<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_23_0859257</id>
	<title>Senate Votes To Replace Aviation Radar With GPS</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269346320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>plover writes <i>"The US Senate on Monday <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2222360720100322">passed by a 93-0 margin</a> a bill that would implement the <a href="http://www.faa.gov/regulations\_policies/reauthorization/">FAA's NextGen plan</a> to replace aviation radar with GPS units.  It will help pay for the upgrade by increasing aviation fuel taxes on private aircraft.  It will require two inspections per year on foreign repair stations that work on US planes.  And it will <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/27/0613244/Lost-Northwest-Pilots-Were-Trying-Out-New-Software">ban pilots from using personal electronics</a> in the cockpit.  This just needs to be reconciled with the House version and is expected to become law soon. This was <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/08/11/26/2339245/FAA-Greenlights-Satellite-Based-Air-Traffic-Control-System">discussed on Slashdot a few years ago</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>plover writes " The US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 margin a bill that would implement the FAA 's NextGen plan to replace aviation radar with GPS units .
It will help pay for the upgrade by increasing aviation fuel taxes on private aircraft .
It will require two inspections per year on foreign repair stations that work on US planes .
And it will ban pilots from using personal electronics in the cockpit .
This just needs to be reconciled with the House version and is expected to become law soon .
This was discussed on Slashdot a few years ago .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>plover writes "The US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 margin a bill that would implement the FAA's NextGen plan to replace aviation radar with GPS units.
It will help pay for the upgrade by increasing aviation fuel taxes on private aircraft.
It will require two inspections per year on foreign repair stations that work on US planes.
And it will ban pilots from using personal electronics in the cockpit.
This just needs to be reconciled with the House version and is expected to become law soon.
This was discussed on Slashdot a few years ago.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585938</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1269367800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed.</p></div></blockquote><p>One plane harmlessly overshot its target because somebody was paying attention to a laptop, and now all personal electronics are a threat to our safety and national security.  The stewards/stewardesses noticed that they were later than expected, asked the pilots what was up, and they realized their mistake and corrected it.  No one was ever in any real danger because we already have safety rules to ensure that there are enough people on the plane to limit the danger posed by these sorts of mistakes.  <b>The system worked.</b>  But Congress just isn't capable of understanding that.  They need someone to blame because the incident got media attention.</p><p>Unfortunately, Congress really is that simple-minded.  Whenever something bad happens, their primary goal is to find someone or something to blame, then try to come up with a change to the law that will at least <b>appear</b> to thwart whatever scapegoat they chose, all while failing to address any of the real problems, simply because they aren't sufficiently aware of what those problems are to be making these sorts of policy decisions.</p><p>The FAA should be making these rules, not Congress.  That's why we have federal regulatory agencies.  If they aren't making the right rules, Congress should ask the President to replace the head of the agency with someone else.  As soon as Congress gets into the regulatory business, we all get screwed.  The only role Congress should be playing in this is approving the budget for the new equipment if it was requested by the FAA.  If it wasn't requested by the FAA, then the whole bill is crap.  Either way, the rest of it is crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We can get legislation to ban laptops , but we ca n't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed.One plane harmlessly overshot its target because somebody was paying attention to a laptop , and now all personal electronics are a threat to our safety and national security .
The stewards/stewardesses noticed that they were later than expected , asked the pilots what was up , and they realized their mistake and corrected it .
No one was ever in any real danger because we already have safety rules to ensure that there are enough people on the plane to limit the danger posed by these sorts of mistakes .
The system worked .
But Congress just is n't capable of understanding that .
They need someone to blame because the incident got media attention.Unfortunately , Congress really is that simple-minded .
Whenever something bad happens , their primary goal is to find someone or something to blame , then try to come up with a change to the law that will at least appear to thwart whatever scapegoat they chose , all while failing to address any of the real problems , simply because they are n't sufficiently aware of what those problems are to be making these sorts of policy decisions.The FAA should be making these rules , not Congress .
That 's why we have federal regulatory agencies .
If they are n't making the right rules , Congress should ask the President to replace the head of the agency with someone else .
As soon as Congress gets into the regulatory business , we all get screwed .
The only role Congress should be playing in this is approving the budget for the new equipment if it was requested by the FAA .
If it was n't requested by the FAA , then the whole bill is crap .
Either way , the rest of it is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed.One plane harmlessly overshot its target because somebody was paying attention to a laptop, and now all personal electronics are a threat to our safety and national security.
The stewards/stewardesses noticed that they were later than expected, asked the pilots what was up, and they realized their mistake and corrected it.
No one was ever in any real danger because we already have safety rules to ensure that there are enough people on the plane to limit the danger posed by these sorts of mistakes.
The system worked.
But Congress just isn't capable of understanding that.
They need someone to blame because the incident got media attention.Unfortunately, Congress really is that simple-minded.
Whenever something bad happens, their primary goal is to find someone or something to blame, then try to come up with a change to the law that will at least appear to thwart whatever scapegoat they chose, all while failing to address any of the real problems, simply because they aren't sufficiently aware of what those problems are to be making these sorts of policy decisions.The FAA should be making these rules, not Congress.
That's why we have federal regulatory agencies.
If they aren't making the right rules, Congress should ask the President to replace the head of the agency with someone else.
As soon as Congress gets into the regulatory business, we all get screwed.
The only role Congress should be playing in this is approving the budget for the new equipment if it was requested by the FAA.
If it wasn't requested by the FAA, then the whole bill is crap.
Either way, the rest of it is crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590828</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1269345720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Satellite dependence?  The GPS constellation is designed that from the ground there are almost always six birds visible, even though only three are needed for a fix.  When one fails, it doesn't take the others with it, and the constellation is simply reconfigured to make up for the missing satellite.  The birds have a proven track record for reliability.  And they're always going to exist because the military needs them to, regardless of the civilian need.</p><p>Radar, on the other hand, breaks down.  It's a spinning motorized beast that gets beat up by wind, rain, hail, snow, ice and rust.  Replacement parts are expensive.  Maintenance is constant.  And due to curvature of the earth radar coverage is still quite poor, as the further you get from a station or the closer you are to the ground the less visible you are.  Significant portions of the U.S. airspace are completely invisible on radar, even though there are a hundred ground radar stations sweeping the skies.</p><p>Finally, radar is systemically fragile to your imagined terrorists.  A single ground station could be taken out by a band of idiots with small arms, leaving a large metropolitan area with no radar coverage whatsoever.  For that matter, a radar could be taken out by a single idiot with a screwdriver and the wrong manual.  A GPS satellite, on the other hand, is in MEO, 12,500 nice safe miles from the nearest idiot or screwdriver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Satellite dependence ?
The GPS constellation is designed that from the ground there are almost always six birds visible , even though only three are needed for a fix .
When one fails , it does n't take the others with it , and the constellation is simply reconfigured to make up for the missing satellite .
The birds have a proven track record for reliability .
And they 're always going to exist because the military needs them to , regardless of the civilian need.Radar , on the other hand , breaks down .
It 's a spinning motorized beast that gets beat up by wind , rain , hail , snow , ice and rust .
Replacement parts are expensive .
Maintenance is constant .
And due to curvature of the earth radar coverage is still quite poor , as the further you get from a station or the closer you are to the ground the less visible you are .
Significant portions of the U.S. airspace are completely invisible on radar , even though there are a hundred ground radar stations sweeping the skies.Finally , radar is systemically fragile to your imagined terrorists .
A single ground station could be taken out by a band of idiots with small arms , leaving a large metropolitan area with no radar coverage whatsoever .
For that matter , a radar could be taken out by a single idiot with a screwdriver and the wrong manual .
A GPS satellite , on the other hand , is in MEO , 12,500 nice safe miles from the nearest idiot or screwdriver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Satellite dependence?
The GPS constellation is designed that from the ground there are almost always six birds visible, even though only three are needed for a fix.
When one fails, it doesn't take the others with it, and the constellation is simply reconfigured to make up for the missing satellite.
The birds have a proven track record for reliability.
And they're always going to exist because the military needs them to, regardless of the civilian need.Radar, on the other hand, breaks down.
It's a spinning motorized beast that gets beat up by wind, rain, hail, snow, ice and rust.
Replacement parts are expensive.
Maintenance is constant.
And due to curvature of the earth radar coverage is still quite poor, as the further you get from a station or the closer you are to the ground the less visible you are.
Significant portions of the U.S. airspace are completely invisible on radar, even though there are a hundred ground radar stations sweeping the skies.Finally, radar is systemically fragile to your imagined terrorists.
A single ground station could be taken out by a band of idiots with small arms, leaving a large metropolitan area with no radar coverage whatsoever.
For that matter, a radar could be taken out by a single idiot with a screwdriver and the wrong manual.
A GPS satellite, on the other hand, is in MEO, 12,500 nice safe miles from the nearest idiot or screwdriver.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583766</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1269359700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.</p></div><p>Well, of course not. If you're one of those people who uses the phrase "post-9/11 world" without (conscious) irony, you're never going to feel safe. Just be thankful you have the specter of terrorism to focus your fear on, instead of the countless vague fears that preyed on your mind in the long and dreadful period between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of al Qaeda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It doesnt sound safe to me , especially in a post 911 world.Well , of course not .
If you 're one of those people who uses the phrase " post-9/11 world " without ( conscious ) irony , you 're never going to feel safe .
Just be thankful you have the specter of terrorism to focus your fear on , instead of the countless vague fears that preyed on your mind in the long and dreadful period between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of al Qaeda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.Well, of course not.
If you're one of those people who uses the phrase "post-9/11 world" without (conscious) irony, you're never going to feel safe.
Just be thankful you have the specter of terrorism to focus your fear on, instead of the countless vague fears that preyed on your mind in the long and dreadful period between the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of al Qaeda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583752</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>ktappe</author>
	<datestamp>1269359580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing.  I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.  Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.</p></div><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. summary was incorrect (surprise surprise). The actual bill "bans pilots from using wireless devices or laptops in the cockpit that are unrelated to work." So you can still use your weather info. In fact, the MSP pilots were also doing work-related stuff so I don't know what ninny put that clause in as it doesn't even apply in a knee-jerk manner....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My personal beef with it is the " personal electronics " thing .
I use my phone to access aviation information ( weather , databases , etc ) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers could n't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing .
Federal Aviation Regs * already * have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity , this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.The / .
summary was incorrect ( surprise surprise ) .
The actual bill " bans pilots from using wireless devices or laptops in the cockpit that are unrelated to work .
" So you can still use your weather info .
In fact , the MSP pilots were also doing work-related stuff so I do n't know what ninny put that clause in as it does n't even apply in a knee-jerk manner... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing.
I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.
Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.The /.
summary was incorrect (surprise surprise).
The actual bill "bans pilots from using wireless devices or laptops in the cockpit that are unrelated to work.
" So you can still use your weather info.
In fact, the MSP pilots were also doing work-related stuff so I don't know what ninny put that clause in as it doesn't even apply in a knee-jerk manner....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584844</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269363960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replacing the current system IS about saving money.  The current system has many parts that date back to the 70's or before, and the upkeep is a royal bitch.  Added to that, it is cryptic, and very user hostile.</p><p>Besides, the RADAR they're talking about isn't the military radar that tracks incoming craft.  The radar in question interrogates a radio on the airplane that then reports it's altitude.  Very limited information, that depends on each of the airplane bound radio/altimeter systems to be calibrated correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replacing the current system IS about saving money .
The current system has many parts that date back to the 70 's or before , and the upkeep is a royal bitch .
Added to that , it is cryptic , and very user hostile.Besides , the RADAR they 're talking about is n't the military radar that tracks incoming craft .
The radar in question interrogates a radio on the airplane that then reports it 's altitude .
Very limited information , that depends on each of the airplane bound radio/altimeter systems to be calibrated correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replacing the current system IS about saving money.
The current system has many parts that date back to the 70's or before, and the upkeep is a royal bitch.
