E.U. Agrees To Launch Galileo Satellite Location System 1318
waimate writes "The European Union today decided to go ahead with Galileo, the constellation of 30 satellites which will compete with the U.S. GPS system.
The U.S. abolished selective availability three years ago partly to make GPS more useful for all mankind, but also to dissuade other countries from developing their own navigational satellite system, and thus be dependant on the U.S. for both peaceful and military purposes. Since the demise of the Russian GLONASS system, GPS is the only game in town. Evidently recent events make Europe feel less comfortable about such things, and so they're building their own. Good thing for commercialization of space, or bad thing for world peace?"
It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:2, Funny)
Thank God!!! Maybe next time France is invaded they will call somebody else.
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Insightful)
At the rate things are going right now, the next time France is invaded it will probably be *by* the USA.
Re:It serves us right (Score:5, Funny)
You mean liberated of course.
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It serves us right (Score:5, Funny)
No, France doesn't have any oil reserves. When France is invaded it will be for the purpose of disarming them.
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Funny)
Max
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
Back then, a large percentage of the ppl in North America had (close) relatives living in Europe, so what happened in Europe affected lots of people personally. By now, I guess most family ties have been broken (I have uncles, aunts and cousins in MN, but time seems to dissolve family contact).
I think th
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Informative)
Haaha hahha hahah hahaah buuahahaha hahhahah. Good one mate. I needed a laugh, of course you have to ignore the massive quantities of nerve and biological agents funneled into Iraq by US sources. And well if you want to talk about providing training and technology to roge states, we can alaways ask who trained and armed Mr. Osama Bin Laden. Was it the French? Hum... nope.
As late as 1998 Mr. Chenney was doing business with Iraq for over $25M via his beloved Haliburton. Quite interesting that one of the guys that claimed Saddam was such a scum bag that needed to be stopped did in fact help that douche bag to rebuilt Iraq infraestructures (well oil producing sturctures anyways... which is what the US was interested in after all). I guess Mr. Cheney just decided to cut the middle man and get the oil directly.
Oh, right... the Frenchies are the evil ones. Because the US has never sold weapons to nobody, rigth? The US is the largest weapons manufacturer in the world, who do you think they sell their tock to the girl scouts?
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Insightful)
The oil-for-food programme was a UN run initiative that US companies had as much right to particpate in as the French. However, Elf won the business fair and square. Are you suggesting that competing with an American company is wrong?
Do you think they were more interested in oil-money than ending a threat?
There was no threat to the west from Iraq and it now seems that there were no WMD. Maybe (like almost everyone outsi
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It serves us right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Interesting)
Jingoism continues to cloud people's thinking.
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, right... so basically we are trying to bring democracy to Iraq, but we do not tolerate dissent on such decision. Yup, it sound totally democratic to me!
BTW. All those people who were laughing at the French, have no idea of how much we owe to them (in the same manner they owe to us), they have never purchased French products (no French fries are not actually made in France, duh
Re:It serves us right (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't even need to read the rest of the thread.
Cake, eating of and having of (Score:5, Interesting)
Then Europe roundly condemned us for not joining in WW II fast enough, even tho that too was a purely European matter which was in fact jump started by the disastrous treaty, drafted by France, which ended WW I.
Not to mention that while Roosevelt was trying to help the Chinese, who Japan had invaded in 1931 and 1937, the Europeans couldn't be bothered with some trifle so far away.
Then the Suez canal fiasco, where Egypt nationalized that wonder of colonial days, Britain and France invaded to take it back
And who told the French that trying to recover Indochina after WW II ended was a mistake? Duhh
Then there's the Balkans again, 1990s, couple of purely European wars there
And where were the Dayton Accords signed? Hmmmm
Now I personally am not a big fan of Bush, or either gulf war. But by gum, the UN signed up in 1991 to cleanup Iraq, put in sanctions, rid it of the big nasty weapons
I personally am sick and tired of saving Eurpoe's ass. WW I, WW II, Suez, Balkans
Re:Cake, eating of and having of (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving aside the fact that the US was acting in its own interests, as much as those of its allies, in all the events you mention :
Isn't establishing a global positioning system doing just that? Aren't competition and diversity in the marketplace good things?
Re:Cake, eating of and having of (Score:5, Interesting)
You didn't in WWII the Rusians did by tying up the German forces on the Eastern front. By the time you turned up we'd won North Africa and the Battle of Britain, Hitler had given up on the invasion of Britain and had turned to the east hence the Russian involvment.
