, government union supporters. The solution is not an all-encompassing power over every living being so there's nowhere for jobs to flee to.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you'd prefer to have a government staffed by incompetent underpaid staff, so that it can prop up your ideological position that government should not have any staff, and demonstrate that governments do a bad job of things.
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
On some other planet where politicians from both parties aren't fans of union busting? Where even "liberal" states don't their budgets in favor of tax cuts for the rich? Where bus drivers make as much as defense contractors, and their pay and benefits haven't been slashed in the name of "shared sa
Re: (Score:2)
Voluntarily working for government is the same as being a slave? I think not.
They can leave at any time that they like for a better job.
I don't mind public worker unions until they start striking and shutting down billions of dollars worth of public infrastructure that we all paid for to use.
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You can be a liberal authoritarian Democrat.
These terms are so awfully defined that it's easy to bend what "liberal" and "authoritarian" mean.
If you think that the Government should both be compassionate towards those who are oppressed and mistreated and should offer services to everyone to help them lead fuller lives, and also that the Government should use as much force as possible to enforce laws on the books then you've gone the whole gamut from liberal and authoritarian.
"You must have tea and cake with
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan could play a saxophone??? /duck /run
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:5, Funny)
I have no doubt that one of them was a great actor, but I'm not so sure about the other one's saxophone skills - did Reagan ever even touch a sax?
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:5, Funny)
No, but Clinton definitely did not have sax with Monica Lewinsky. ;-)
She helped him change his reed, and wiped off end.
It was all a misunderstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Godwin's Law (Score:2)
I'm sure any Slashdot post invoking both of these political figures will attract only the most calm and well-reasoned discussion.
Did you talk about Hitler? I think I see a Hitler reference in that comment. Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law!
(This is meant to be a joke.)
Re: (Score:3)
It failed its design objective, then.
Re:Thank you, Presidents Reagan and Clinton. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, when Clinton tells me that he did not have sex with Reagan . . . I'll believe him.
If only that were enough... (Score:3)
If only GPS were enough to stop the shootings-down of airliners by Russians [independent.co.uk]...
Re: (Score:2)
Or the shooting down of airliners by Americans [bbc.co.uk]...
Or the Ukrainians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re:If only that were enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Or the shooting down of airliners by Americans [bbc.co.uk]...
That was in 1988 — before Reagan-intensified initiative was completed and GPS came into common usage.
Or the Ukrainians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians responsible for that disaster are currently Russians — the missile came from Crimea...
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to be funny? GPS would not have helped in either case - both planes were where they were supposed to be.
And as for the Ukrainians, how exactly would you know? Have you personally inquired where the people responsible for shooting down the flight from Israel are living now?
Want me to one-up the fun? The officer who authorised the shoot-down of KAL007 was an Ukrainian as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to be truly serious, none of the other incidents are/were like those poor Koreans. Soviet government knew the plane was civilian, but they shot it down anyway.
In most other cases discussed, the air-defense personnel either didn't expect a plane to be there, or mistook it for a legitimate target.
A possible exception is the crash of the Poland government's plane in 2010 [nytimes.com]. Russia certainly had a motive
Re: (Score:3)
Now I know that you are bloody conspiracy-theorist. It was even in the ATC transcripts - the dispatcher was trying to shoo the Polish airplane away because there were no landing conditions whatsoever. Two airplanes have tried to land earlier. One of them (Yak-40 with journalists) almost crash-landed, the other (an Il-76) tried to land for two times and has given up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but just because Putin is out to get you, doesn't mean Putin got you.
Re:If only that were enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
Or the Ukrainians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Interestingly enough, the Ukrainians responsible for that disaster are currently Russians — the missile came from Crimea...
You won't find this in the Wikipedia article, but there are rumors in some intelligence circles that this flight was actually shot down by the Russians and Ukraine took the rap because they could play the "Duh! We so stupid! Not know what we doing! Soldiers were drunk!" card in exchange for some sort of special favor from Russia. That may not be true and it may be that Ukraine really shot it down through incompetence, but I just wanted to point out that there are some who don't buy the official explanation.
Re:If only that were enough... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a few Ukrainian officers and soldiers staged in Crimea defected to Russia, when the aggressor openly invaded the peninsula in February 2014.