Added to that, it is cryptic, and very user hostile.Besides, the RADAR they're talking about isn't the military radar that tracks incoming craft.
The radar in question interrogates a radio on the airplane that then reports it's altitude.
Very limited information, that depends on each of the airplane bound radio/altimeter systems to be calibrated correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582712</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>bcmm</author>
	<datestamp>1269355260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if the US gets involved in a real war and wants to switch off civilian GPS to prevent it being used to guide missiles? If it's all that's preventing mid-air collisions, that option will not be open to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if the US gets involved in a real war and wants to switch off civilian GPS to prevent it being used to guide missiles ?
If it 's all that 's preventing mid-air collisions , that option will not be open to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if the US gets involved in a real war and wants to switch off civilian GPS to prevent it being used to guide missiles?
If it's all that's preventing mid-air collisions, that option will not be open to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588288</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269377040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as multiple pilots often must navigate thru very tight mountain passes in bad weather, and midairs and flight into terrain were too common.</i></p><p>I did some work @ Boeing on the integration of Allied Signal's Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System.  One of our standard demo approaches was for PAJN.  That's a wicked approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as multiple pilots often must navigate thru very tight mountain passes in bad weather , and midairs and flight into terrain were too common.I did some work @ Boeing on the integration of Allied Signal 's Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System .
One of our standard demo approaches was for PAJN .
That 's a wicked approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as multiple pilots often must navigate thru very tight mountain passes in bad weather, and midairs and flight into terrain were too common.I did some work @ Boeing on the integration of Allied Signal's Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System.
One of our standard demo approaches was for PAJN.
That's a wicked approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582326</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>SmilingBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1269353700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think air travel is already extremely safe; I don't think it makes sense to spend a lot of money (resulting in higher ticket prices) for a minor further increase in safety. You will never get 100\% safety anyway.  (To avoid any doubt: I am talking about the regulations in North America, Europe and a number of other developed countries.  Flying is a lot less safe in, e.g., a lot of African countries.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think air travel is already extremely safe ; I do n't think it makes sense to spend a lot of money ( resulting in higher ticket prices ) for a minor further increase in safety .
You will never get 100 \ % safety anyway .
( To avoid any doubt : I am talking about the regulations in North America , Europe and a number of other developed countries .
Flying is a lot less safe in , e.g. , a lot of African countries .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think air travel is already extremely safe; I don't think it makes sense to spend a lot of money (resulting in higher ticket prices) for a minor further increase in safety.
You will never get 100\% safety anyway.
(To avoid any doubt: I am talking about the regulations in North America, Europe and a number of other developed countries.
Flying is a lot less safe in, e.g., a lot of African countries.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585148</id>
	<title>Tracking the baddies..</title>
	<author>cheddarlump</author>
	<datestamp>1269365040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think this actually makes it easier to figure out who's not on the up and up..  There's no way the military and DHS will give up primary radar as a security device, and all they'd need to do is compare the two data sets to find people flying with transponders off.  What I do see this impacting is personal aviation..  I may be paranoid, but it seems like one more way to take away a freedom by forcing somebody to buy something they can't afford...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think this actually makes it easier to figure out who 's not on the up and up.. There 's no way the military and DHS will give up primary radar as a security device , and all they 'd need to do is compare the two data sets to find people flying with transponders off .
What I do see this impacting is personal aviation.. I may be paranoid , but it seems like one more way to take away a freedom by forcing somebody to buy something they ca n't afford.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think this actually makes it easier to figure out who's not on the up and up..  There's no way the military and DHS will give up primary radar as a security device, and all they'd need to do is compare the two data sets to find people flying with transponders off.
What I do see this impacting is personal aviation..  I may be paranoid, but it seems like one more way to take away a freedom by forcing somebody to buy something they can't afford...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992</id>
	<title>Didn't they delay a launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Didn't they delay a shuttle launchto avoid a GPS clock rollover? Will they ground all the world's aircraft for the next one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't they delay a shuttle launchto avoid a GPS clock rollover ?
Will they ground all the world 's aircraft for the next one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't they delay a shuttle launchto avoid a GPS clock rollover?
Will they ground all the world's aircraft for the next one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582924</id>
	<title>Re:Really guys?</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1269356160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes? No? No one? OMG!!! Really? You could skid through an intersection at any time!</p></div><p>Actually, there <em>is</em> a backup system. It's called the emergency brake -- or, sometimes, the parking brake -- and it's operated by a cable, not a hydraulic line. Beyond that, some manufacturers have other systems in place. At least one car in my life (either my late 1989 VW or my mom's very deceased 1967 Mustang) had a dual-piston hydraulic brake system, with each piston controlling one front brake and the diagonally opposite rear brake. If the hydraulic line were to spring a leak, only half the brakes would go out. Since the front brakes provide more stopping power than the rear, retaining function in a front brake is even better than relying on the rear brakes (which is what the emergency brake uses).
</p><p>IMHO, a little armchair engineering isn't a bad thing. Even professionals overlook things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car 's brakes ?
No ? No one ?
OMG ! ! ! Really ?
You could skid through an intersection at any time ! Actually , there is a backup system .
It 's called the emergency brake -- or , sometimes , the parking brake -- and it 's operated by a cable , not a hydraulic line .
Beyond that , some manufacturers have other systems in place .
At least one car in my life ( either my late 1989 VW or my mom 's very deceased 1967 Mustang ) had a dual-piston hydraulic brake system , with each piston controlling one front brake and the diagonally opposite rear brake .
If the hydraulic line were to spring a leak , only half the brakes would go out .
Since the front brakes provide more stopping power than the rear , retaining function in a front brake is even better than relying on the rear brakes ( which is what the emergency brake uses ) .
IMHO , a little armchair engineering is n't a bad thing .
Even professionals overlook things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes?
No? No one?
OMG!!! Really?
You could skid through an intersection at any time!Actually, there is a backup system.
It's called the emergency brake -- or, sometimes, the parking brake -- and it's operated by a cable, not a hydraulic line.
Beyond that, some manufacturers have other systems in place.
At least one car in my life (either my late 1989 VW or my mom's very deceased 1967 Mustang) had a dual-piston hydraulic brake system, with each piston controlling one front brake and the diagonally opposite rear brake.
If the hydraulic line were to spring a leak, only half the brakes would go out.
Since the front brakes provide more stopping power than the rear, retaining function in a front brake is even better than relying on the rear brakes (which is what the emergency brake uses).
IMHO, a little armchair engineering isn't a bad thing.
Even professionals overlook things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581932</id>
	<title>Re:Our rights offline</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1269351480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does the tax get repealed once the conversion has taken place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does the tax get repealed once the conversion has taken place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does the tax get repealed once the conversion has taken place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583020</id>
	<title>Re:What about $50 GPS Jammers?</title>
	<author>GSMacLean</author>
	<datestamp>1269356520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point. The idea behind GPS-driven ADS-B is that it REPLACES surveillance radar.</p><p>Here's how it works right now: The ground-based radar sends out a signal; it hits the aircraft and bounces back; ATC now knows which direction and how far away the aircraft is. On top of this, there is a transponder in the aircraft which sends back a coded number assigned by ATC, so that ATC can determine which dot on their radar screen is which aircraft.  Additionally, if the transponder has (and has enabled) Mode C (which is required in most congested airspace), it sends back the aircraft's altitude. ATC now has a 3-dimensional fix on the aircraft, with positive verification as to who you are.</p><p>ADS-B gets rid of all of this. Instead, the aircraft has a GPS receiver, which gives itself a 3-dimensional fix in space. It transmits this information along with a unique identifier, when interrogated, to ATC. ATC utilizes this information to identify and track the aircraft in 3 dimensional space, as is now done with conventional radar/Mode C.</p><p>The problem is, what if GPS goes out? What if some pimply 17 year old kid buys a GPS jammer from Mexico and sets it up on his roof? Every aircraft in the area suddenly loses their ability to receive GPS signals, and all of a sudden ATC has no idea where any of the aircraft are. There is no backup system, because part of NexGen is the decommissioning of all primary surveillance radar.</p><p>THAT is the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
The idea behind GPS-driven ADS-B is that it REPLACES surveillance radar.Here 's how it works right now : The ground-based radar sends out a signal ; it hits the aircraft and bounces back ; ATC now knows which direction and how far away the aircraft is .
On top of this , there is a transponder in the aircraft which sends back a coded number assigned by ATC , so that ATC can determine which dot on their radar screen is which aircraft .
Additionally , if the transponder has ( and has enabled ) Mode C ( which is required in most congested airspace ) , it sends back the aircraft 's altitude .
ATC now has a 3-dimensional fix on the aircraft , with positive verification as to who you are.ADS-B gets rid of all of this .
Instead , the aircraft has a GPS receiver , which gives itself a 3-dimensional fix in space .
It transmits this information along with a unique identifier , when interrogated , to ATC .
ATC utilizes this information to identify and track the aircraft in 3 dimensional space , as is now done with conventional radar/Mode C.The problem is , what if GPS goes out ?
What if some pimply 17 year old kid buys a GPS jammer from Mexico and sets it up on his roof ?
Every aircraft in the area suddenly loses their ability to receive GPS signals , and all of a sudden ATC has no idea where any of the aircraft are .
There is no backup system , because part of NexGen is the decommissioning of all primary surveillance radar.THAT is the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
The idea behind GPS-driven ADS-B is that it REPLACES surveillance radar.Here's how it works right now: The ground-based radar sends out a signal; it hits the aircraft and bounces back; ATC now knows which direction and how far away the aircraft is.
On top of this, there is a transponder in the aircraft which sends back a coded number assigned by ATC, so that ATC can determine which dot on their radar screen is which aircraft.
Additionally, if the transponder has (and has enabled) Mode C (which is required in most congested airspace), it sends back the aircraft's altitude.
ATC now has a 3-dimensional fix on the aircraft, with positive verification as to who you are.ADS-B gets rid of all of this.
Instead, the aircraft has a GPS receiver, which gives itself a 3-dimensional fix in space.
It transmits this information along with a unique identifier, when interrogated, to ATC.
ATC utilizes this information to identify and track the aircraft in 3 dimensional space, as is now done with conventional radar/Mode C.The problem is, what if GPS goes out?
What if some pimply 17 year old kid buys a GPS jammer from Mexico and sets it up on his roof?
Every aircraft in the area suddenly loses their ability to receive GPS signals, and all of a sudden ATC has no idea where any of the aircraft are.
There is no backup system, because part of NexGen is the decommissioning of all primary surveillance radar.THAT is the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762</id>
	<title>Security</title>
	<author>The Aethereal</author>
	<datestamp>1269350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control? How is this system secured?  This will be breached repeatedly. Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites? I'm sure GPS is a better system under normal circumstances, but circumstances are not always normal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control ?
How is this system secured ?
This will be breached repeatedly .
Also , what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites ?
I 'm sure GPS is a better system under normal circumstances , but circumstances are not always normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control?
How is this system secured?
This will be breached repeatedly.
Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites?
I'm sure GPS is a better system under normal circumstances, but circumstances are not always normal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583310</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269357720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We haven't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet./quote.<br>Oh, you haven't, but I have. December 1989, there were so many false returns on ATC radar it looked like ORD, not BBU.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have n't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet./quote.Oh , you have n't , but I have .
December 1989 , there were so many false returns on ATC radar it looked like ORD , not BBU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We haven't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet./quote.Oh, you haven't, but I have.
