Russian GPS alternative near completion, Putin and dog celebrate
By Evan Blass 
posted Dec 26th 2007 11:29AM
posted Dec 26th 2007 11:29AM
Russia has announced the successful launch of three additional GLONASS navigation satellites on Christmas Day, bringing the total number of functional units to 18, and reportedly scaring the beejezus out of Santa and his reindeer during liftoff. The GPS competitor -- first begun in the Soviet era and only recently revived after years of post-collapse neglect -- is now theoretically capable of providing coverage to the entire Russian territory, with First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov claiming that the first compatible consumer devices will be available in the middle of next year. By 2010 Russia plans to open the system up to outside nations as well, contributing to an eventual three- or even four-system global market, and ensuring that President and Man of the Year Vladimir Putin will finally achieve his stated goal of being able to pinpoint his treasured black lab Koni anywhere in the world.
nice
How does a man desperately trying to bring Communism back to Russia, get 'Person of the Year'?
Because Time Magazine along with many in the New York print industry (i.e. left leaning) love the idea of communism and complete government control. They will just say they are progressive, but that is just code word for liberal which is code word for communist.
It doesn't matter if they are a "good" or "bad" person, it depends on the impact the person has had. Even Hitler was Time's Person of the Year in 1939.
kjb434: so liberals (who want no goverment control) are really the communists (who advocate sharing everything and no private property) who are really the progressists (who advocate private property and industrialization to benefit the individual)
Dude... get a clue
If ignorance is a bliss, you are in heaven
If you read the Times article about it... you would know why Putin was chosen. He isn't about being nice, he is about trying to stabilize a country with the largest stockpile of WMDs, second in oil production after Saudi Arabia, and imagine what happens if that region destabilizes.
Also, they are probably scared of him. The man was KGB and fights AK wielding men with only his bare hands and a brooding look. I would be scared too.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690757_1696150,00.html
According to "unofficial" sources Putin is worth $41 billion. His _watch_ is $60K Patek Philippe. The last thing he wants in Russia is communism. He just wants to control and feed the the herd somewhat, and he's succeeding.
cuz they are douches.
Come to think of it, while Russia and China trying (or tried) to bring capitalism into their country, US has been desperately bringing communism into the country and if that keeps going, douchebags like bush and cheney could end up on Time's oh-so-awesome person of the year, then global warming will come and kill us all as Gore sits in his Moon base laughing at us, "hahaha i told you so suckers"
nah, that wont happen...
SuperPrime:
I'll assume you are from overseas where liberal has a different connotation. American liberals strive to create an all controlling nanny state that decides what is best for it's citizens. They aren't particularly concerned with some victimless crimes, but certainly do desire massive government control over the common man.
In the US, conservative or libertarian means much of the same thing liberal does in most of the western world.
"American liberals strive to create an all controlling nanny state that decides what is best for it's citizens."
No. That's what the Neo-cons want you to believe but it's not true, it never has been true and it never will be true. Liberal by it's very definition means a belief that government shouldn't interfere in people's personal lives. Conservative's on the other hand believe that government should be interested and actively engaged in what people are doing in their bedrooms and daily lives.
It isn't liberals that want to make Sex illegal (reference Texas Neo-Con's that tried to cause enforcement of sodomy laws, in addition Georgia is the state with 5 people serving long prison terms for consensual oral sex with their spouse). It isn't liberals that want the government to directly interfere in a person's medical care, and it isn't liberals that want government to have the say on what medical procedures can be performed (reference abortion). It isn't liberals that are suppressing real science (reference news stories about NASA's political director altering published reports without permission of or with input of researchers, also suppressed reports, particularly climate change reports that the administration deemed politically damaging) It isn't liberals pushing for the "national ID", something I might add that any real conservative should be horrified by. It isn't liberals promoting the "war on drugs" and all it's invasive, property stealing and people abusing laws, which is actually the "war on citizens".
If you want a nanny state, look no further than the Bush administration and Neo-Con philosophy. Liberal just doesn't mean what the propaganda has convinced you it means. I do blame the liberals for that, they allowed the neo-cons to turn liberal around and present it as meaning the exact opposite of what it really does mean and represent. But I blame people like you for actually falling for the propaganda.
lib·er·al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
Being Liberal has always been about protecting individual liberty, and preventing government from being engaged in direct interference in people's personal lives and decisions.
in mother Russia, GPS track YOU!
sorry....couldn't resist.
thats actually what GPS does everywhere, sorry but the wont work on this lol =)
Damn it! You beat me to it.
Actually the GPS network doesn't track you, your GPS reciever tracks the GPS network, which tells it exactly where you are on this pathetic little mudball (pathetic because of the idiots replying to the first post...too many people are too busy labeling and demonizing eachother and not thinking about the issues for themselves anymore). So the "in soviet russia bit" actually works here, from a technical standpoint.