You did help financially because we were running out of money. Two and half years of fighting drains a country especially when it's being bombed regularly.
When you finally got involved, with typical US arogance and lack of control you cocked up. The Omaha beach landing was a fiasco because you ignored the advice of the Brits who had far more experience and who landed fairly safely. The scene at the start of Saving Private Ryan didn't happen elsewhere.
In the first Gulf war you did it again killing more Brits than the Iraqis and in the second you did it yet again.
From the Daily Mirror, Monday April 7th 2003
Brit Pilot's Punch-up
A Furious British Helicopter Pilot who came under "friendly fire" from American troops landed yards from them, leapt out and exchanged punches
with a US Marine.
The Chinook pilot shouted at him: "When was the last time you saw a f******* Iraqi in a helicopter?"
The pilot and the marine had to be pulled apart as American troops advanced on the north of Baghdad, according to US reports from US Central
Command in Qatar.
British military spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said: "I'm afraid it would be an RAF kind of thing to do. "These guys are not known for tolerating fools gladly."
And
The following was broadcast live on CNN on the 24th of March.
In front of camera is the CNN anchor. He is joined by three American military experts (one being a retired two-star general from the 'elite'
Delta Force) and an ex SAS soldier. Footage on side-screen shows Iraqi soldiers surrendering to coalition troops.
CNN Anchor: "We've no current verification as to whether these are US or British troops the Iraqis are surrendering to. "
Yank 1: "They look to be ours - only US troops wear boots like those."
Yank 2: "Indeed, and they appear to have the standard issue camouflage fatigues."
Yank 3 (Delta Force): "I'm not sure - we'll have to get close-up images of them to be 100%. We'll definitely be able to tell from the shape of their Kevlar helmets if they're ours."
Ex SAS: "I'm surprised to learn you're all experts. Since when did US forces carry the SA80 rifle as standard issue? Their DPMs could've been bought, as could their boots and webbing for that matter, so you're chasing rainbows if you can I.D them from their clothes!"
Anchor: "I think you're right."
Ex SAS: "Of course I'm bloody right - anyone with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to I.D a British soldier by his rifle unless he's special forces! Not to mention the fact that they're covering all their arcs of fire properly, not shouting "woo yeah!" randomly and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention of their orders!"
...At this point one of the Americans pulls his mic off and leaves the floor. The other two look very uncomfortable...
Anchor: "I think we can safely say that the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages..."
It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:4, Informative)
Source: http://www.geod.emr.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/gps-13_e
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:3, Interesting)
Receiver 1 is fixed. It is hooked into a computer system that outputs correction data in real time (RTK or real time kinematic), radio recievers coupled with another GPS receiver provide spatially correct location for both Horizontal (XY) and Vertical (Z). Many companies provide solutions for individual-level tracking.
Trimble [trimble.com]
Leica [leica-geosystems.com]
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:4, Insightful)
Even a delay of a couple of seconds can be fatal if you doing 200km/h at the wrong height
Would you care to explain that? It makes no sense to me at all. Why would GPS matter at all, in that situation? GPS is horribly inaccurate at calculating elevation, especially compared to barometric or radio altimeters. Never mind the fact that your absolute elevation isn't important - it's your relative elevation about the ground that will prevent you from smacking into it, and that's something that GPS will never be able to tell you...
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Interesting)
You haven't ever met an AW guy then? Believe me, these guys are so anally retentive it's unbelivable - they would consider 2 feet to be dangerously out of spec. This is one of the reasons why planes don't land on GPS, or INS, they do so with the Mk.1 eyeball or ILS - both of which are rather accurate and capable of landing a plane right on the centerline - which _is_ required to save your life should you have a tire go, especially in a 747 landing at a normal airport.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point of surveyors knowing the latitude and longitude to sub-centimeter accuracy? Continental drift, measured in centimeters per year, will invalidate the reading in only a few months.
One hypothetical case: On My 26, 2003, at 10:55pm EDT, this "x" on this marker was located with super-accurate GPS to be at precisely XX.xxxxx North and YY.yyyyy West. Continental drift at this location is estimated to be 2.7503 cm/year toward 289.57 degrees (approximately WNW) from true north. Calculation of the current location of this marker is left as an exercise to the reader.