December 1989, there were so many false returns on ATC radar it looked like ORD, not BBU.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588488</id>
	<title>Galileo</title>
	<author>chenjeru</author>
	<datestamp>1269377940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the timing of this will hurt the deployment of Galileo GPS systems?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the timing of this will hurt the deployment of Galileo GPS systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the timing of this will hurt the deployment of Galileo GPS systems?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584022</id>
	<title>Re:Security issue...</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1269360660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You were ok up to point three.</p><p>I wish the radar good luck at tracking me in an all-composite Diamond DA40 with the transponder off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You were ok up to point three.I wish the radar good luck at tracking me in an all-composite Diamond DA40 with the transponder off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You were ok up to point three.I wish the radar good luck at tracking me in an all-composite Diamond DA40 with the transponder off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583268</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>rafamvc</author>
	<datestamp>1269357540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Our GPS" like everybody that reads Slashdot is American. Way to go!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our GPS " like everybody that reads Slashdot is American .
Way to go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our GPS" like everybody that reads Slashdot is American.
Way to go!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581786</id>
	<title>Cool!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the batteries in my Garmin go out, I can just use any 747 to go geocaching!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the batteries in my Garmin go out , I can just use any 747 to go geocaching !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the batteries in my Garmin go out, I can just use any 747 to go geocaching!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581702</id>
	<title>Finally Congress gets down to business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about time they got around to work that doesn't involve screwing the country over and ignoring the people they claim to represent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time they got around to work that does n't involve screwing the country over and ignoring the people they claim to represent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time they got around to work that doesn't involve screwing the country over and ignoring the people they claim to represent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584904</id>
	<title>GPS Sucks!</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1269364200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notoriously unreliable, imprecise, jammable.  I hope there is a backup plan!  Like, keep the existing radars operational.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notoriously unreliable , imprecise , jammable .
I hope there is a backup plan !
Like , keep the existing radars operational .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notoriously unreliable, imprecise, jammable.
I hope there is a backup plan!
Like, keep the existing radars operational.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581872</id>
	<title>Replace?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's replace 50 year old, time-tested technology with something that conks out regularly and is reliant on giant hunks of metal falling through the sky.</p><p>Adding GPS is a great idea. Replacing radar totally is beyond ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's replace 50 year old , time-tested technology with something that conks out regularly and is reliant on giant hunks of metal falling through the sky.Adding GPS is a great idea .
Replacing radar totally is beyond ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's replace 50 year old, time-tested technology with something that conks out regularly and is reliant on giant hunks of metal falling through the sky.Adding GPS is a great idea.
Replacing radar totally is beyond ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589520</id>
	<title>Re:Really guys?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269340020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, pilots USED to be very smart people.</p><p>Flying a commercial airlines now days really isn't that complicated if you can follow a checklist.  You don't actually have to be that skilled.  Its is only barely more difficult than driving a car under normal circumstances.  What you saw land in the hudson is a 1 in a million shot, they just HAPPEN to have a real pilot on board, hell if you can show me someone who can do it again, including the pilot himself, i'll be his/her slave.</p><p>Every car sold in America has redundant braking systems.  Generally the front left wheel and the rear right are on one system and the front right and rear left are on another hydrolic system.  They are both generally powered by the same boost pump, but a failure at the boost pump only results in loss of boost, you still can apply manual pressure without boost.  You can drain one of the braking systems of fluid completely and still have about 50\% of your braking power.  The only time you have true issues with lack of redundancy is when you're buying a new car with electric brakes or electric brake boost and no direct mechanical connection to the braking system from your foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , pilots USED to be very smart people.Flying a commercial airlines now days really is n't that complicated if you can follow a checklist .
You do n't actually have to be that skilled .
Its is only barely more difficult than driving a car under normal circumstances .
What you saw land in the hudson is a 1 in a million shot , they just HAPPEN to have a real pilot on board , hell if you can show me someone who can do it again , including the pilot himself , i 'll be his/her slave.Every car sold in America has redundant braking systems .
Generally the front left wheel and the rear right are on one system and the front right and rear left are on another hydrolic system .
They are both generally powered by the same boost pump , but a failure at the boost pump only results in loss of boost , you still can apply manual pressure without boost .
You can drain one of the braking systems of fluid completely and still have about 50 \ % of your braking power .
The only time you have true issues with lack of redundancy is when you 're buying a new car with electric brakes or electric brake boost and no direct mechanical connection to the braking system from your foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, pilots USED to be very smart people.Flying a commercial airlines now days really isn't that complicated if you can follow a checklist.
You don't actually have to be that skilled.
Its is only barely more difficult than driving a car under normal circumstances.
What you saw land in the hudson is a 1 in a million shot, they just HAPPEN to have a real pilot on board, hell if you can show me someone who can do it again, including the pilot himself, i'll be his/her slave.Every car sold in America has redundant braking systems.
Generally the front left wheel and the rear right are on one system and the front right and rear left are on another hydrolic system.
They are both generally powered by the same boost pump, but a failure at the boost pump only results in loss of boost, you still can apply manual pressure without boost.
You can drain one of the braking systems of fluid completely and still have about 50\% of your braking power.
The only time you have true issues with lack of redundancy is when you're buying a new car with electric brakes or electric brake boost and no direct mechanical connection to the braking system from your foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584196</id>
	<title>Sunspots?</title>
	<author>oneiros27</author>
	<datestamp>1269361320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunspots are an indicator of activity, but don't actually affect the earth.  The only reason sunspots are even used for comparisons is that there's more than a century of historical record.</p><p>The solar-related problems with GPS are CMES that take out the satellites or radio bursts that overwhelm the signal.</p><p>And we have no idea at this point when we'll start seeing the same levels of activity as the past solar maximums<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but we current consensus is that the past few years have been abnormally low, and thus GPS may not remain so reliable.*</p><p>*in general, that is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... my GPS has some issue with the antenna getting a static charge, and just sucks, so it's always unreliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunspots are an indicator of activity , but do n't actually affect the earth .
The only reason sunspots are even used for comparisons is that there 's more than a century of historical record.The solar-related problems with GPS are CMES that take out the satellites or radio bursts that overwhelm the signal.And we have no idea at this point when we 'll start seeing the same levels of activity as the past solar maximums ... but we current consensus is that the past few years have been abnormally low , and thus GPS may not remain so reliable .
* * in general , that is ... my GPS has some issue with the antenna getting a static charge , and just sucks , so it 's always unreliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunspots are an indicator of activity, but don't actually affect the earth.
The only reason sunspots are even used for comparisons is that there's more than a century of historical record.The solar-related problems with GPS are CMES that take out the satellites or radio bursts that overwhelm the signal.And we have no idea at this point when we'll start seeing the same levels of activity as the past solar maximums ... but we current consensus is that the past few years have been abnormally low, and thus GPS may not remain so reliable.
**in general, that is ... my GPS has some issue with the antenna getting a static charge, and just sucks, so it's always unreliable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583924</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>harl</author>
	<datestamp>1269360300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?  The current system is breached repeatedly.  All you had to do was turn off your transponder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
The current system is breached repeatedly .
All you had to do was turn off your transponder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
The current system is breached repeatedly.
All you had to do was turn off your transponder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581882</id>
	<title>must ENHANCE not REPLACE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ffs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ffs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ffs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585116</id>
	<title>Re:GPS and altitude</title>
	<author>geekboybt</author>
	<datestamp>1269364980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's well known in the aviation industry that GPS altitudes are, for aviation purposes, largely useless. Current transponders use a barometric altimeter's input when in Mode C or Mode S, meaning they're providing their altitude information to radar systems that ask. I wouldn't expect that to change as the radios are upgraded to the GPS capable replacements.<br> <br>See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder\_(aviation)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder\_(aviation)</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver\_Autonomous\_Integrity\_Monitoring" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver\_Autonomous\_Integrity\_Monitoring</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's well known in the aviation industry that GPS altitudes are , for aviation purposes , largely useless .
Current transponders use a barometric altimeter 's input when in Mode C or Mode S , meaning they 're providing their altitude information to radar systems that ask .
I would n't expect that to change as the radios are upgraded to the GPS capable replacements .
See also : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder \ _ ( aviation ) [ wikipedia.org ] and http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver \ _Autonomous \ _Integrity \ _Monitoring [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's well known in the aviation industry that GPS altitudes are, for aviation purposes, largely useless.
Current transponders use a barometric altimeter's input when in Mode C or Mode S, meaning they're providing their altitude information to radar systems that ask.
I wouldn't expect that to change as the radios are upgraded to the GPS capable replacements.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder\_(aviation) [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver\_Autonomous\_Integrity\_Monitoring [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588728</id>
	<title>Re:Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269336060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly enough, those things effect the current system almost exactly equally.</p><p>Solar storms are more likely to effect the power grid powering the radar than the military, EMP resistant sats built for nuclear war.</p><p>Terrorists could 'hack' the system, but doing it on any useful scale would require them to construct a rather large and obvious transmission system, that would also be very easy to take out.  The USAF has a system designed for it, probably the Navy too, its called a HARM anti-radar missile.  One can be deposited to any location on the globe in under an hour with the exception of a few inland locations in places like russia and china, which clearly aren't going to be a terrorist threat to us.  Curve of the Earth and line of sight prevents you from building anything too far away from your target.</p><p>Hacking/Cracking - uhm, this is the same thing as the last one really</p><p>Satellites are easy to replace, there are a few extra, and a complete constellation isn't even required for coverage.  Whats more important here is simply that the US military would be devastated by the lack of GPS, you don't have any worry about it going away.  If it goes away, you won't be worried about aircraft running into each other, you'll probably be more concerned with surviving whatever disaster has managed to cripple the world that bad.  Likely you'll be dead and it won't matter, as anything thats going to seriously effect the GPS constellation is likely going to render the planet uninhabitable by humans.  You're essentially talking about nuclear war and direct attacks on the sats, or some sort of cosmic event with enough energy to damage the well shielded GPS sats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that amount of energy is going to do A LOT of damage on the ground across the entire planet as well.  Its more likely the sats will survive and we won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly enough , those things effect the current system almost exactly equally.Solar storms are more likely to effect the power grid powering the radar than the military , EMP resistant sats built for nuclear war.Terrorists could 'hack ' the system , but doing it on any useful scale would require them to construct a rather large and obvious transmission system , that would also be very easy to take out .
The USAF has a system designed for it , probably the Navy too , its called a HARM anti-radar missile .
One can be deposited to any location on the globe in under an hour with the exception of a few inland locations in places like russia and china , which clearly are n't going to be a terrorist threat to us .
Curve of the Earth and line of sight prevents you from building anything too far away from your target.Hacking/Cracking - uhm , this is the same thing as the last one reallySatellites are easy to replace , there are a few extra , and a complete constellation is n't even required for coverage .
Whats more important here is simply that the US military would be devastated by the lack of GPS , you do n't have any worry about it going away .
If it goes away , you wo n't be worried about aircraft running into each other , you 'll probably be more concerned with surviving whatever disaster has managed to cripple the world that bad .
Likely you 'll be dead and it wo n't matter , as anything thats going to seriously effect the GPS constellation is likely going to render the planet uninhabitable by humans .
You 're essentially talking about nuclear war and direct attacks on the sats , or some sort of cosmic event with enough energy to damage the well shielded GPS sats ... that amount of energy is going to do A LOT of damage on the ground across the entire planet as well .
Its more likely the sats will survive and we wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly enough, those things effect the current system almost exactly equally.Solar storms are more likely to effect the power grid powering the radar than the military, EMP resistant sats built for nuclear war.Terrorists could 'hack' the system, but doing it on any useful scale would require them to construct a rather large and obvious transmission system, that would also be very easy to take out.
The USAF has a system designed for it, probably the Navy too, its called a HARM anti-radar missile.
One can be deposited to any location on the globe in under an hour with the exception of a few inland locations in places like russia and china, which clearly aren't going to be a terrorist threat to us.
Curve of the Earth and line of sight prevents you from building anything too far away from your target.Hacking/Cracking - uhm, this is the same thing as the last one reallySatellites are easy to replace, there are a few extra, and a complete constellation isn't even required for coverage.
Whats more important here is simply that the US military would be devastated by the lack of GPS, you don't have any worry about it going away.
If it goes away, you won't be worried about aircraft running into each other, you'll probably be more concerned with surviving whatever disaster has managed to cripple the world that bad.