(Insert obligatory Yakov Smirnoff joke).
superprime: get a clue "bro" liberals want no government control? LOL
MardiGras Bandit:
You live in a different US than I do. The "Patriot Act" is the biggest nanny-state law ever passed, and it was opposed by 100% of liberals and even most real "conservatives". The government under the neo-cons has gotten bigger faster than it has under any so-called liberal president of the past 100 years (it actually shrank under Clinton). "Conservatives" want to outlaw gay marriage, they want to outlaw flag burning, they want to outlaw all drug use. This isn't a nanny state?
The word "conservative" in this country has lost all meaning, and "neo-conservative" never meant anything to begin with. It's time for a new word for these people... and I've got a few I could definitely propose.
The bottom line is conservatives only believe in a hands-off approach when it comes to big business and their crony friends. Meanwhile, they want to legislate morality until you're blue (or red) in the face and execute you if you step out of line. Liberals believe government should be out of average people's lives unless they need it, in which case it should be there for them.
@StudentDriver:
Remember that the "G" in GPS stands for "global". It would make no sense to have a system that functions in one "territory" and not another, if one of the main reasons for the system is to guide missiles into another territory. As far as I know, there are no additional "features" offered by these new sat nav systems outside of better accuracy. As Charles mentioned below, the navigation unit you buy does all the heavy-lifting and providing of features...the satellite only tells you where on the planet you are...no more, no less. It won't tell you where the nearest gas station or hotel is, or the number for a restaurant. That's all handled by the receiver. So even if you buy a GLONASS-only receiver (which you won't, because there probably won't be any), as long as the unit itself has adequate mapping software to cover the area where you are going, it won't matter where on Earth you are using it. As long as that receiver can see the satellite (which it can do anywhere on Earth, as that is the point of the system), it can provide whatever features it offers in the software (mapping, etc).
Umm, right. So, why would anybody want a competitor to conventional GPS anyway?
Because the U.S. Military/Govt controls GPS. They merely allow other receivers to use the signals. If they really, really, really, really wanted to, they could turn off GPS tomorrow. Of course, then the U.S. Military would be screwed since they use GPS for damn near anything/everything.
Well since the US govt can turn off GPS at its will, it's wise for a country that depends on satellite-based tracking/guidance (and nearly all do) to have a backup in case GPS goes bye-bye in wartime (even if the war isn't with the dependent country).
Why do you think we Europeans are building our own system? It's not like the US is going look out for our interests [unless it also benefits the US].
OK, that's cool, but I just wonder how much this is going to (further) splinter the market for devices that rely on these technologies. Will the competitive system(s) interoperate with existing equipment, or require another set of frequencies and behaviors in order to be used? Since the running joke is how the US has CDMA and GSM along with 3G frequencies that aren't the same as most (if not all) of Europe, I am a bit confused as how this will really help anybody. Now, you will either have gadgets that can't may not be useful around the globe, or you will have to pay more for cross-service support. Fun.
Besides, will these new technologies keep people in the UK from driving into lakes? :-)
@Mike:
Yes, the US would have to be in a really bad bind to have to turn off GPS, but they do possess weaponry which uses other methods for navigation (star navigation, dead-reckoning, etc). The US could lob an ICBM into a particular window in the Kremlin if they so desired, well before GPS was switched on. So they would turn it off if they needed. Of course, they would also have to take into consideration the financial damage they would cause to US industries who rely heavily on GPS, but in a really bad situation (ie, a nuclear-armed opponent with GPS-guided ICBMs), it would be worth it.
@StudentDriver
Not quite an accurate analogy, as GPS will continue to work everywhere and anytime except in the rare situation outlined above. It's not like taking your CDMA phone to Europe. It's likely that there will be a new generation of navigation units that use other satellite systems in addition to GPS (which will be the standard for the foreseeable future, as it is the most mature tech), but those devices will be mainly useful to industries for whom sat nav is absolutely critical, or who need better accuracy (GPS is only good to 10 meters or so...fine for nearly everyone, but not enough for some industries).
When you think about it, GPS was really quite a gift to the world...think of how many people/industries around the world use it all the time, and who never paid a dime for it (except for US taxpayers of course). Yes, its primary intent was military, but it's been incredibly useful for the civilian world.
It appears that the CDMA vs. GSM analogy is being taken wrong. So, let's try it this way: I buy a device to perform a function, and now will I have to pay attention to which service I'm able to use? That is the issue. A person buys a wireless phone thinking it will work anywhere he or she goes, only to find out that it will either not work (or at least be greatly limited) if going to the wrong area.
With these devices, would it be possible that these other systems might provide other data (and not just which/where the satellite is) that was typically calculated by the receiver. So, could you have the "winmodem" of GPS systems where the new device provides "enhanced" features for a cheaper cost, only to find out that these features are limited to one territory where the principle GPS covers.