Another hypothetical case: Your honor, when I bought my house ten years ago, I had the property lines surveyed to sub-centimeter accuracy with super-accurate GPS. I had it re-surveyed last month and discovered that my neighbor has moved his fence 45 cm (or 18.5 inches) onto my property. I can't figure out how he did it; he covered up all signs of the move very well. However, I have had both surveys validated and authenticated, and I want you to order him to move his fence back where it belongs.
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:3, Insightful)
So for example, your second hypothetical case is easily dismissed---because if your neighbor's fence moved 45cm, then so did the walls of your house, and the fence on the other side of
Re:It's not just about challenging the US military (Score:5, Insightful)
I am almost willing to bet yes for the first question, but no for the second. Maybe even no for the first. But then I turn the tables and say since you might answered the questions in that fashion why should you expect that we do otherwise? Seriously! As sad as it sounds right now there is a President that has done nothing more than make the hawks of any government happy!
Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:5, Insightful)
Europe being a set of quite sepperate countries, and the US ruling the world with its rough hand and feeling good about it self.
Or the EU creating a super country to equal that of the US and not relient on the US investment, army or technology. Unfortunately in 20-50 years it might just take someone shooting a turkey to create a nasty global war.
Im in favour of the satelite system but I hope we dont get too big headed about it.
Re:Plans started long before "recent events" (Score:3, Interesting)
As to Israel, they are in the West Bank as an occupying power and are simultaneously trying to 'colonise' it. This is an unpleasant policy which is (in Sharon's case, deliberately) asking for trouble.
Sharon came to power in the wake of Barak's failure and the unrest generated by his walk on the Temple Mount. Since he came to power, the Israeli military has tended to attack something whenever P
Peace? (Score:5, Funny)
Er, I you mean good thing for world peace.
Unless you want to imply that the USmilitary is going to attack europe to stop them from lauching its satelittes...
Re:Peace? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the "bad thing" is that the rest of the world hasn't been saying "fuck you" loud enough. Unfortunately my fellow countrymen and women apparently don't seem to see there is a difference between saying it to the U.S. versus saying it to the current administration.
Even worse, my fellow citizens apparently haven't paused long enough in handing over their freedoms to consider that they should be saying the same thing.
Re:Peace? (Score:5, Insightful)
The eyes of Americans glaze over, citizen by citizen, getting that glassy fanatic's look. If this continues, we will soon be the number one threat to world peace - if we aren't already there.
Why, today I heard a senator describe Canada as a 'safe haven for terrorists', demanding that something should be done to 'force' the Canadians into taking their 'duty to world peace and security' seriously. Goddamn if it didn't sound like some asshole prepping the ground work for a fucking invasion...if Americans could accept *that* then I'd say the world is well and truly screwed.
Max
Re:Peace? (Score:3, Interesting)
And an anti-satellite laser (Score:3, Informative)
Combined receivers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Combined receivers (Score:2)
Re:Combined receivers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Combined receivers (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why differential gps is more accurate - it tackles the systematic error.
I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly a system of satellites that provide location data will be an excellent counter to US military supremacy. After this coup, no doubt the EU will look into building the 'Euronet' (aka the
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU is growing rapidly, its population already exceeds that of the US, and it won't be long before its economic strength does too (if it doesn't already). Most European countries have experienced first-hand the real meaning of war on their own soil (think 9-11 thousands of times over), and because of this they seek to create a world where justice doesn't have to be dispensed through Cruise missiles and Cuban concentration camps.
Re:Still creating jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still creating jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, sorry - I forgot, in America those that get AIDS deserve it for being God-hating fags. Welcome to the new world order.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe because you're wrong? There are all kinds of arguments I could make regarding the war. However, I agree with one of the previous posters that this has more to do with American power in general. The Eurocrats are jealous of the fact that the U.S. has the power to act in its own interest with or without anyone's help, which makes them feel particularly irrelevant. Their response to this irrelevancy is to form a more federal E.U. with a common foreign policy a
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
In practice, American arrogance is altogether ridiculous, and given recent and past behaviour, the US is, I would say, more than likely to do things like break GPS leaving everyone else in the lurch.
Contrary to what you may believe, the interest in a common EU isn't in competing with the US. You never know, there's a danger it may be that it's the best for all of Europe, and Europe knows it, and that's why we're doing it.
We would all love to get together with the US, and provide various decent global systems... But the US simply keeps proving that it isn't trustworthy.