Some of them, no doubt, have taken Putin's shilling even earlier...
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I normally defend US military action... but come on.
While the incidents themselves, if looked at without broader context, are nearly identical... you can't actually look at them without the broader context.
Why was the US warship there in the first place? Iran was at war with Iraq, and had started to attack US oil tankers off shore. The US Military sent US Naval ships as escorts. Then Iran started actively attacking US warships. That ship had been under attack by Iranian gun boats just and hour earl
Re:If only that were enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I normally defend US military action... but come on.
Why was the US warship there in the first place? Iran was at war with Iraq, and had started to attack US oil tankers off shore. The US Military sent US Naval ships as escorts. Then Iran started actively attacking US warships. That ship had been under attack by Iranian gun boats just and hour earlier and that plane had taken off from a based that F14 attack craft were routinely operated out of.
I do normally defend US military action but I will not defend the shoot down of the Iranian airliner. Captain Rogers was a trigger happy asshole, with a poorly trained crew that was oblivious to what their instruments were reporting. The instruments aboard the USS Vincennes reported a climbing aircraft that was squawking Mode III (Civilian) IFF; the crew somehow interpreted this as a descending aircraft squawking a military code, which would actually be a legitimate threat to the ship, but that was not what was reported by their instruments.
If you want to be generous to Captain Rogers you can call it an example of scenario fulfillment but I'm not willing to give him that much benefit of the doubt. The Commanding Officer of at least one neighboring ship thought he was reckless and trigger happy (*) and his crew's failure to properly operate their ship represents a gross failure of training and accountability that the Captain of said ship is ultimately responsible for.
(*) See the various media interviews of Commander Carlson, Captain of the USS Sides, which was assigned to the same mission and tracked Iran Air Flight 655 on her own radar prior to the shootdown.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm aware of that part of the story. It doesn't exonerate Captain Rogers, nor can it explain why his crew was seemingly unable to read the information that was staring them in the face, specifically the fact that the aircraft was climbing the entire time they tracked it. That flight profile screams "NOT A THREAT" to anyone versed in anti air warfare, which you would expect the crew of an air defense cruiser to be, yet somehow they reported the contact as descending on an attack vector. There were do
OT: community organizer as a President (Score:2)
timeline (Score:5, Informative)
But in 1995, as promised, it was available to private companies for consumer applications
Say what? There were consumer GPS receivers in the late 1980's, in fact in the first Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) many soldiers used commercial units purchased from US retailers because the crypto hardened milspec units were in such short supply. In fact I'm not sure what they're referring to with the 1995 date, since the biggest change wrt consumer use was Clinton's order to permanently disable selective availability, but that wasn't until 2000.
Re:timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
But in 1995, as promised, it was available to private companies for consumer applications
Say what? There were consumer GPS receivers in the late 1980's, in fact in the first Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991) many soldiers used commercial units purchased from US retailers because the crypto hardened milspec units were in such short supply. In fact I'm not sure what they're referring to with the 1995 date, since the biggest change wrt consumer use was Clinton's order to permanently disable selective availability, but that wasn't until 2000.
I believe the 1995 date refers to the date at which the GPS satellite constellation was completed, in other words when the full set of 24 satellites was operational. You need just 4 signals to get a cold location fix without making assumptions, but prior to 1995 it is probable that in some parts of the world, 4 satellites were not visible at certain times. Prior to 1995 the system wasn't complete.
I can't find any information in 1980s GPS units, but given the nature of the calculations required to obtain a locational fix, and the processing power available in that era, they must have been excitingly expensive.
Re:timeline (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right about GPS being available, but with a limited constellation. But the prices weren't awful -- in the sailing world they were comparable with other navigation electronics. I learned to sail during the transition -- people still had LORAN receivers, and long-haul sailors still needed to know celestial navigation, but a GPS was certainly a gizmo you could afford for you boat. But sailors crossing the Pacific might go hours without a GPS fix, because not enough birds were in view.
Re:timeline (Score:4, Informative)
According to this timeline of GPS, the first to market with a hand-GPS was the Magellan NAV 1000 in 1989.
However, in 1990, the DoD decreased the accuracy of the system - before the start of the First Gulf War.