So, back to CDMA vs. GSM, if you get a consumer version that supports the Russian version of GPS, it may not work outside of their territory (or have other unknown behaviors) when used outside of that territory. This is what happens when buying a European 3G GSM phone, and going to the US only to find that 3G isn't available (to you). As the US has seen, it takes a very long time to get devices made which support multiple "versions" of the same thing (in this case, 3G spectrum). CDMA is a whole other issue of stupidity where you can't even pull a chip from phone to phone with your number; again, another issue of competing standards to "help" everyone out.
This is what I am driving at. The assumption is that GPS devices will simply support more than one system, but when we in the US have a hard enough time getting ANY usable GPS (along with 3G, for many of us) in our phones why would having more systems to support be considered a useful thing?
I just wish that the systems that will be launched would be capable of utilizing the existing gps receivers. Screw US satellites but don't screw the end users. Each country that desires so, should launch their own satellites for GPS (that way there would be no issues that the US will turn off their GPS and suddenly the whole world won't know how to drive home or to the nearest liquor store. We already have enough fragmentation in this World with multiple cellular frequencies, tv systems, screen aspect ratios, days that women menstruate, days that men act like they have pms, idiots in power and smart people in power...let's all just get along. I vote for ONE WORLDWIDE GSM STANDARD for all.
Viva la resistance..
The new Russian navigation satellites don't really change anything for anybody. The reality is consumer devices do most of the work when it comes to mapping and figuring out what streets to take. All the satellites do is send down a single in a certain way that allow devices to calculate their position. I can't think of a single reason consumer devices would need to recognize both systems. Support issues are really non-existent. It is nothing like GSM or CDMA as you pay for neither. You wouldn't have a reason to switch services except in the unlikely event Russia or the United States went to war, or one began skewing the results (not likely to effect consumer devices). Even in that situation the system may only be disabled for consumer devices in war torn and surrounding areas. For example, in the event the US wanted to disable GPS in Iraq the service would likely only be interrupted in the middle east. It is unlikely that US service would be interrupted.
As an American and one who truly loves his country. I am appalled by the interpretation of the term liberal done by: kjb434
I am no more a communist than Chinese. I am a white Anglo Saxon Agnostic who is a Green Capitalist and wishes to do nothing more than make America strong again. It's a damn shame when Canadian money is worth more than our own. Next thing you know we will all be under the Amero. I can't imagine a worse administration than the one we had this past 8 years. Although I'm sure it's possible. The only thing that would be worse than another Republican President would be a Libertarian President… But that’s another story.
Singed,
William A. McDonald
Don'tcha just love these Engadget "bar room brawls"?
The topic starts off about the Russian GPS system, the lights suddenly go out, a shot rings out, and now it's the liberals versus the conservatives.
BTW didn't Putin evict Santa from the North Pole?
nope, lol, there's no need.
We have (other Slavic cultures and non-Slavics do too) our own "santa" which was "made" before ur Western Grandpa. His name is Ded Moroz (Grandpa Frost) hehe so there's no need to kick some1 out.
Btw, I dont think Vladimir believes in one or another hehe.
All of you don't know anything really real and your minds are taken by all the stereotypes and things you heard somewhere.
I dunno why Putin was chosen as the person of the year, he doesnt either and doesnt care about it.
"They chose me? Well..That's nice..I guess"
Why did they choose him? Ask them in person. I'm pretty sure that "it happened because they're scared of him" was posted by a weird person. Do you think that Putin would destroy those people if they didn't?.. wth
he did'tn even know about it until some1 gave him the magazine.
oh before I forget... Some peole from that magazine are incredibly stupid.
One idiot asked Vladimir if he is still talking to Eltsin...what?!!
THAT was really stupi.
Putin should've made a joke or something lol.
I imagined journalist's face if he would hear "yeah, we killed a bottle of vodka yesterday". haha!
But seriously, Putin is a good person.
He did bring up the country and still working hard on it and not planning to give up. he will still be involved in politics but have much less control, who cares, we need more ppl like him. Putin got rid of so many bastards that he deserves a big THANK YOU only for that... We had those fools that were corrupting our community, stealing money, etc. Freaking savages, jackals...There are lots of things that he deserve a big THANK YOU and respect from his people.
Now lemme say something about GLONASS.
We're launching it because we have it. That's it.
some one mentioned taht G in GPS stands for Global. duh!
oh what do you think G in GLONASS stands for?..
if one country made a jet, then why others should have make their own? if Japan made cellphones and designed ze 1st network, why should others make their own?... Same here.
Btw, it was already developig but the process was frozen for a while, we all know why.
in soviet russia, gpa finds u, always.....
in soviet russia, gps finds u, always.....
For your reference, friends! The first GLONASS/GPS PND is already available in computer stores in Moscow. It has 7" Screen, 400 Mhz Samsung Processor, uses SIRF III (for GPS as you know). Street price - 495 USD.