Flamebait, I'm sure. But The arrogance I've witnessed in the 8 months since I moved here is beyond anything I had ever been able to imagine it would be. And yes, I'm pissed and even embarrassed to be an American citizen.
Gary (-;
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Most Europeans (and many Americans) are concerned because they want to live in a world where nations obey the rule of law, not a world where the sheriff is whoever has the biggest gun, which is the world the US is rapidly creating. And lets remember that the UN was created by those brave Americans and Europeans who fought and won the Second World War, and it is being demolished by people who for the most part never risked their own lives at war, nor those of their family.
The UN is not democratic and should go away. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, just like the allies went to war with Hitler because they were "jealous" of him. Get out of the playground politics and into the real world pal!
No, I don't equate Bush with Hitler, but I am making the point that just because you disagree with the schoolyard bully doesn't imply that you are "jealous" of their strength.
Even more importantly, counteracting the US isn't about counteracting Bush, but about the next US government, and the one after, and the one after that. The US has shown that it is
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Irrelevant is a complete understatement. A more accurate picture would be scared and appalled.
Most people in Europe generally perceive that the war in Iraq was for the benefit of the US companies that will be given access to the oil in Iraq, and for the benefit of Dubya, who gets a war that satisfies his need for revenge and to distract from the fact that the war on terror isn't going too well (Bin Laden still free, Afghanistan fucked and on the edge on tribal warfare again, all sympathy for US from 911 having been dissapated by American agresssion).
We're also scared and appalled by the arrogance that the US administration has shown with it's mistreatment of France and Germany. These are countries that have been strongly allied with America for fifty years on most global issues. Now because of a single issue that they 'dared' disagree with the US on, the Bush administration has been making noises about how they no longer consider them to really be allies.
This is completely insane behaviour - If the US doesn't consider the countries of Western Europe to be it's natural allies, then it suggests the US will follow a path of having no allies in the world (apart from Mr Poodle Blair) and using it's sheer economic and military might to get whatever it wants.
It appears that the only way to even be allowed to negotiate with the US, is to have enough economic or military clout to resist the US directly. And that's one good reason for the Galileo system to go ahead.
Two other points, Europe is not jealous of the ability of the US to wage war anywhere in the world against any country - after having so many wars waged across Europe we are broadly opposed to all wars. This really is a cultural difference between the citizens of the US and the EU, probably because apart from the American Civil war, the US has not seen or had to bear the horrors of wars at close hand, and with the 'patriotic' news coverage of the Iraq war, you still won't.
Finally, France opposed the war both for it's own economic reasons and because it thought that the US was trying to manipulate the UN with false intelligence on the WMDs, massively overestimating Iraqs capabilities. Remember Colin Powell telling the UN how many thousands of litres of Anthrax the Iraqis had, and that they could assemble a nuclear bomb in a few hours ? Well turns out France was right and Colin Powell was either lying, or just repeating bullshit concocted by people in the US intelligence agencies that wanted an excuse to invade Iraq.
End result of the US decision to invade ? Thousands of Iraqi civilians dead (not to count tens of thousands of Iraqi army personnel), no WMDs found and the chances of terrorist attacks have increased as people see the US as invading and subjugating another muslim country.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you hate it when someone completely proves your point:
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of s
Re:I think I'm going crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Compared to the prior 20 or so years yes.
Nixon pulled the US out of Vietnam.
Nixon opened up to China.
Nixon was responsible for de-escalating the cold war during the era of "detante".
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
Well, in Europe alone, the US was supported by Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. These are just from the "Gang of Eight" and the "Vilnius Group". There was also some support from other countries as well, I think (Ireland and the Netherlands?). Among European governments, at any rate, there was more of a consensus for the US than against.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
You may mark me as flamebait or redundant, depending on your point of view, but most of the countries you mentioned are in deep poverty or have just come out of very conservative governments (or at least their new government wants to look more "modern") and their topmost priority is to feel that they're important in this new playground they just joined, so they'll just play sweet to the school-bully and hope for some candy.
[/flamebait]
Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy an
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of them have lived under leftist dictatorships, which may be why they can sympathize with other people in similar circumstances, and would support freeing them from such a fate.
their topmost priority is to feel that they're important
Are you describing France here?
Then don't forget the big protests all over England, Italy and Spain.
