 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
"I assume every field where the US has no monopoly is "screwed up" for you ?"
Oh get real. Why even say something like this when you know it not to be true?
None of the markets in which I deal (pesticides, consumer electronics, computer peripherals) even remotely resemble a US monopoly. The US doesn't have a monopoly in GPS equipment. Indeed, the Japanese dominate, with the US a respectable second.
"Veryone with the money and the know-how is."
This isn't true. By and large, the US targets very general technology markets, not specific ones. For instance, rapid ammortization of R&D benefits all technology players irrespective of market. This is good. If the government said that it would quicken ammortization for GPS equipment makers specifically, that would be bad.
edit: Also, I have no problem with people developing new tech on the government's dime. It's hard enough as it is. But this isn't new tech. It represents no innovation. Rather, it's an attempt to steal a market position off of the innovation of others.
Do you honestly think that innovation is served by Galileo?
Last edited by DanS on 19-03-2002 at 21:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
"In the hope that you will finally explain what gets screwed up how."
It's pretty simple. Technology companies need to be able to make decisions on innovation without a cap on the payoff. Governments do not follow the rules of the market, rather politics, so it introduces a lot of uncertainty into the innovation process and makes much innovation not worthwhile.
"But on the system."
Hasn't stopped the Japanese.
"What is US government research spending ? 30-50 billion $ from the Pentagon alone ? And this is not going to "specific" projects ?"
See AS's argument above.
"What makes you so sure of that ?"
OK, show me that it does represent innovation.
"Europe shall build no satellites, because it's old russian... oh, wait, mostly german.... tech ? What's so bad about two systems ?"
We stole the German scientists fair and square and put massive amounts of money into it ourselves.
And why would Europe subsidize specific commercial satellite projects that replicate services already provided? It's anti-competitive.
Last edited by DanS on 20-03-2002 at 21:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
KH: In short, I don't know, since it's impossible to put the US in Europe's shoes. The US has the political will to spend $400 billion+ on defense and the tools we use are mainly to project power (air, sea). But it's a fair hypothetical and a couple of factors stick in my mind.
The US is bound to Europe by the NATO alliance. Unless Europe/Canada anticipate an erosion of this alliance, they don't have to worry about anything for now.
So this brings up the question of timing. An alternative system could be built by Europe at any time they feel threatened, within a fairly tight timeframe. Looked at another way, any military Euro spent on Galileo should be weighed against potentially important military innovation or reform (opportunity cost).
Europe, ex-Britain, doesn't really have uses for the military tech in 2008. The military budgets are relatively small, and not geared toward tech introduction. But even if Europe did have large tech-heavy budgets, it might not pursue this technology due to different military doctrines than the US.
Lastly, if Europe were looking out for its own security, it might spend that $3 billion to innovate GPS tech within within its military doctrine. The US has already done a lot of this, as can be seen by extensive use of GPS in aircraft and the like. Maybe Europe would come up with a completely different set of GPS tools.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:18
|
|
point is not that we feel "threathened" by the US, but that we want to become less dependent on the US. That's the main reason this is being pushed forward by, mainly, the French (along with others). NATO is all good and well, but we don't want to become American "vassals" (as said by several european politicians).
Also, a unified european system will aid in the unification proces of Europe. If we want to become a world player, we should minimize our relience on foreign facilities and equipment. We should build our own systems and build our own facilities and equipment. That was the whole point of the Eurofighter, Airbus, etc. and now Galileo. What would be the point of European nations working together, if we all just run to the US for our aircraft, guns, GPS systems, etc?
Plus, Europeans may have a need for a more accurate GPS system. Right now, only the US military can use the accurate GPS, while the rest, including the Europeans, are stuck with less accurate GPS. Since it's unlikely the US will allow us to use the same system as the US military, we have little choice but to build our own.
quote:
Unless Europe/Canada anticipate an erosion of this alliance, they don't have to worry about anything for now. |
We do. At this rate, NATO will be finished before Galileo will be put in service.
quote:
And why would Europe subsidize specific commercial satellite projects that replicate services already provided? |
See above. Galileo is more accurate than GPS. Those accurate services are only provided to the American military, not the Europeans.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
A GPS system works by constantly broadcasting the precise time. By comparing 3+ times with each other a small computer chip in your GPS receiver can deterimine its location by comparing the differences between lightspeed delay on the signals. The US GPS system broadcasts two datastreams: 1 for civilian/foreign militaries, 1 for its own military. The broadcast for its own military is encrypted (certainly under a varying coding), and is more precise (by a factor of 10) than the civilian broadcast (probably also encrypted for legal reasons). By shutting down the civilian broadcast it can restrict use of GPS to its own troops. GPS has made money; IIRC, you must pay a license fee to the US military on every GPS system you build.