Likely you'll be dead and it won't matter, as anything thats going to seriously effect the GPS constellation is likely going to render the planet uninhabitable by humans.
You're essentially talking about nuclear war and direct attacks on the sats, or some sort of cosmic event with enough energy to damage the well shielded GPS sats ... that amount of energy is going to do A LOT of damage on the ground across the entire planet as well.
Its more likely the sats will survive and we won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583776</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>woolpert</author>
	<datestamp>1269359700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?</p></div></blockquote><p>A - Shooting down a bird would be an act of war.  A stupid act of war as the shooter would be obvious.  You can't secretly launch such an attack.  Repercussions would be quick and severe.</p><p>B - While the <i>possibility</i> exists, the GPS birds are <b>way</b> up there (12,500 miles), there are currently 30 of them (a more than 2x redundancy for this type of navigation), and 10 more are going up soon.</p><p>Not to mention the fact every bird is in constant view of at lest one ground monitoring station (any disruption or degradation would be noticed immediately) and fallback procedures (increase traffic lane spacing) are in place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites ? A - Shooting down a bird would be an act of war .
A stupid act of war as the shooter would be obvious .
You ca n't secretly launch such an attack .
Repercussions would be quick and severe.B - While the possibility exists , the GPS birds are way up there ( 12,500 miles ) , there are currently 30 of them ( a more than 2x redundancy for this type of navigation ) , and 10 more are going up soon.Not to mention the fact every bird is in constant view of at lest one ground monitoring station ( any disruption or degradation would be noticed immediately ) and fallback procedures ( increase traffic lane spacing ) are in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?A - Shooting down a bird would be an act of war.
A stupid act of war as the shooter would be obvious.
You can't secretly launch such an attack.
Repercussions would be quick and severe.B - While the possibility exists, the GPS birds are way up there (12,500 miles), there are currently 30 of them (a more than 2x redundancy for this type of navigation), and 10 more are going up soon.Not to mention the fact every bird is in constant view of at lest one ground monitoring station (any disruption or degradation would be noticed immediately) and fallback procedures (increase traffic lane spacing) are in place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581998</id>
	<title>GPS</title>
	<author>teuluPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1269351900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is intesting on several levels:

<p>
1. In the UK NOTAMs ( Notice to airmen) are issued on a regular basis for GPS jamming trials. They take place over several weeks, and are, I believe, carried out by the army. I am not sure if their intention is to remove the possibility of soldiers on exercise using GPS rather than other means to navigate, or for some other reason.
</p><p>
I fly gliders and have a GPS unit on board which is used as a navigation aid. I also carry a chart (as required by air law) which serves as primary aid for navigation.
</p><p>
2. I would be pretty confident that all airliners currently in service have GPS capability
</p><p>
3. Radar is useful for seeing where everyone else is, GPS is for finding yourself. While transmitting location/vector information from an airbourne GPS to a ground station would enable collision avoidance, this feature is currently available through transponders. These are a requirement for any aircraft wanting to transit class A airspace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is intesting on several levels : 1 .
In the UK NOTAMs ( Notice to airmen ) are issued on a regular basis for GPS jamming trials .
They take place over several weeks , and are , I believe , carried out by the army .
I am not sure if their intention is to remove the possibility of soldiers on exercise using GPS rather than other means to navigate , or for some other reason .
I fly gliders and have a GPS unit on board which is used as a navigation aid .
I also carry a chart ( as required by air law ) which serves as primary aid for navigation .
2. I would be pretty confident that all airliners currently in service have GPS capability 3 .
Radar is useful for seeing where everyone else is , GPS is for finding yourself .
While transmitting location/vector information from an airbourne GPS to a ground station would enable collision avoidance , this feature is currently available through transponders .
These are a requirement for any aircraft wanting to transit class A airspace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is intesting on several levels:


1.
In the UK NOTAMs ( Notice to airmen) are issued on a regular basis for GPS jamming trials.
They take place over several weeks, and are, I believe, carried out by the army.
I am not sure if their intention is to remove the possibility of soldiers on exercise using GPS rather than other means to navigate, or for some other reason.
I fly gliders and have a GPS unit on board which is used as a navigation aid.
I also carry a chart (as required by air law) which serves as primary aid for navigation.
2. I would be pretty confident that all airliners currently in service have GPS capability

3.
Radar is useful for seeing where everyone else is, GPS is for finding yourself.
While transmitting location/vector information from an airbourne GPS to a ground station would enable collision avoidance, this feature is currently available through transponders.
These are a requirement for any aircraft wanting to transit class A airspace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582632</id>
	<title>Sensationalist title and misinformation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269354960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the responses here it seems this Slashdot article isn't getting the point across at all and is borderline misinformation.</p><p>The new system DOES NOT REPLACE RADAR.  It supplements the radar with state information from the aircraft (this state information includes GPS).</p><p>At the core this isn't that drastically different from what already happens.  All aircraft require a transponder, and these transponders at a minimum respond with an altitude.  The aviation radar used in the ATC system does not measure altitude, it requires a transponder reply from the aircraft to get the altitude.  Furthermore this altitude reply is only accurate if the pilot has set the altimeter correctly, otherwise the data is bogus and in many cases bogus enough to bust separation.  The ATC system is already extremely dependent on cooperative aircraft and pilots, it always has been and always will be.  It is an ATC system, not an air defense system.</p><p>The new system will allow for a significant reduction in radar infrastructure because the superior state information coming from aircraft will require less overlapping radar coverage.  So that is less radar on the ground, but the system still has radar as part of its central core.</p><p>Google ADS-B to learn more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the responses here it seems this Slashdot article is n't getting the point across at all and is borderline misinformation.The new system DOES NOT REPLACE RADAR .
It supplements the radar with state information from the aircraft ( this state information includes GPS ) .At the core this is n't that drastically different from what already happens .
All aircraft require a transponder , and these transponders at a minimum respond with an altitude .
The aviation radar used in the ATC system does not measure altitude , it requires a transponder reply from the aircraft to get the altitude .
Furthermore this altitude reply is only accurate if the pilot has set the altimeter correctly , otherwise the data is bogus and in many cases bogus enough to bust separation .
The ATC system is already extremely dependent on cooperative aircraft and pilots , it always has been and always will be .
It is an ATC system , not an air defense system.The new system will allow for a significant reduction in radar infrastructure because the superior state information coming from aircraft will require less overlapping radar coverage .
So that is less radar on the ground , but the system still has radar as part of its central core.Google ADS-B to learn more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the responses here it seems this Slashdot article isn't getting the point across at all and is borderline misinformation.The new system DOES NOT REPLACE RADAR.
It supplements the radar with state information from the aircraft (this state information includes GPS).At the core this isn't that drastically different from what already happens.
All aircraft require a transponder, and these transponders at a minimum respond with an altitude.
The aviation radar used in the ATC system does not measure altitude, it requires a transponder reply from the aircraft to get the altitude.
Furthermore this altitude reply is only accurate if the pilot has set the altimeter correctly, otherwise the data is bogus and in many cases bogus enough to bust separation.
The ATC system is already extremely dependent on cooperative aircraft and pilots, it always has been and always will be.
It is an ATC system, not an air defense system.The new system will allow for a significant reduction in radar infrastructure because the superior state information coming from aircraft will require less overlapping radar coverage.
So that is less radar on the ground, but the system still has radar as part of its central core.Google ADS-B to learn more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582192</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck me, stop saying post-9/11 world. It didn't change it that much, it just harmed the American ego.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck me , stop saying post-9/11 world .
It did n't change it that much , it just harmed the American ego .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck me, stop saying post-9/11 world.
It didn't change it that much, it just harmed the American ego.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31602170</id>
	<title>Re:Really guys?</title>
	<author>cffrost</author>
	<datestamp>1269462480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes?</p></div><p>I do; it's a manual lever-operated "emergency brake," or "e-brake."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car 's brakes ? I do ; it 's a manual lever-operated " emergency brake , " or " e-brake .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes?I do; it's a manual lever-operated "emergency brake," or "e-brake.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585694</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>Arnold Reinhold</author>
	<datestamp>1269366840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very informative, but for the record, cars and trucks don't use GPS in a safety-critical role and railroads don't use it at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very informative , but for the record , cars and trucks do n't use GPS in a safety-critical role and railroads do n't use it at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very informative, but for the record, cars and trucks don't use GPS in a safety-critical role and railroads don't use it at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582146</id>
	<title>GPS Selective Availability</title>
	<author>space\_hippy</author>
	<datestamp>1269352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what happens to private pilots and civil air patrol when the GOV turns on Selective Availability?<br>No personal electronic devices? what about the electronic E6B flight computers?<br>or the many iPhone apps that perform flight planing and navigation calculations?<br>or my hand held Garmin III+ GPS? etc etc etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and how the hell will the FAA know if I'm texting my friends in the left seat of a Cessna 172?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what happens to private pilots and civil air patrol when the GOV turns on Selective Availability ? No personal electronic devices ?
what about the electronic E6B flight computers ? or the many iPhone apps that perform flight planing and navigation calculations ? or my hand held Garmin III + GPS ?
etc etc etc .... and how the hell will the FAA know if I 'm texting my friends in the left seat of a Cessna 172 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what happens to private pilots and civil air patrol when the GOV turns on Selective Availability?No personal electronic devices?
what about the electronic E6B flight computers?or the many iPhone apps that perform flight planing and navigation calculations?or my hand held Garmin III+ GPS?
etc etc etc .... and how the hell will the FAA know if I'm texting my friends in the left seat of a Cessna 172?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581730</id>
	<title>By replace I hope they mean augment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Otherwise I might just taxi off of a draw bridge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Otherwise I might just taxi off of a draw bridge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Otherwise I might just taxi off of a draw bridge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583590</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269358860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...  I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.  Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.</p></div><p>Not that I don't agree with you, but this argument will never work.  It's been tried many times with gun control...</p><p>"I use my rifle for hunting.  I fail to see why it should be illegal just because some punk ass used a rifle to kill somebody.  There are *already* laws that make improper use of firearms illegal, the rest is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I use my phone to access aviation information ( weather , databases , etc ) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers could n't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing .
Federal Aviation Regs * already * have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity , this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.Not that I do n't agree with you , but this argument will never work .
It 's been tried many times with gun control... " I use my rifle for hunting .
I fail to see why it should be illegal just because some punk ass used a rifle to kill somebody .
There are * already * laws that make improper use of firearms illegal , the rest is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...  I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.
Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.Not that I don't agree with you, but this argument will never work.
It's been tried many times with gun control..."I use my rifle for hunting.
I fail to see why it should be illegal just because some punk ass used a rifle to kill somebody.
There are *already* laws that make improper use of firearms illegal, the rest is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584060</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269360840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In a post 9/11 world?<br>WTF does that have to do with it?<br>Less folks died than on our highway in a year, it was sad, but was not a world changing event.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a post 9/11 world ? WTF does that have to do with it ? Less folks died than on our highway in a year , it was sad , but was not a world changing event .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a post 9/11 world?WTF does that have to do with it?Less folks died than on our highway in a year, it was sad, but was not a world changing event.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586162</id>
	<title>Re:Replace?</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269368640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>50 year old systems that are extremely fragile,  are falling apart, are very difficult to get replacement parts for (because, the original manufacturers have LONG gone out of business), very few know how they work (let alone how to repair), have been hacked and reworked beyond recognition, and fail regularly.</p><p>There, fixed that for ya'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>50 year old systems that are extremely fragile , are falling apart , are very difficult to get replacement parts for ( because , the original manufacturers have LONG gone out of business ) , very few know how they work ( let alone how to repair ) , have been hacked and reworked beyond recognition , and fail regularly.There , fixed that for ya' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>50 year old systems that are extremely fragile,  are falling apart, are very difficult to get replacement parts for (because, the original manufacturers have LONG gone out of business), very few know how they work (let alone how to repair), have been hacked and reworked beyond recognition, and fail regularly.There, fixed that for ya'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062</id>
	<title>Security issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Point one: GPS, since the plane's antenna is semi-omnidirectional, is easily jammed. GPS signal strengths are weak.