Those were organized by Socialist and Communist organi
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:4, Informative)
I know that for example the carribean countries were given the choice of either voting for the war, not voting, or having all aid cut to them.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1990, the coalition consisted of 34 countries, the vast majority of whom sent troops, including Arab states like Afghanistan (funny enough), Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, as well as nations such as the US, the UK, Canada, Germany, and France.
The vast majority of this support was in troops, material, and cash.
In 2003, the "Coalition of the Willing" was comprised of a varied number of states, depending on what you consider "support" -- in the case of a number of states listed by Powell, their only constributions were public statements of support; no material, no troops, no money.
Prominent "Coalition of the Willing" members include the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Iceland, Palau, and the Solomon Islands -- none of which even have enough of a military complex to defend their own borders, much less contribute to a massive undertaking as this. Colombia, totally dependant on the US for military aid against the insurgency that controls a third of it's territory, is also listed -- another "political support only" membership. Turkey was also listed by Powell as a coalition member. Japan, another member, promised only post-conflict support.
Other luminaries of the coalition include Uzbekistan, a totaltarian dictatorship; Eritrea and Ethiopia, both dependant on the US for the cease-fire between their nations (and both utterly destitute); Uganda and Rwanda, ah to be in THAT company; and various eastern european nations again dependant on the US, the IMF, and the World Bank to finance their economies.
Pretty telling that the only arab country involved is Kuwait, eh? Oh, I forgot -- Afghanistan, of course! We must have pulled some Special Forces off of Karzai's security detail for that one...
all a big stretch from '91 when even Italy was sending thousands of troops. "Coalition" my ass.
Re:I think it's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The Shiite Muslim majority who have been protesting for the US to leave since 3 days after capitulation?
Hey, we don't want to spend our tax dollars to rebuild a country that got fucked up on account of the stupidity of its former leader.
Oooh, boy. Do you really think it was Saddam's fault? Yes, he was a fairly cruel (not even particularly cruel) leader, but remember that he was also the only Iraqi leader, and in fact the only leader in the entire Middle East to cast aside all the blind Muslim law and doctrine, and established a very prosperous welfare state. They had health care that rivalled your own.
Then came Iran, and he mistakenly thought he could attack amidst the new Islamic threat rising, and expand his Pax Arabia vision (a good one, in my opinion. Much better than the "so weak you cant do shit" version the US prefers). He was wrong.
All his neighbors had lent him large sums, and he had to repay, but all the oil derricks were destroyed. Then, Kuwait and the Sauds sold his debts to the IMF (or maybe World Bank, I dont recall which one), resulting in huge interest hikes. Basically, he was sold out by his neighbors.
And here's the best part. His country was weakened, but he knew he could take Kuwait, and utilize their oil to rebuild. Note that they had previously destroyed his credit. If you don't think revenge is a sufficient cause, I suggest you take a look at all the French's mustard unsold at the supermarket next time you go shopping, and think a bit harder.
So, he was planning to attack Iraq, and the US knew this. April Glaspie, the US ambassador to Iraq, greenlighted the fucking invasion. She basically said "We won't do a thing, have your way." Link. [whatreallyhappened.com]
So, who is stupid? Saddam for taking the word of the people who had so far been his good allies (billions of dollars worth of chemical, biological and conventional weapons), or the US for basically backstabbing him, for reasons unclear. I personally think it was an example. Of what the US could do to any Arab nation there, but, that's just me. You no doubt of course think that Saddam sealed his own fate when Satan inhabited his body and shot fire from his arse, igniting the Shiite neighborhoods of Basra.
May as well buy their oil and let them use the money to rebuild their own shit the way they want it.
Hahahaha, the way they want it!? LMAO!
In case, you haven't noticed, American firms have been getting all the contracts, and they are more expensive than hiring local, or even Uzbecki firms to do the same work. They can spend it the way they want, of course. As long as they spend it in America.
So, instead of spending xxx million to repair all of Iraq, they have to shell out xxx million to repair the sewage system. Brilliant. Could corporate welfare be any better than this?
("Free to turn in their previously legal firearms ") For the protection of our troops/liberators (or SS/Occupiers whatever you would like to believe).
Hmmm. Apparently then, they dont have the choice to, in your own words, "make a choice" on their government.
Tell me, if they appreciate your imposed democracy, why would you worry about those guns?
I agree with the other stuff. You do need to enforce law while the transition takes place. However, I doubt that America will allow a transition to another Shariah government to happen easily.