In 1994, the FAA and Clinton tells the worldwide (commercial) airline industry that GPS is free for them to use for the "foreseeable future"
1995 was when the first GPS constellation was finally complete, so that at least 4 satellites were always visible from any point on at Earth.
Source: http://www.techhive.com/articl... [techhive.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That was the original plan. But during the first Gulf War so many soldiers were relying on commercial GPS units (military ones being in short supply) that they just turned off selective availability for the duration of the war.
Re: (Score:3)
at the time the military ones were accurate to a few feet while the consumer ones to several hundred feet. the military GPS units you had to load a special crypto key to give them good accuracy
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia says that the size of receivers fell to only 2.75 pounds in 1991.
Re:timeline (Score:5, Informative)
No, public access was never turned off. You need the "public" (C/A for Coarse Acquisition) signal even to get the P (precision?) military signal.
A military receiver first acquires the C/A signal, like a civilian receiver. it needs this in order to get all the timing locked up so it can then acquire the P signal to get the necessary correction information.
During the first Gulf War, military GPS units were hard to get, so they turned off selective availability so soldiers could use the civilian GPS units they brought with them. Then once the war was over, they turned selective availability back on to make the results imprecise.
All GPS units need the public (C/A) signal first before they can do anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not true, military receivers can do direct P(Y) acquisition and have been able to do so for some time. Try googling for "direct P(Y) code acquisition".
Re: (Score:3)
Ask most people how GPS works and they'll assume it establishes communication with a satellite. Most people haven't given it a second thought. Most people are completely ignorant of how their daily use technology actually works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
During the gulf war public use was actually turned off so the military could have better access.
Huh? GPS satellites are not wireless access points with a limited number of users supported -- they broadcast a signal that anyone can receive (the number of users has zero impact on other users).
I assume GP has confused, and was referring to, the turning off of SA (selective availability), that when on deteriorates the precision of civilian receivers - thus improving the precision availble to the military units that couldn't get proper military grade receivers but instead had civilian receivers. As you say, number of users/receivers has no effect on the system, as they're just listening - just like FM radio sets...
Original Article? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, which of these links is the original article the large excerpt is from?
I really wish OA was linked separately at the top or something. Why was it the 3rd link? Why not anchor it on "The Atlantic" in the first line?
http://www.theatlantic.com/tec... [theatlantic.com]
Thanks...
Paper maps and confusing directions? (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience GPS let's you down when you need it the most. More than once I have had to fall back to maps and a compass when the terrain got too rough for GPS to work. As far as confusing directions go talk to the people, if they are still alive, who got stuck or drove their car over cliffs etc. I still do not trust it except under the best conditions and when I have another method to confirm its correctness.
Re:Paper maps and confusing directions? (Score:5, Funny)
GPS doesn't work in caves either. GPS sucks and should be abandoned. What a waste of resources getting those stupid satellites up there.
Underworld (Score:3)
or under water. or under canopy. or under anything really.
GPS requires direct line of sight to at least 3-4 satellites.
Anyway it is just a limitation of the system, as does anything.
I started with commercial GPS in 1995 myself, so went though the stage of scrambled to non-scrambled GPS. The oldest device I used was a Garmin SVRY II, which tells me that there was at least one shittier version before that :)
Surprised no one mentioned base stations. Which were really the way commercial GPS got around the milit
Re: (Score:2)
Those base stations can still be useful when you need precision measured in single-digit inches.
A long time ago, I worked for a company that provided differential GPS services. It was hit hard by Selective Availability going away, but Surveyers still need the kind of accuracy only DGPS can provide.
Re: (Score:2)
GPS doesn't work in caves either. GPS sucks and should be abandoned. What a waste of resources getting those stupid satellites up there.
I told you we'd regret abandoning the sextant.
Re:Paper maps and confusing directions? (Score:5, Insightful)
GPS isn't a substitute for actually thinking about stuff as you do it.
Re:Paper maps and confusing directions? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, you're still operating the damned car, and you're still responsible for where it goes.
If you drove your car off a cliff because your GPS told you to go straight off a cliff, you would have driven off a cliff sooner or later anyway.
Because apparently you don't think things through very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Scott? Is that you??