Point Two: Radar is not easily jammed. A jammer can only jam one radial -- and he gives away his angular position when he does.
Point Three: Radar can skin track a plane even when the plane's transponder is turned off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point one : GPS , since the plane 's antenna is semi-omnidirectional , is easily jammed .
GPS signal strengths are weak .
Point Two : Radar is not easily jammed .
A jammer can only jam one radial -- and he gives away his angular position when he does .
Point Three : Radar can skin track a plane even when the plane 's transponder is turned off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point one: GPS, since the plane's antenna is semi-omnidirectional, is easily jammed.
GPS signal strengths are weak.
Point Two: Radar is not easily jammed.
A jammer can only jam one radial -- and he gives away his angular position when he does.
Point Three: Radar can skin track a plane even when the plane's transponder is turned off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1269350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy? what if...</htmltext>
<tokenext>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy ?
what if.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy?
what if...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583070</id>
	<title>Who needs it?</title>
	<author>whizbang77045</author>
	<datestamp>1269356760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In dense traffic areas, there is some reason to keep track of aircraft. But other than that, it's none of the government's business where I am.

No personal electronics in the cockpit? Sounds innocent, but this has avionics lobby people written all over it. They want all the equipment to be installed (read: more expensive), not carried on board.

My hand held gps - aircraft variey - does fine for visual flight operations. I don't need any of this fancy stuff. The "gps radar" installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In dense traffic areas , there is some reason to keep track of aircraft .
But other than that , it 's none of the government 's business where I am .
No personal electronics in the cockpit ?
Sounds innocent , but this has avionics lobby people written all over it .
They want all the equipment to be installed ( read : more expensive ) , not carried on board .
My hand held gps - aircraft variey - does fine for visual flight operations .
I do n't need any of this fancy stuff .
The " gps radar " installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In dense traffic areas, there is some reason to keep track of aircraft.
But other than that, it's none of the government's business where I am.
No personal electronics in the cockpit?
Sounds innocent, but this has avionics lobby people written all over it.
They want all the equipment to be installed (read: more expensive), not carried on board.
My hand held gps - aircraft variey - does fine for visual flight operations.
I don't need any of this fancy stuff.
The "gps radar" installation is going to cost more than a lot of airplanes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582394</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269354120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now now, I don't think the EU would go <i>that</i> far to promote its Galileo system (provided they get it up and running, that is)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now now , I do n't think the EU would go that far to promote its Galileo system ( provided they get it up and running , that is )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now now, I don't think the EU would go that far to promote its Galileo system (provided they get it up and running, that is)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778</id>
	<title>93-0 margin</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1269350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 margin</p></div></blockquote><p>And what were the other 7 senators doing that day? Biden (the VP) is technically part of the senate, but I'll give him a pass on this. I'll be checking to see if my senator(s) were busy sleeping in that day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 marginAnd what were the other 7 senators doing that day ?
Biden ( the VP ) is technically part of the senate , but I 'll give him a pass on this .
I 'll be checking to see if my senator ( s ) were busy sleeping in that day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US Senate on Monday passed by a 93-0 marginAnd what were the other 7 senators doing that day?
Biden (the VP) is technically part of the senate, but I'll give him a pass on this.
I'll be checking to see if my senator(s) were busy sleeping in that day.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581854</id>
	<title>Soo the FAA said this was good?</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1269351120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.<br>
<br>
In cockpit systems a standby attitude device must be installed in the cockpit as a fallback system <i>unless</i> the existing cockpit systems have dual redundancy.<br>
<br>
Along the same token the GPS DAMN WELL better have a backup system of some sort.  This backup may be a radar system or it may be an INS system combined with altitude sensors or use of VOR/TACAN systems.  There just has to be something there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine .
In cockpit systems a standby attitude device must be installed in the cockpit as a fallback system unless the existing cockpit systems have dual redundancy .
Along the same token the GPS DAMN WELL better have a backup system of some sort .
This backup may be a radar system or it may be an INS system combined with altitude sensors or use of VOR/TACAN systems .
There just has to be something there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.
In cockpit systems a standby attitude device must be installed in the cockpit as a fallback system unless the existing cockpit systems have dual redundancy.
Along the same token the GPS DAMN WELL better have a backup system of some sort.
This backup may be a radar system or it may be an INS system combined with altitude sensors or use of VOR/TACAN systems.
There just has to be something there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583550</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>LocutusMIT</author>
	<datestamp>1269358680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car, shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.</em></p><p>Marco.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car , shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.Marco .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car, shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.Marco.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</id>
	<title>Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1269350340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just adds to the consequences of the inevitable solar flare that will knock out all our satellites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just adds to the consequences of the inevitable solar flare that will knock out all our satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just adds to the consequences of the inevitable solar flare that will knock out all our satellites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583710</id>
	<title>Reconciliation, eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269359460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be interested to see if they actually reconcile the bill with the House version. And I'll be even more interested to see how many Republicans vote yes. I mean, they just spent over a month telling us how corrupt and totalitarian using reconciliation is. . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be interested to see if they actually reconcile the bill with the House version .
And I 'll be even more interested to see how many Republicans vote yes .
I mean , they just spent over a month telling us how corrupt and totalitarian using reconciliation is .
. .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be interested to see if they actually reconcile the bill with the House version.
And I'll be even more interested to see how many Republicans vote yes.
I mean, they just spent over a month telling us how corrupt and totalitarian using reconciliation is.
. .
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590278</id>
	<title>Re:GPS</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1269343440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glider pilot here too, my concern is with GPS altitude, as you would know, FAI loggers and FLARM both use pressure sensors for altitude data, as GPS<br>suffers from the occasional wild swing in its accuracy.</p><p>I wonder what ADS-B does in this respect, i suspect they probably will have a pressure sensor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glider pilot here too , my concern is with GPS altitude , as you would know , FAI loggers and FLARM both use pressure sensors for altitude data , as GPSsuffers from the occasional wild swing in its accuracy.I wonder what ADS-B does in this respect , i suspect they probably will have a pressure sensor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glider pilot here too, my concern is with GPS altitude, as you would know, FAI loggers and FLARM both use pressure sensors for altitude data, as GPSsuffers from the occasional wild swing in its accuracy.I wonder what ADS-B does in this respect, i suspect they probably will have a pressure sensor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590172</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1269343080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFA.  I borked the summary by, well, summarizing.  The FAA is outlawing *non-work-related* laptops and devices.</p><p>And while it is Congress who is passing the law, it is the FAA who wrote it and recommended it.  This isn't typical Congress making stuff up because they want to be seen "doing something."</p><p>So chill out.  RTFA again.  It's what the FAA is asking for, and not just the ordinary ravings and droolings of the dimwits in Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA .
I borked the summary by , well , summarizing .
The FAA is outlawing * non-work-related * laptops and devices.And while it is Congress who is passing the law , it is the FAA who wrote it and recommended it .
This is n't typical Congress making stuff up because they want to be seen " doing something .
" So chill out .
RTFA again .
It 's what the FAA is asking for , and not just the ordinary ravings and droolings of the dimwits in Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA.
I borked the summary by, well, summarizing.
The FAA is outlawing *non-work-related* laptops and devices.And while it is Congress who is passing the law, it is the FAA who wrote it and recommended it.
This isn't typical Congress making stuff up because they want to be seen "doing something.
"So chill out.
RTFA again.
It's what the FAA is asking for, and not just the ordinary ravings and droolings of the dimwits in Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582150</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1269352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then the entire worlds civilian airline structure falls to shambles.  Pretty much every big plane does use GPS now, just as a side tool.  Whatever regulations the US makes, all planes flying into and out of the US have to have.  In that way, this tech will eventually start working around the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the entire worlds civilian airline structure falls to shambles .
Pretty much every big plane does use GPS now , just as a side tool .
Whatever regulations the US makes , all planes flying into and out of the US have to have .
In that way , this tech will eventually start working around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the entire worlds civilian airline structure falls to shambles.
Pretty much every big plane does use GPS now, just as a side tool.
Whatever regulations the US makes, all planes flying into and out of the US have to have.
In that way, this tech will eventually start working around the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581966</id>
	<title>Re:Our rights offline</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We had a debate. You acted like children. You lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a debate .
You acted like children .
You lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a debate.
You acted like children.
You lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581952</id>
	<title>I can see where this is gonna go...</title>
	<author>silentcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1269351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sexy female voice in the cockpit: "Now come to a heading of 329."<br>Pilot: "Wait... WTF ? Who put that mountain there ?...."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sexy female voice in the cockpit : " Now come to a heading of 329 .
" Pilot : " Wait... WTF ?
Who put that mountain there ? ... .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sexy female voice in the cockpit: "Now come to a heading of 329.
"Pilot: "Wait... WTF ?
Who put that mountain there ?....
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582500</id>
	<title>Re:93-0 margin</title>
	<author>Saint Fnordius</author>
	<datestamp>1269354420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well,  there are a couple of senators who are sick and cannot attend, and if it wasn't for the amendment to the health care reform bill, many of them would have been off on junkets or in committee meetings. 93 is actually a high number for such an uncontroversial bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there are a couple of senators who are sick and can not attend , and if it was n't for the amendment to the health care reform bill , many of them would have been off on junkets or in committee meetings .
93 is actually a high number for such an uncontroversial bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well,  there are a couple of senators who are sick and cannot attend, and if it wasn't for the amendment to the health care reform bill, many of them would have been off on junkets or in committee meetings.
93 is actually a high number for such an uncontroversial bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584442</id>
	<title>Re:GPS and altitude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just because you were tired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just because you were tired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just because you were tired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589406</id>
	<title>Re:Both?</title>
	<author>Ksevio</author>
	<datestamp>1269339360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure they're going to be using both for a while, but eventually they'll be able to phase out expensive radar systems as they upgrade airports and planes.  Currently planes are identified by their transponders, so this will be a much better system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure they 're going to be using both for a while , but eventually they 'll be able to phase out expensive radar systems as they upgrade airports and planes .
Currently planes are identified by their transponders , so this will be a much better system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure they're going to be using both for a while, but eventually they'll be able to phase out expensive radar systems as they upgrade airports and planes.
Currently planes are identified by their transponders, so this will be a much better system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585016</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269364620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here we go again; subsidize the large commercial interests at the expense of the individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again ; subsidize the large commercial interests at the expense of the individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go again; subsidize the large commercial interests at the expense of the individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584900</id>
	<title>Radar not necessary for safety</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1269364200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The existing surveillance radar system isn't necessary for safe IFR operations.  There are nonradar procedures.  Every controller and every IFR pilot knows them.  Once widely used, they became less relevant in the 1970s as radar coverage improved to the point where most of major terminals and the route structure in the U.S. were covered by radar.  Outages still take place however and the nonradar procedures are still used.</p><p>In essence the nonradar system involves separating aircraft by time, altitude, or route, and relies on periodic position reports from pilots, at standardized locations.  The position reports follow a standard sequence and would read something like "United 123 Gopher at 1851Z, 17,000 feet Halfway at 58Z, Rochester next" where "United 123" is the flight identifier, "Gopher" is the location name, 1851Z is the time over the location (possibly a minute or two in the past due to delays in reporting if the radio channel is busy), 17,000 feet is the altitude of the aircraft, "Halfway" is the next reporting point, 58Z is the pilot's estimate of the aircraft's arrival time over that point (in minutes after the hour), and "Rochester" is the subsequent reporting point.</p><p>Radar is a great tool.  It improves capacity, reduces pilot and controller workload, and allows for random routes.  However, it would be a mistake to think that aviation depends on it or on any automated replacement for it.</p><p>The technologies that made IFR flight possible were the gyro systems that allowed the aircraft to be controlled without a horizon reference, and radionavigation.  Radio systems that permitted pilot-controller communication came next.  Radar was first deployed at congested airports to improve capacity, and it was not until much later that route surveillance radar and ubiquitous transponder use became the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The existing surveillance radar system is n't necessary for safe IFR operations .