I'm just hoping that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan. Forgotten, abandoned, exploited. Hopefully, and doubtfully, the media has a longer attention span.
Competition is good for consumers! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well done, EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps at some point in the future, both satellite systems will be merged into an internationally-run outfit. Good standardized functionality as well as a symbol of building what President Clinton referred to as an "integrated global community."
Not a new project (Score:4, Informative)
The Galileo homepage [eu.int], in english.
Good Thing for Europe (Score:2, Troll)
This, of course, rubs everyone the wrong way and is probably why we are so, um, disliked in many parts of the world.
We have this weird political morality that makes people very uncomfortable. On one hand, we impose Hollywood/TV on the world (OK, "Impose" is the wrong word) and then we also have the high-falutin right-wing chris
Re:Good Thing for Europe (Score:2)
Let Europe spend the money, with an economy that makes the American look great.
Great Name (Score:5, Interesting)
World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it isn't just European bombs that could be guided by the European satellite system, but anyone's bombs: Iraq, North Korea, etc. So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same. By the time they reach a consensus and turn off their system, the battle will be
Re:World peace? (Score:5, Interesting)
I somehow doubt that the ultimate motivation for the system is for guiding bombs. Yes, of course it's a factor, but Europeans seem to be culturally more opposed to war than the US.
So, if the U.S. is in the middle of combat, and turns off public GPS to thwart emeny guided bombs, I can imagine a bunch of European beaurocrats sitting in Brussels trying to decide whether or not they should do the same.
Well, perhaps this will make the US think twice before going off to wage war that most of the rest of the world opposes. If Europe should choose to go to war (not very likely), I think that the decision would be made easily (if it will be possible to achieve at all).
Is it somehow better to have absolute power in the hands of some kid trying to play dad?
Re:World peace? (Score:3, Insightful)
What allies? The us will act unilaterally anyway. Sure we had "allies" like jamaica and somalia but they didn't actually do anything did they?
Also consider that US has a very stange concept of an ally. Our allies are only allies as long as they don't disagree. France went from being an ally to being an enemy in less then a month.
Europe now realizes that America is no friend or
Bad for world peace? Sure. (Score:2)
Kjella
trully a shame (from a disgusted European) (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not even competition, it is simply a continued waste of money
Some European Politicians didn't understood yet what Alexis of Tocqueville (himself a French) found two hundred years ago and still think that Europe must, whatever it takes, be the Center of the Universe
Imagine i
Re:trully a shame (from a disgusted European) (Score:4, Insightful)
As a European taxpayer, I applaud the plan to launch Gallileo! Competition is a good thing. This will also create jobs, and in the process of creating it, we will gain more experience in the space industry which will probably be a vital area in the future. Hey, guess what the more space infrastructure we get, the more likely we are to get to Mars.
Also, let's not forget that USEuropean relations are at a low. Being dependent on a system that HAS been switched off in the past is foolish. Just imagine the United States decide to re-implement selective availability - 22 meters accuracy just doesn't cut it. Imagine a ship entering a harbour being 20 meters off to one side. That's enough to ram something.
No, we need Gallileo, and we need not stop here. We need to become independent from the Americans, so in an ideal we can be equal partners and don't get pushed around by whatever weird ideas the US president of the day has.
The Americans who "saved Democracy twice" in Europe in the 20th Century are NOT the Americans running the US today. I will not get into a debate about what's fscked up with America today, but the list is truely long and growing by the month.
Europe cannot be the "center of the universe" (if that's what we want) without a reliable, working, accurate satellite navigation system. Even if you discount military uses, it's just too damn important for commerce today.
Finally, your "always the same gang" smells of jealousy. Yes, France in Germany are the "center of Europe". Together, we have about a third of the population, and I have no idea how much of the industrial output, but let's face it, it's a lot. Yes, France and Germany are in the limelight recently (The UK would, if it chose to participate in the EU instead of in the US). So, what's your point? Are you pissed that Portugal is not the center of attention? The idea behind the EU is that there is Europe of which everybody is a part. If you want your country to play a greater role, push your politicans to do something.
Sorry, but it's people like you why the EU will fail. Put aside your damn jealousy and realize that we are one continent, one people; we are free to live and work anywhere we chose, travel anywhere.
I am not German, I am European. If the EU issued passports and direct citizenship, I'd be the first in line.