EDIT: You could build a pirate GPS fairly easily, but if you tried to sell them in any quantity you'd probably find yourself staring down the barrels of a fairly painful lawsuit.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 21-03-2002 at 01:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Where'd you hear this? |
Here off AOL news.
Possible al Qaeda-Somalia link found in Afghan cave
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - In a possible long-range link to al Qaeda, U.S. troops searching an icy Afghan cave this week found a global positioning receiver taken from a decorated U.S. soldier killed in Somalia in 1993, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
The name of Master Sgt. Gary Gordon, one of 18 Army special forces troops killed in a firefight with rebels in Mogadishu nine years ago, was found on both the satellite receiver and a pouch that it was in, defense officials told reporters.
Pentagon officials have long suspected that the deaths of the Americans in Somalia, detailed in the recent movie "Black Hawk Down," was planned by supporters of fugitive al Qaeda guerrilla leader Osama bin Laden.
Gordon, of Lincoln, Maine, was one of two U.S. soldiers posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor - the nation's highest military award - after the Mogadishu action. He was 33 when he died.
Air Force Brig. Gen. John Rosa told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that the name "G. Gordon" was on the hand-held global positioning device, which allows the person holding it to determine his exact position within yards (metres).
The device was found in a cave high in Afghanistan's eastern mountains near Gardez, where U.S.-led forces this month attacked what were believed to be hundreds of regrouping al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the five-month-old Afghan war.
"That's a good question - one we've been doing some thought about," Rosa replied when asked if the device could establish a link between al Qaeda in Somalia and in Afghanistan.
AN OBVIOUS TIE?
"We've said all along that we suspected Al Qaeda of being a worldwide network," he said. "In fact, this piece we currently think originated from Somalia will obviously tie - could obviously tie - al Qaeda to Somalia."
But he also said that the device could have been stolen in Somalia, sold on the black market and then somehow ended up in Afghanistan, where thousands of anti-Western al Qaeda fighters were trained in guerrilla camps.
Rosa, a senior operations officer on the U.S. military's Joint Staff, said the receiver was a "civilianized" version of such devices that are now commonly carried by U.S. troops.
On Oct. 3, 1993, when Gordon was killed, the military did not have many such devices. But those used at the time by hunters and boaters to determine their positions were often bought by American troops.
"Back in '93, the units were a little bit bigger and more cumbersome," the general said.
"And I remember a lot of our special forces folks would buy the off-the-shelf ones, the small ones."
He said he thought the device found in Afghanistan was turned on but did not know if it was working.
"It would help in command-and-control," Rosa said. "It gives your exact elevation and location. So for command and control, it would be able to help them."
Rosa and Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that Gordon's family had been notifed that the device was found.
Gordon and Army Sgt. First Class Randall Shughart, 35, of Lincoln, Nebraska, were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery in connection with the Mogadishu action, one of the worst military incidents involving U.S. troops since the Vietnam War.
14:43 03-20-02
Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
"France (IIRC, the biggest military spender in the EU) is not in NATO. France is also the strongest EU-member wrt the aerospace industry."
They are a political member of NATO and participate in most NATO actions, including Afghanistan. We would be equally on the hook to defend France by providing her the necessary tools, including GPS, as we would with Germany.
"I honestly see NATO dissolving (or at least weakening) over the next few decades. It might be a friendly departure, but the reason for its existence no longer exists. Europe seems to be attempting to reassert itself militarily, the US seems tired with having to explain itself to soft Europeans when it's the world's unquestioned superpower. You're left with a polarisation of the NATO partners, and without a serious outside threat to maintain cohesiveness people will just get fed up."
While the eventual breakup of NATO is certainly possible, there is no indication that it is imminent. So you still have a trade-off going on here. Why doesn't Europe spend the money on something innovative upon which the US will rely? Surprise us!
"but that we want to become less dependent on the US"
MarkL: Well, allies rely on each other. The US relies on Europe politically, if not always militarily.
"Why would you, as individuals, have a problem with Galileo? Some of you seem to be downplaying the idea as a bad one, but I can't quite work out why."
Paul: Because Galileo represents an unfair subsidy to the European handset and other equipment makers.
"We just do not feel comfortable with the only system (apart from some russian stuff) in the hands of a hostile entity."
Roland: Just get back from the pub? 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2002 20:15
|