There are nonradar procedures .
Every controller and every IFR pilot knows them .
Once widely used , they became less relevant in the 1970s as radar coverage improved to the point where most of major terminals and the route structure in the U.S. were covered by radar .
Outages still take place however and the nonradar procedures are still used.In essence the nonradar system involves separating aircraft by time , altitude , or route , and relies on periodic position reports from pilots , at standardized locations .
The position reports follow a standard sequence and would read something like " United 123 Gopher at 1851Z , 17,000 feet Halfway at 58Z , Rochester next " where " United 123 " is the flight identifier , " Gopher " is the location name , 1851Z is the time over the location ( possibly a minute or two in the past due to delays in reporting if the radio channel is busy ) , 17,000 feet is the altitude of the aircraft , " Halfway " is the next reporting point , 58Z is the pilot 's estimate of the aircraft 's arrival time over that point ( in minutes after the hour ) , and " Rochester " is the subsequent reporting point.Radar is a great tool .
It improves capacity , reduces pilot and controller workload , and allows for random routes .
However , it would be a mistake to think that aviation depends on it or on any automated replacement for it.The technologies that made IFR flight possible were the gyro systems that allowed the aircraft to be controlled without a horizon reference , and radionavigation .
Radio systems that permitted pilot-controller communication came next .
Radar was first deployed at congested airports to improve capacity , and it was not until much later that route surveillance radar and ubiquitous transponder use became the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The existing surveillance radar system isn't necessary for safe IFR operations.
There are nonradar procedures.
Every controller and every IFR pilot knows them.
Once widely used, they became less relevant in the 1970s as radar coverage improved to the point where most of major terminals and the route structure in the U.S. were covered by radar.
Outages still take place however and the nonradar procedures are still used.In essence the nonradar system involves separating aircraft by time, altitude, or route, and relies on periodic position reports from pilots, at standardized locations.
The position reports follow a standard sequence and would read something like "United 123 Gopher at 1851Z, 17,000 feet Halfway at 58Z, Rochester next" where "United 123" is the flight identifier, "Gopher" is the location name, 1851Z is the time over the location (possibly a minute or two in the past due to delays in reporting if the radio channel is busy), 17,000 feet is the altitude of the aircraft, "Halfway" is the next reporting point, 58Z is the pilot's estimate of the aircraft's arrival time over that point (in minutes after the hour), and "Rochester" is the subsequent reporting point.Radar is a great tool.
It improves capacity, reduces pilot and controller workload, and allows for random routes.
However, it would be a mistake to think that aviation depends on it or on any automated replacement for it.The technologies that made IFR flight possible were the gyro systems that allowed the aircraft to be controlled without a horizon reference, and radionavigation.
Radio systems that permitted pilot-controller communication came next.
Radar was first deployed at congested airports to improve capacity, and it was not until much later that route surveillance radar and ubiquitous transponder use became the norm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31592020</id>
	<title>Good questions for a non-smoke-blower</title>
	<author>GPS Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1269351360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Each plane is equipped with a transponder. It receives GPS position, and broadcasts a packet of data once per second (much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds) containing identity, position, aircraft type, speed, heading, altitude, and more.  With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment, each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft.</i></p><p>When the ability to receive this data becomes universal, couldn't we do away with ground controllers altogether?  Because all it would take are some simple "right of way" rules and a small amount of computing power for each plane to autonomously compute and execute the slight course adjustments needed to avoid other aircraft, and even to avoid intersecting another aircraft's wake vortices.</p><p><i>The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace.</i></p><p>This gave me some pause.  Couldn't the information be used by an upgraded MANPAD to ensure it connects with its target?  Flares and chaff would no longer be a distraction for this kind of MANPAD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each plane is equipped with a transponder .
It receives GPS position , and broadcasts a packet of data once per second ( much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds ) containing identity , position , aircraft type , speed , heading , altitude , and more .
With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment , each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft.When the ability to receive this data becomes universal , could n't we do away with ground controllers altogether ?
Because all it would take are some simple " right of way " rules and a small amount of computing power for each plane to autonomously compute and execute the slight course adjustments needed to avoid other aircraft , and even to avoid intersecting another aircraft 's wake vortices.The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data ( including skin-paint targets ) on a separate radio frequency , so any airplane ( or even ground observers ) can learn about everything in the airspace.This gave me some pause .
Could n't the information be used by an upgraded MANPAD to ensure it connects with its target ?
Flares and chaff would no longer be a distraction for this kind of MANPAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each plane is equipped with a transponder.
It receives GPS position, and broadcasts a packet of data once per second (much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds) containing identity, position, aircraft type, speed, heading, altitude, and more.
With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment, each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft.When the ability to receive this data becomes universal, couldn't we do away with ground controllers altogether?
Because all it would take are some simple "right of way" rules and a small amount of computing power for each plane to autonomously compute and execute the slight course adjustments needed to avoid other aircraft, and even to avoid intersecting another aircraft's wake vortices.The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace.This gave me some pause.
Couldn't the information be used by an upgraded MANPAD to ensure it connects with its target?
Flares and chaff would no longer be a distraction for this kind of MANPAD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584924</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>Kazymyr</author>
	<datestamp>1269364260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not even that - anyome with a <a href="http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.8758" title="dealextreme.com">$27 gadget</a> [dealextreme.com] can seriously disrupt GPS-based traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even that - anyome with a $ 27 gadget [ dealextreme.com ] can seriously disrupt GPS-based traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even that - anyome with a $27 gadget [dealextreme.com] can seriously disrupt GPS-based traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587234</id>
	<title>Re:GPS and altitude</title>
	<author>koehn</author>
	<datestamp>1269372360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aviation GPS uses WAAS to get increased accuracy (roughly 10'). Also aircraft, being up in the sky, can see many more satellites than somebody standing on a hill. WAAS informs the GPS receiver of errors in the signal, as well as failure of portions of the constellation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aviation GPS uses WAAS to get increased accuracy ( roughly 10 ' ) .
Also aircraft , being up in the sky , can see many more satellites than somebody standing on a hill .
WAAS informs the GPS receiver of errors in the signal , as well as failure of portions of the constellation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aviation GPS uses WAAS to get increased accuracy (roughly 10').
Also aircraft, being up in the sky, can see many more satellites than somebody standing on a hill.
WAAS informs the GPS receiver of errors in the signal, as well as failure of portions of the constellation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582226</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>KDN</author>
	<datestamp>1269353160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who needs anti satellite weapons?  In the second Iraq war, wasn't Iraq using GPS jamming equipment for a while?  Heck, last time I was in DC I noticed that my GPS would blink out around the White House.  Although direct jamming equipment I don't worry about as much as the possibility of spoofing equipment.  Something that could raise the apparent altitude of your airplane on descent in bad weather.  Or move your location so you fly into a mountain range.  Jamming would be obvious as you would have problems getting a signal lock.  How do you identify spoofing without an independent source?
And remember, when something is dependable, people tend to rely on it without critical thinking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs anti satellite weapons ?
In the second Iraq war , was n't Iraq using GPS jamming equipment for a while ?
Heck , last time I was in DC I noticed that my GPS would blink out around the White House .
Although direct jamming equipment I do n't worry about as much as the possibility of spoofing equipment .
Something that could raise the apparent altitude of your airplane on descent in bad weather .
Or move your location so you fly into a mountain range .
Jamming would be obvious as you would have problems getting a signal lock .
How do you identify spoofing without an independent source ?
And remember , when something is dependable , people tend to rely on it without critical thinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs anti satellite weapons?
In the second Iraq war, wasn't Iraq using GPS jamming equipment for a while?
Heck, last time I was in DC I noticed that my GPS would blink out around the White House.
Although direct jamming equipment I don't worry about as much as the possibility of spoofing equipment.
Something that could raise the apparent altitude of your airplane on descent in bad weather.
Or move your location so you fly into a mountain range.
Jamming would be obvious as you would have problems getting a signal lock.
How do you identify spoofing without an independent source?
And remember, when something is dependable, people tend to rely on it without critical thinking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</id>
	<title>I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>Goldenhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1269358380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell from reading the other comments here that my opinions will be in the minority, but I can personally testify how GOOD this system is.</p><p>I do flight testing of military aircraft, and we did a demo with several planes and helicopters a couple years ago on the "ADS-B" system, which is a component of NextGen. I've played with it inflight myself, and surveyed many pilots who used it. So you know I'm not blowing smoke, I won an award for a paper about this system at the 2006 Society of Flight Test Engineers annual symposium.</p><p>To give you some context about what NextGen and ADS-B do, here's the idea. (I think this description will be useful, since it appears most of the comments here demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge of the system... but this *IS*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. so I'm not surprised.)</p><p>Each plane is equipped with a transponder. It receives GPS position, and broadcasts a packet of data once per second (much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds) containing identity, position, aircraft type, speed, heading, altitude, and more.</p><p>With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment, each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft. In other words, an airplane will see what the other nearby airplanes are reporting too. Right now, a pilot has very little idea what is around his own plane - if the controller doesn't warn him, he doesn't know about it. The existing collision avoidance systems only show a rough approximation of what's in front of you at roughly the same altitude, but it's very error-prone (based on WWII-era-technology directional radio beacons), and hard to find the targets in many cases. But this sytem lets you see everything that the airspace controller is seeing, and almost instantly - once per second. We found the pilots experienced a four-fold increase in their ability to identify conflicting traffic in front of them, and for the first time were aware of overtaking traffic too (faster stuff coming up behind them).</p><p>The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace. Along with this data, it also uploads precipitation radar and other weather data, plus airport information. So the pilot has access to a vast amount of new information. And most of the systems have onboard maps with terrain mapping, helping to keep the pilot away from mountains and other dangerous "cumulo-granite" features.</p><p>For the pilot himself, the increase in situational awareness was simply amazing. The immediate and crystal clear presentation of the location of all nearby planes meant that he knew everything going on around him. For the ground controller, the much higher frequency updates combined with the much more detailed information about each plane means improved ability to track and direct those airplanes.</p><p>There ARE a few downsides, but they're vastly outweighed by the improvements. As some comments indicate, it does depend on GPS. Well, duh. But so do the navigation systems already onboard the airplanes... and cars... and commercial trucks... and ships... and trains. If GPS goes down, there will be much worse problems than this system going away. Despite what it sounds like, the radars are not going away - some will, but there will still be enough for "skin paint" and radar transponder tracking if needed (Congress and the FAA are not totally stupid). As to GPS jammers, note that the airplane is receiving the GPS data, and broadcasting its information on a totally separate frequency to the ground and to other aircraft. So any GPS jamming (since it's localized) will only affect a few airplanes, not the whole system. And by the way, all serious aircraft have multiple navigation systems; jamming GPS won't kill any airplanes, despite the alarmists.</p><p>Finally, let's talk about real-world - this system was installed in portions of Alaska around 2000-2001, as a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell from reading the other comments here that my opinions will be in the minority , but I can personally testify how GOOD this system is.I do flight testing of military aircraft , and we did a demo with several planes and helicopters a couple years ago on the " ADS-B " system , which is a component of NextGen .
I 've played with it inflight myself , and surveyed many pilots who used it .
So you know I 'm not blowing smoke , I won an award for a paper about this system at the 2006 Society of Flight Test Engineers annual symposium.To give you some context about what NextGen and ADS-B do , here 's the idea .
( I think this description will be useful , since it appears most of the comments here demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge of the system... but this * IS * / .
so I 'm not surprised .
) Each plane is equipped with a transponder .