Every tool has limitations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I had the opportunity to use a car with GPS-enabled navigation during a trip to New York City. At one point, the GPS navigation insisted that I was driving in the middle of the Hudson river. (I was definitely *not*.) Apparently, the signals can bounce off of the tall buildings and make the GPS unit think it is somewhere else. Luckily, I wasn't relying solely on GPS navigation and wouldn't be so stupid as to drive in an area that I'm not supposed to drive just because GPS told me to. If someone is going
Wait a minute...Ronald Reagan? (Score:3, Funny)
The ACTOR?!?!?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please, it's Our Savior St. Reagan-of-the-deficits.
Re: (Score:3)
Paper Maps (Score:3)
GPS is great for telling you HOW to to another location. What it can't do is tell you WHY you want to go to that other location. On the other hand you can look at a paper map and go "That looks like a spot I WANT to go to".
Re:Paper Maps (Score:5, Informative)
GPS doesn't tell you how to get anywhere. It tells you where you are and that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting shot down =/= crashing... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you hit the ground, it's a crash.
Re: (Score:2)
GNSS (Score:2)
I'm encouraging my engineers to refer to GPS as GNSS, as there are 3 other systems
Glosnass, the Russian system which is now operating.
BeiDou the Chinese system also operational.
And Galileo, the EU system which has had all sorts of delays.
Re: (Score:2)
Not how I remember it (Score:5, Informative)
And I was there.
Reagan may have sped up this or that, but
- GPS was designed as a mixed civilian / military system. That's why there WAS selective availability (AKA SA - fuzzing of civilian accuracy). SA was designed to give 30 meter accuracy, and lots of civilian needs could still be met with that accuracy.
- Lots of us wondered why KAL 007 didn't have GPS - a 30 meter error was tiny compared to their actual error.
- There was intense commercial interest in GPS in 1983.
- Use of GPS has always been free - even under SA, you either had the keys to decrypt it, or not.
- The real big push for commercial development came during the first Gulf War, when we didn't have nearly enough military units, and so Charley Trimble (Trimble Navigation - and others) got a huge order to send outdoor units to the Persian Gulf ASAP - AND they turned off Selective Availability (globally, for the duration).
The part about Clinton and SA was accurate. However, by the 90's. a lot of people were working on work-arounds for SA. SA implemented by making each satellite's clock go fast and slow deliberately, so you could fix it by having a ground station with a good clock looking at the same satellite, and sending corrections, so removing SA wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in 1985.
Re: (Score:2)
The part about Clinton and SA was accurate. However, by the 90's. a lot of people were working on work-arounds for SA. SA implemented by making each satellite's clock go fast and slow deliberately, so you could fix it by having a ground station with a good clock looking at the same satellite, and sending corrections, so removing SA wasn't as big a deal as it would have been in 1985.
Yep. Specifically it was commonly defeated by cellphone tower, AGPS we now use for a faster lock, can also defeat SA. All you need is something that already knows where it is and can correct for the local GPS error, such as cell-phone tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, dead-reckoning between updates helps a lot too, as does having a good local map. But, yes, my cell phone GPS uses cell tower navigation more often than it uses actual GPS.
So what will MH17 and MH370 give us? (Score:2)
Aside from headaches with the constant droning of CNN repeating ad infinitum "where is the missing plane"?
My guess is that these two planes will give us in-flight telemetry, essentially all-the-time black boxes writing data to servers. There was an air-france plane that crashed in the ocean a few years back and it took them more than a year to locate any wreckage.
I'm dubious we'll ever locate MH370, mostly because they are either looking in the wrong area or the area they are looking in is very inhospitable
Re: (Score:3)
In-flight telemetry already exists. Has existed for a while, actually. That is why AF447 was found. Unfortunately it is not really real-time (which surprises me - I develop software for vehicle tracking, it is a very sensible thing to do).
MH17's lesson is: "close the airspace above a war zone". Should be obvious, really.
Re: (Score:2)
GPS vs. Maps. Fight! (Score:2)
GPS is great and works most of the time. The problem is the maps have no consideration whatsoever. Especially nautical charts.
GPS may be accurate, but overlay that with charts and I'm sailing through downtown Cleveland for what good they are. I can't count the false reality they attempt to project.
If part of that $10 billion was allocated to making sure the maps and the GPS coordinates were on more than a nodding acquaintance, then I'd at least run into land a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
If part of that $10 billion was allocated to making sure the maps and the GPS coordinates were on more than a nodding acquaintance, then I'd at least run into land a lot less
So how's that job search going Captain Schettino? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What I wonder is, did he get laid ? (After all, that was the root cause in that crash.)