Sorry to rant, but you it really pisses me off that we finally seize an opportunity, that the EU finally gets off their collective butts and actually DOES something that will benefit people, and which is a cool project on top of it, and you just cry foul and complain.
What an Orignal Name! (Score:3, Funny)
Can't Europe do something orginal. Sure copy GPS, but do you need to copy our mission/ship names too?
Re:What an Orignal Name! (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't redundancy a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a complex system, and if computer science has taught us nothing else (and it hasn't), we know that complex systems can never be immune to failure.
If there were a totally redundant system of different design, I for one would want to require planes and ships to carry recievers for BOTH systems. Then you can check for agreement or be in much better shape if either system failed for whatever reason.
- Peter
(extra points to anyone who sees my failed attempt at a Simpsons reference)
Re:Isn't redundancy a Good Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just something to think about.
Selective availability vs obfuscation (Score:5, Informative)
Selective availability is the capability of 'turning off' GPS in specific geographic regions during times of war or for any other reason. They did it in Afghanistan last year, and they can do it whenever and wherever they want, though it's on an incident by incident basis.
Re:Selective availability vs obfuscation (Score:3, Informative)
Bad for world peace. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is the point of the EU. When large powerful countries like Germany are part of an integrated Europe, they're not going to have political differences that involve invading another part of the EU, since that would be like chopping off your own leg.
I think the more integrated the world is economically and socially, the better off we are (this is the upside to economic globalisation). It's just right now the US just doesn't get it and it going around like the class bully. The other good reason for the EU to exist is to balance out an overly strong US.
backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place
You mean like the Bush administration?
Re:Bad for world peace. (Score:3, Insightful)
A bit of weasel-wording... (Score:3, Insightful)
The European Space Agency (ESA) said in a statement that an agreement had been reached among its member states which finalised the conditions for their participation in the project.
"The European Space Agency is now able to finalise the conditions for participation in the Galileo navigation program and to approve the Galileo joint undertaking foundation act to be soon signed by ESA and the European Union," ESA's statement said.
"Now able to finalize the conditions for participation"? Sounds to me like scheduling a meeting to discuss the meeting where they finalize the agenda items to be discussed in the main meeting.
Good luck to them, but I doubt they'll succeed.
Begging the question or what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I appreciate that this question is intended to provoke a debate, but it seems to me to narrow that debate through its phrasing. The implication seems to be that the US are the Guardians of World Peace (TM), and that we pesky Europeans have no business sticking our noses in when it makes the Yanks feel a little less in control.
Given the assumption that any removal of absolute control of some useful technology from the US is potentially "a bad thing for world peace", can anybody possibly point us to the evidence for Iraq's possession of WsMD, given that the Guardians of World Peace (TM) [whitehouse.gov] used them as their sole justification for starting a war?
Or could it be that the US should have listened to what the European states (with the sorry exception of my own nation) were trying to tell them about making unjustified assumptions? Might it not be a good thing if more than one kid in the playground has control of the baseball bat?
Re:Begging the question or what? (Score:3, Funny)
The Fun has Only Begun (Score:3, Funny)
US != Peace (Score:3, Insightful)
While the US is not perfectly secure, the country is surrounded by water and 2 friendly nations. I can only imagine how tense it could be to live in Turkey, Serbia or even Germany right now. The European Union may prove to be the new stabilizing force in the world now that the US and USSR are not fighting over the way things should be.
In a few years we may realize the biggest threat to war is a nation that fears nothing and is sees nothing wrong with destroying other nations as long as it serves their interests.
Trusting the US. (Score:4, Informative)
The United States has "promised" us that they will invade us if "we" ever convict an American of such things.
So, the Europeans should trust their friendly American "friends", who openly refuse to be subjected to the internationally agreed upon "police"? Right.
There are always "differences" between countries. We think that shooting someone for being on your property is outrageous. You think that allowing small quantities of drugs is outrageous.
If at one point in time we (any European country) end up with a difference of opinion that the Americans find important, we'll certainly be refused the right to use the GPS system in a conflict situation.
Also, should anything go wrong with GPS, it's nice to have a backup. I mean how big is the chance that suddenly the Americans end up unable to launch (replacement) satelites for over a year? Only happened twice so far....
Re:Welcome back to Superpower Politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Superpower? They have a lot of internal divisions and disagreements to deal with before they get to that level.
and it is unsurprising that it is seeking independence of technical material.
I think the European GPS is a waste of money. Unless they anticipate a U.S. vs Europe war then I don't see this is the best use of limited resources.