It receives GPS position , and broadcasts a packet of data once per second ( much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds ) containing identity , position , aircraft type , speed , heading , altitude , and more.With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment , each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft .
In other words , an airplane will see what the other nearby airplanes are reporting too .
Right now , a pilot has very little idea what is around his own plane - if the controller does n't warn him , he does n't know about it .
The existing collision avoidance systems only show a rough approximation of what 's in front of you at roughly the same altitude , but it 's very error-prone ( based on WWII-era-technology directional radio beacons ) , and hard to find the targets in many cases .
But this sytem lets you see everything that the airspace controller is seeing , and almost instantly - once per second .
We found the pilots experienced a four-fold increase in their ability to identify conflicting traffic in front of them , and for the first time were aware of overtaking traffic too ( faster stuff coming up behind them ) .The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data ( including skin-paint targets ) on a separate radio frequency , so any airplane ( or even ground observers ) can learn about everything in the airspace .
Along with this data , it also uploads precipitation radar and other weather data , plus airport information .
So the pilot has access to a vast amount of new information .
And most of the systems have onboard maps with terrain mapping , helping to keep the pilot away from mountains and other dangerous " cumulo-granite " features.For the pilot himself , the increase in situational awareness was simply amazing .
The immediate and crystal clear presentation of the location of all nearby planes meant that he knew everything going on around him .
For the ground controller , the much higher frequency updates combined with the much more detailed information about each plane means improved ability to track and direct those airplanes.There ARE a few downsides , but they 're vastly outweighed by the improvements .
As some comments indicate , it does depend on GPS .
Well , duh .
But so do the navigation systems already onboard the airplanes... and cars... and commercial trucks... and ships... and trains .
If GPS goes down , there will be much worse problems than this system going away .
Despite what it sounds like , the radars are not going away - some will , but there will still be enough for " skin paint " and radar transponder tracking if needed ( Congress and the FAA are not totally stupid ) .
As to GPS jammers , note that the airplane is receiving the GPS data , and broadcasting its information on a totally separate frequency to the ground and to other aircraft .
So any GPS jamming ( since it 's localized ) will only affect a few airplanes , not the whole system .
And by the way , all serious aircraft have multiple navigation systems ; jamming GPS wo n't kill any airplanes , despite the alarmists.Finally , let 's talk about real-world - this system was installed in portions of Alaska around 2000-2001 , as a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell from reading the other comments here that my opinions will be in the minority, but I can personally testify how GOOD this system is.I do flight testing of military aircraft, and we did a demo with several planes and helicopters a couple years ago on the "ADS-B" system, which is a component of NextGen.
I've played with it inflight myself, and surveyed many pilots who used it.
So you know I'm not blowing smoke, I won an award for a paper about this system at the 2006 Society of Flight Test Engineers annual symposium.To give you some context about what NextGen and ADS-B do, here's the idea.
(I think this description will be useful, since it appears most of the comments here demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge of the system... but this *IS* /.
so I'm not surprised.
)Each plane is equipped with a transponder.
It receives GPS position, and broadcasts a packet of data once per second (much more frequently than the usual radar sweep of 10-15 seconds) containing identity, position, aircraft type, speed, heading, altitude, and more.With just a few thousand dollars worth of optional equipment, each plane can also recieve these broadcast packets of information DIRECTLY from other aircraft.
In other words, an airplane will see what the other nearby airplanes are reporting too.
Right now, a pilot has very little idea what is around his own plane - if the controller doesn't warn him, he doesn't know about it.
The existing collision avoidance systems only show a rough approximation of what's in front of you at roughly the same altitude, but it's very error-prone (based on WWII-era-technology directional radio beacons), and hard to find the targets in many cases.
But this sytem lets you see everything that the airspace controller is seeing, and almost instantly - once per second.
We found the pilots experienced a four-fold increase in their ability to identify conflicting traffic in front of them, and for the first time were aware of overtaking traffic too (faster stuff coming up behind them).The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace.
Along with this data, it also uploads precipitation radar and other weather data, plus airport information.
So the pilot has access to a vast amount of new information.
And most of the systems have onboard maps with terrain mapping, helping to keep the pilot away from mountains and other dangerous "cumulo-granite" features.For the pilot himself, the increase in situational awareness was simply amazing.
The immediate and crystal clear presentation of the location of all nearby planes meant that he knew everything going on around him.
For the ground controller, the much higher frequency updates combined with the much more detailed information about each plane means improved ability to track and direct those airplanes.There ARE a few downsides, but they're vastly outweighed by the improvements.
As some comments indicate, it does depend on GPS.
Well, duh.
But so do the navigation systems already onboard the airplanes... and cars... and commercial trucks... and ships... and trains.
If GPS goes down, there will be much worse problems than this system going away.
Despite what it sounds like, the radars are not going away - some will, but there will still be enough for "skin paint" and radar transponder tracking if needed (Congress and the FAA are not totally stupid).
As to GPS jammers, note that the airplane is receiving the GPS data, and broadcasting its information on a totally separate frequency to the ground and to other aircraft.
So any GPS jamming (since it's localized) will only affect a few airplanes, not the whole system.
And by the way, all serious aircraft have multiple navigation systems; jamming GPS won't kill any airplanes, despite the alarmists.Finally, let's talk about real-world - this system was installed in portions of Alaska around 2000-2001, as a</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589164</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't they delay a launch</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, aircraft can be flown manually relatively easily.  When you look at your GPS and it says you're in the middle of the atlantic and you can see Chicago and the great lakes below you, then you can simply ignore GPS and fall back to VOR, NDB, and finally good old fasioned visual navigation with landmarks, though it'd be a bit scary to do so in a large commercial craft if you were completely lost, but you wouldn't become 'completely lost' unless you were over open ocean.  Either way, its a standard procedure to recover from.</p><p>To my understanding, only one man has flown the space shuttle manually in the atmosphere other than the last 2 minutes of the landing sequence, and thats argued to be a rumor started by Marines (the pilot was a Marine), the rumor goes on to say that even he said he wouldn't do it again.  In short, the Shuttle flies itself and the pilot is just what they call the guy the sits in the front right chair, the commander being the front left.</p><p>They aren't the same class of craft, nor the same class of pilot for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , aircraft can be flown manually relatively easily .
When you look at your GPS and it says you 're in the middle of the atlantic and you can see Chicago and the great lakes below you , then you can simply ignore GPS and fall back to VOR , NDB , and finally good old fasioned visual navigation with landmarks , though it 'd be a bit scary to do so in a large commercial craft if you were completely lost , but you would n't become 'completely lost ' unless you were over open ocean .
Either way , its a standard procedure to recover from.To my understanding , only one man has flown the space shuttle manually in the atmosphere other than the last 2 minutes of the landing sequence , and thats argued to be a rumor started by Marines ( the pilot was a Marine ) , the rumor goes on to say that even he said he would n't do it again .
In short , the Shuttle flies itself and the pilot is just what they call the guy the sits in the front right chair , the commander being the front left.They are n't the same class of craft , nor the same class of pilot for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, aircraft can be flown manually relatively easily.
When you look at your GPS and it says you're in the middle of the atlantic and you can see Chicago and the great lakes below you, then you can simply ignore GPS and fall back to VOR, NDB, and finally good old fasioned visual navigation with landmarks, though it'd be a bit scary to do so in a large commercial craft if you were completely lost, but you wouldn't become 'completely lost' unless you were over open ocean.
Either way, its a standard procedure to recover from.To my understanding, only one man has flown the space shuttle manually in the atmosphere other than the last 2 minutes of the landing sequence, and thats argued to be a rumor started by Marines (the pilot was a Marine), the rumor goes on to say that even he said he wouldn't do it again.
In short, the Shuttle flies itself and the pilot is just what they call the guy the sits in the front right chair, the commander being the front left.They aren't the same class of craft, nor the same class of pilot for that matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583532</id>
	<title>Re:Our rights offline</title>
	<author>cmiller173</author>
	<datestamp>1269358620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they haven't yet repealed the telephone tax to pay for the spanish-american war what the hell makes you think this will ever get repealed?  You MUST be new here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they have n't yet repealed the telephone tax to pay for the spanish-american war what the hell makes you think this will ever get repealed ?
You MUST be new here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they haven't yet repealed the telephone tax to pay for the spanish-american war what the hell makes you think this will ever get repealed?
You MUST be new here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588646</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269335640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.</p></div></blockquote><p>You could still do 3 a minute in clear weather, you'd loose bad weather for that tight of spacing, no radar would effectively slow the pace at a large airport so much that it'd effectively be closed and you'd have to reroute aircraft without radar.  That would be a very nasty mess since most pilots today in large aircraft are far too dependent on electronic positioning via GPS rather than actually using traditional VFR navigation technics.</p><p>IFR however requires no radar and is perfectly valid at uncontrolled airports which have no radar or control tower.</p><p>IFR rules require insturments in the aircraft and signal generators on the ground, but not radar in anyway.  You just need beacons to follow on the ground and the equipment in your craft to detect them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear , today... You wo n't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible , but by no means do you have to " shut down ALL traffic " or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.You could still do 3 a minute in clear weather , you 'd loose bad weather for that tight of spacing , no radar would effectively slow the pace at a large airport so much that it 'd effectively be closed and you 'd have to reroute aircraft without radar .
That would be a very nasty mess since most pilots today in large aircraft are far too dependent on electronic positioning via GPS rather than actually using traditional VFR navigation technics.IFR however requires no radar and is perfectly valid at uncontrolled airports which have no radar or control tower.IFR rules require insturments in the aircraft and signal generators on the ground , but not radar in anyway .
You just need beacons to follow on the ground and the equipment in your craft to detect them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.You could still do 3 a minute in clear weather, you'd loose bad weather for that tight of spacing, no radar would effectively slow the pace at a large airport so much that it'd effectively be closed and you'd have to reroute aircraft without radar.
That would be a very nasty mess since most pilots today in large aircraft are far too dependent on electronic positioning via GPS rather than actually using traditional VFR navigation technics.IFR however requires no radar and is perfectly valid at uncontrolled airports which have no radar or control tower.IFR rules require insturments in the aircraft and signal generators on the ground, but not radar in anyway.
You just need beacons to follow on the ground and the equipment in your craft to detect them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587668</id>
	<title>Re:What about $50 GPS Jammers?</title>
	<author>MattskEE</author>
	<datestamp>1269373980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another commenter further up who helped test the pilot system in Alaska said it wouldn't remove all radar.  I don't know.</p><p>But it's not easy to jam aircraft across a very wide area.  It already requires a fair amount of power since you're on the ground and far from the aircraft, thus the aircraft's GPS antenna will receive little power from that angle and range.  So you need a focused antenna, OR a ton of power, OR both, depending on various factors.  If you did put out enough power to jam people in a wide area then you will easily be detected by definition because of how much power you are putting out.  And the penalties for this are pretty severe.  Plus the people who design these systems are more aware of the problems than you are, and know how to fix them.  It's just a matter of money.</p><p>People can already jam airport radars, if they want to.   While they are higher power than GPS, they are fixed in position so you can use a very high gain antenna.  Heck, get a high powered rifle with a scope and you can disable an airport radar, depending on local geography if you can get close enough.  So there's no additional danger.  And there are always backup plans for when instruments go out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another commenter further up who helped test the pilot system in Alaska said it would n't remove all radar .
I do n't know.But it 's not easy to jam aircraft across a very wide area .
It already requires a fair amount of power since you 're on the ground and far from the aircraft , thus the aircraft 's GPS antenna will receive little power from that angle and range .
So you need a focused antenna , OR a ton of power , OR both , depending on various factors .
If you did put out enough power to jam people in a wide area then you will easily be detected by definition because of how much power you are putting out .
And the penalties for this are pretty severe .
Plus the people who design these systems are more aware of the problems than you are , and know how to fix them .
It 's just a matter of money.People can already jam airport radars , if they want to .