And all it took was a dead Congressman (Score:5, Funny)
Just think what wonders we could have if we shot them all.
S/A vs. C/A & P codes (Score:2)
It didn't take long, though, for commercial providers of GPS services to start complaining about the system's "selective availability" which reserved access to the best, most precise signals for the U.S. military.
Actually the most precise signals (Precision (P) code [wikipedia.org]) are still restricted, even though the selective availability (which was basically introducing jitter) was turned off for the Coarse/Acquisition (C/A) code [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
It's also plausible that GPS will outlive us all. The Matrix, Terminator, Bambi, seen them?
Re:Walkers still use paper maps (Score:4, Funny)
"Paper maps don't go flat"
My paper maps are pretty flat to begin with... actually, all of my paper is.
Re: (Score:2)
As for people stupid enough to try and use their smartphone as a GPS navigation tool in the wild outdoors, well I feel sadness for anyone stupid enough to do that because the consequences are potentially so serious.
Couldn't the same be said of people who are stupid enough to try and use their compass and paper map instead of navigating by the stars? I mean, what if your map is blown away by a gust of wind, then you're screwed!
Everyone has a different threshhold for what's reasonable. Your threshhold is no less arbitrary than the one embraced by smartphone-GPS users.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't the same be said of people who are stupid enough to try and use their compass and paper map instead of navigating by the stars? I mean, what if your map is blown away by a gust of wind, then you're screwed!
Didn't you read the part where he said he was in the UK? Have you ever seen stars or blue skies in the UK? I sure as hell haven't. Stellar navigation doesn't work when you're looking at the bottom of a cumulus cloud. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Walkers carry their maps in waterproof covers attached to a cord slung around their neck.
I've seen those idiots out hiking in the Rockies. They're the ones with the 80 pound packs, giant boots, thick wood walking poles, and bear bells. But the map in the clear case is a dead giveaway that these idiots are only moments away from being completely lost and helpless.
Re: (Score:3)
The stars are not visible during the day, but the sun is. Of course, if it's cloudy, you're not going to have the sun or the stars. Which brings us to my original point. No method of navigation is perfect and each has its advantages and drawbacks. Everyone has their own threshholds for what is reasonable and what is nece
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPS kicks ass over a compass for finding your location. It's fast and accurate. You can make sure you're staying on track because it's so easy to get a reading. And a map on an electronic device is roughly on par with a paper map. GPS just tells you your location. Before GPS came around there were plenty of idiots getting lost in the woods. The ones getting lost now at least have a fighting chance of getting out if the GPS is working. I just can't believe how much so called 'hikers' like to bash modern GPS
Re: (Score:2)
There's no question that for a reasonably prepared person a GPS and electronic map is the safest and most secure method to find his way. But there are other reasons to learn traditional means of navigation -- pleasure and challenge for example.
One of the advantages of GPS navigation is that it takes the human factor out of the equation. One of the advantages of traditional navigation is that it puts the human factor back *in* to the equation. With a map and compass, you have to keep track of your surroun
Re: (Score:3)
SAR stats are going to show that lost hikers have cellphones and no maps. They aren't lost BECAUSE OF GPS - they're lost because they're idiots. Of course they have cell phones. Everyone has one all the time. Of course they have no paper maps - they're idiots. They're lost because they can't read a map, didn't bring a map (electronic or paper), and they have no navigation skills. It's not a problem with the technology, it's a problem with their idiot brains. Plenty of people had to be rescued before GPS cam
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know what you mean by 'celebrated revenge' but that was simply an accident. The ship's crew misidentified the aircraft and made a bad decision. The US paid restitution to families of those who were killed, as well. You're trying to make it sound as if they knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft. What would that accomplish?
Re:gps still blows (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPS is nice but people often misunderstand its accuracy, availability & stability. First off accuracy, your average private GPS (TomTom, Phone, handheld) is only about 30' accurate on a fairly good day, so if you buried a valuable out in the middle of a field and your only reference to it was your phones GPS you might have to dig for quite a while in an area the size of a double garage in order to find it.
Burying things is against Geocaching rules.