On the up side I think it'll be cool if we see GPS receivers that receive BOTH signals and ca
Re:Great (Score:4, Informative)
Not the army.
Re:Waste of Resources (Score:2)
I'm guessing they will have a $$$ licensing fee on the devices to recoup the cost.
Sorry, its necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
I think its common knowledge that the US uses all its muscle when it wants something, and we're not just talking military here, but trade. Perhaps the EU believes this will be a boon for them during negotiations with American corporations when discussing stickly matters. No one wants to hear, "So how many GPS devices are you using in Europe right now?" from a high-level American office holder.
On top if it, and probably the main reason for this is control. The EU is going to connect all their expensive toys to GPS and have no control over it. What if its a bad "GPS day" in that part of the world? The Americans have priveledged information on how well GPS is working.
Also, this will create a Galileo market which will help offset the cost. Sure, the Europeans could be buying GPS toys, but after this thing is working guess who will be selling the Galileo toys first and how brand/country loyalty will play out in this multi-billion(?) dollar industry.
The final argument and I think this stands on it own, is autonomy. The EU is not the US-lite. They're their own association and if they want to get off the US teat, the better. Heh, I'd love to see a poll on how Europeans feel about paying for this. I think many wouldn't mind just to be that much less attached to Uncle Sam.
Whatever happens, it could not be a bigger failure than iridium, so lets not cry "financial crisis in the EU" just yet.
So are the EU's space programs "unnecessary" too?
I think we should be glad for redundency and competition right now while most of space program is in dry dock.
Re:Trust Us! (Score:3, Insightful)
No this is just the EU feeling it has to have something so it can be considered a player. Much like like Germany felt it needed colonies and a blue water navy at the turn of the centur
Re:Trust Us! (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose the existing GPS system were controlled by France. Do you think anybody in the U.S. would say "The French won't turn on selective availability! We're dependent on each other's goodwill! We can trust them!"
Accuracy (Score:3, Informative)
The protocol of the satellites is hardly improvable, except maybe increasing the frequency of transmissions to more than 1 per second.
Re:what a phenominal waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, when the US goes and dumps huge amounts into the military-industrial complex, doing the same bloody thing, that's "encouraging growth" and "creating jobs", both of which are generally considered good.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
If France, sorry, the EU wants its copy of GPS, the U.S. will be ine with it. Until it's used to attack the U.S. At that point, it will cease to exist.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it means you are about to get rid of Boeing the company? Their products were used in terrorist attacks on US, after all.
Re:Too expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, no one should _rely_ on GPS, because it can fail and drop out any time. In aviation, for example, where a high degree of fault tolerance and backup systems for everything are needed, GPS plays only a tiny role. But still, millions of people depend on it. Rescue teams use GPS-based navigation systems to get somewhere fast without getting lost, but can only fall back to paper maps if it fails because they don't have the resources to set up a backup system, et cetera et cetera. If you can't imagine a scenario in which someone in Europe needs sattelite navigation, but the US is blocking it, you must be an idiot. You're hitting straw men there. Europe did not take any actions, besides diplomatical ones, to stop US action in Iraq. The majority of people over here are still asking themselves whether it was really justified to liberate the Iraqis against their will (where are the weapons of mass destrucion, by the way?), or if it was just a PR campaign for Dubya, so it was the duty of their official representatives to give their opinion a voice. Galileo has absolutely nothing to do with interfering with US actions, it is not, and was never, intended to get in the way of US forces. The only relation to recent events is that the USA are waging wars and threatening to switch off civilian GPS every few years, so it became apparent that it's a bad idea to make onself depend on their goodwill. You're confusing politics with war mongering there. Besides, Europe doesn't raise the claim to be the _leader_ of the world. I don't think that the US would be delighted if Europe would compete for their role as world police. Besides, they're letting the whole world use GPS anyway. This only changes when they fear the system could be helping some 'rogues' to do evil things, and in this case, they don't care about Europe or anyone a bit, as we saw again recently. Expensive? Why do you care? It's not going to cost the US anything; to the contrary, Europe will probably import some parts from the US. And it's certainly not as expensive as certain US activities which arguably have less merit.
Re:GLONASS Dead? (Score:3, Informative)
There is enough Glonass still functioning that given a little luck one can still get a time sync and position about 50% of the time.
-- Multics
And yes... google is my friend.