While they are higher power than GPS , they are fixed in position so you can use a very high gain antenna .
Heck , get a high powered rifle with a scope and you can disable an airport radar , depending on local geography if you can get close enough .
So there 's no additional danger .
And there are always backup plans for when instruments go out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another commenter further up who helped test the pilot system in Alaska said it wouldn't remove all radar.
I don't know.But it's not easy to jam aircraft across a very wide area.
It already requires a fair amount of power since you're on the ground and far from the aircraft, thus the aircraft's GPS antenna will receive little power from that angle and range.
So you need a focused antenna, OR a ton of power, OR both, depending on various factors.
If you did put out enough power to jam people in a wide area then you will easily be detected by definition because of how much power you are putting out.
And the penalties for this are pretty severe.
Plus the people who design these systems are more aware of the problems than you are, and know how to fix them.
It's just a matter of money.People can already jam airport radars, if they want to.
While they are higher power than GPS, they are fixed in position so you can use a very high gain antenna.
Heck, get a high powered rifle with a scope and you can disable an airport radar, depending on local geography if you can get close enough.
So there's no additional danger.
And there are always backup plans for when instruments go out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590756</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1269345420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ADS-B test in Alaska was called the Capstone program if you want to look into it some more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ADS-B test in Alaska was called the Capstone program if you want to look into it some more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ADS-B test in Alaska was called the Capstone program if you want to look into it some more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585520</id>
	<title>Re:Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1269366240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.</i></p><p>One impact on the entire non-aviation sector is that we can stop worrying the US Government will return to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global\_Positioning\_System#Selective\_availability" title="wikipedia.org">selective availability</a> [wikipedia.org] of GPS.  They've said the change is permanent, but one must deem whether such promises would be maintained if they became strategically disadvantageous.</p><p>If it means airplanes will start having trouble navigating, this effectively removes the temptation to do it for political reasons (as yet-undreamed applications develop with the mass proliferation of GPS smartphones this temptation may well arise).  Militarily, they could afford to lose a few airliners, so if we or the government comes under attack, hope you're not landing nearby on IFR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how significant it is , and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.One impact on the entire non-aviation sector is that we can stop worrying the US Government will return to selective availability [ wikipedia.org ] of GPS .
They 've said the change is permanent , but one must deem whether such promises would be maintained if they became strategically disadvantageous.If it means airplanes will start having trouble navigating , this effectively removes the temptation to do it for political reasons ( as yet-undreamed applications develop with the mass proliferation of GPS smartphones this temptation may well arise ) .
Militarily , they could afford to lose a few airliners , so if we or the government comes under attack , hope you 're not landing nearby on IFR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.One impact on the entire non-aviation sector is that we can stop worrying the US Government will return to selective availability [wikipedia.org] of GPS.
They've said the change is permanent, but one must deem whether such promises would be maintained if they became strategically disadvantageous.If it means airplanes will start having trouble navigating, this effectively removes the temptation to do it for political reasons (as yet-undreamed applications develop with the mass proliferation of GPS smartphones this temptation may well arise).
Militarily, they could afford to lose a few airliners, so if we or the government comes under attack, hope you're not landing nearby on IFR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582744</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269355380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control?</p></div><p>ADS-B</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this system secured? This will be breached repeatedly.</p></div><p>No technical means what so ever.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast#Public\_Access\_to\_ADS-B" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast#Public\_Access\_to\_ADS-B</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>No public reports of anyone intentionally messing with the 50 year old transponder system, which basically did "about the same thing" but without GPS.  Probably because the military spent enormous amounts of money on gear and training to stop the Russians from doing it effectively, by being able to pinpoint the source, launch HARM missiles at the source, etc.  If you can do a better job than a world superpower, then the USAF might be concerned... maybe.</p><p>There is an economic limitation in that the cost of the gear to "mess with the system" would be staggeringly far in excess of the cost of a simple cheap surface to air missile or an explosive in a suitcase (or shoe).  And when all is said and done, you've knocked out air surveillance, something that happens on occasion right now due to equipment failure and its "no big deal".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites?</p></div><p>GPS sats are pretty tough, vaguely EMP proof.  They were built and launched by the military for the military, you know.</p><p>Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.</p><p>The cheapest/simplest solution might be to scramble the AWACS planes temporarily, until you can hotwire some patriot missile radars into the civilian facilities.</p><p>It would be an expensive and annoying PITA, but far less severe than the first couple days post-9/11</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control ? ADS-Bhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic \ _dependent \ _surveillance-broadcast [ wikipedia.org ] How is this system secured ?
This will be breached repeatedly.No technical means what so ever.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic \ _dependent \ _surveillance-broadcast # Public \ _Access \ _to \ _ADS-B [ wikipedia.org ] No public reports of anyone intentionally messing with the 50 year old transponder system , which basically did " about the same thing " but without GPS .
Probably because the military spent enormous amounts of money on gear and training to stop the Russians from doing it effectively , by being able to pinpoint the source , launch HARM missiles at the source , etc .
If you can do a better job than a world superpower , then the USAF might be concerned... maybe.There is an economic limitation in that the cost of the gear to " mess with the system " would be staggeringly far in excess of the cost of a simple cheap surface to air missile or an explosive in a suitcase ( or shoe ) .
And when all is said and done , you 've knocked out air surveillance , something that happens on occasion right now due to equipment failure and its " no big deal " .Also , what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites ? GPS sats are pretty tough , vaguely EMP proof .
They were built and launched by the military for the military , you know.Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear , today... You wo n't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible , but by no means do you have to " shut down ALL traffic " or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.The cheapest/simplest solution might be to scramble the AWACS planes temporarily , until you can hotwire some patriot missile radars into the civilian facilities.It would be an expensive and annoying PITA , but far less severe than the first couple days post-9/11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So each plane sends its location back to air traffic control?ADS-Bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast [wikipedia.org] How is this system secured?
This will be breached repeatedly.No technical means what so ever.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic\_dependent\_surveillance-broadcast#Public\_Access\_to\_ADS-B [wikipedia.org]No public reports of anyone intentionally messing with the 50 year old transponder system, which basically did "about the same thing" but without GPS.
Probably because the military spent enormous amounts of money on gear and training to stop the Russians from doing it effectively, by being able to pinpoint the source, launch HARM missiles at the source, etc.
If you can do a better job than a world superpower, then the USAF might be concerned... maybe.There is an economic limitation in that the cost of the gear to "mess with the system" would be staggeringly far in excess of the cost of a simple cheap surface to air missile or an explosive in a suitcase (or shoe).
And when all is said and done, you've knocked out air surveillance, something that happens on occasion right now due to equipment failure and its "no big deal".Also, what happens when a solar storm takes out the satellites?GPS sats are pretty tough, vaguely EMP proof.
They were built and launched by the military for the military, you know.Note that plenty of small planes fly with no transponders or IFR gear, today... You won't get 3 landings per minute at ohare and IFR would seem to be borderline impossible, but by no means do you have to "shut down ALL traffic" or all airplanes will magically fall out of the sky.The cheapest/simplest solution might be to scramble the AWACS planes temporarily, until you can hotwire some patriot missile radars into the civilian facilities.It would be an expensive and annoying PITA, but far less severe than the first couple days post-9/11
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582912</id>
	<title>Tax private aircraft?! Again!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269356040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They keep making it more expensive for us private pilots to operate our own aircraft. The airline lobby wants to destroy private aviation, and the gov seems to fall right in with it. Howabout instead of taxing the people who will NEVER use it or see it, tax the airline industry? You don't tax the people of Texas for the new roads in Washington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They keep making it more expensive for us private pilots to operate our own aircraft .
The airline lobby wants to destroy private aviation , and the gov seems to fall right in with it .
Howabout instead of taxing the people who will NEVER use it or see it , tax the airline industry ?
You do n't tax the people of Texas for the new roads in Washington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They keep making it more expensive for us private pilots to operate our own aircraft.
The airline lobby wants to destroy private aviation, and the gov seems to fall right in with it.
Howabout instead of taxing the people who will NEVER use it or see it, tax the airline industry?
You don't tax the people of Texas for the new roads in Washington.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</id>
	<title>Great...</title>
	<author>T-Bucket</author>
	<datestamp>1269350160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While the nextgen plan is a good thing, the rest is crap. We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed. How about NOT giving in to the airline lobbyists for once and actually doing something to make air travel SAFER????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While the nextgen plan is a good thing , the rest is crap .
We can get legislation to ban laptops , but we ca n't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed .
How about NOT giving in to the airline lobbyists for once and actually doing something to make air travel SAFER ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the nextgen plan is a good thing, the rest is crap.
We can get legislation to ban laptops, but we can't get the HORRENDOUSLY dangerous rest regulations fixed.
How about NOT giving in to the airline lobbyists for once and actually doing something to make air travel SAFER???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582404</id>
	<title>Laptops standard in cockpit</title>
	<author>Gandalf1957</author>
	<datestamp>1269354180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some aircraft - some of the Embraer models for instance - now have laptops in the cockpit which the pilots are expected to use for flight plans etc and the copy holders have been removed. Guessing it's still the case that the plane is not allowed off the ground without both laptops being fully operational. These are standard, IBM laptops so justifying frisking pilots for their personal electronics when there are a couple of laptops fitted in the cockpit is not "going to fly" if you'll pardon the pun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some aircraft - some of the Embraer models for instance - now have laptops in the cockpit which the pilots are expected to use for flight plans etc and the copy holders have been removed .
Guessing it 's still the case that the plane is not allowed off the ground without both laptops being fully operational .
These are standard , IBM laptops so justifying frisking pilots for their personal electronics when there are a couple of laptops fitted in the cockpit is not " going to fly " if you 'll pardon the pun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some aircraft - some of the Embraer models for instance - now have laptops in the cockpit which the pilots are expected to use for flight plans etc and the copy holders have been removed.
Guessing it's still the case that the plane is not allowed off the ground without both laptops being fully operational.
These are standard, IBM laptops so justifying frisking pilots for their personal electronics when there are a couple of laptops fitted in the cockpit is not "going to fly" if you'll pardon the pun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583384</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1269358020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, the system uses a transmitter to broadcast the aircraft's position.  That signal can be picked up by both ATC and other aircraft (for collision avoidance).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the system uses a transmitter to broadcast the aircraft 's position .
That signal can be picked up by both ATC and other aircraft ( for collision avoidance ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the system uses a transmitter to broadcast the aircraft's position.
That signal can be picked up by both ATC and other aircraft (for collision avoidance).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582484</id>
	<title>The way I read it, radar won't be retired.</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1269354420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a little hard to tell, but one of the advantages listed is that aircraft outside areas with radar coverage will be able to transmit position information.  So reading between the lines they expect to continue using radar, but replacing its role in the system with more up to date data broadcast by the aircraft.</p><p>I'm guessing that they will not throw out radar entirely for primary surveillance. They'll need it to track things that don't transmit their position, like aircraft with failed electronics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a little hard to tell , but one of the advantages listed is that aircraft outside areas with radar coverage will be able to transmit position information .
So reading between the lines they expect to continue using radar , but replacing its role in the system with more up to date data broadcast by the aircraft.I 'm guessing that they will not throw out radar entirely for primary surveillance .
They 'll need it to track things that do n't transmit their position , like aircraft with failed electronics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a little hard to tell, but one of the advantages listed is that aircraft outside areas with radar coverage will be able to transmit position information.
So reading between the lines they expect to continue using radar, but replacing its role in the system with more up to date data broadcast by the aircraft.I'm guessing that they will not throw out radar entirely for primary surveillance.
They'll need it to track things that don't transmit their position, like aircraft with failed electronics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582142</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>CODiNE</author>
	<datestamp>1269352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was clearly a feral oompa-loompa, NOT a munchkin.  Completely different man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was clearly a feral oompa-loompa , NOT a munchkin .
Completely different man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was clearly a feral oompa-loompa, NOT a munchkin.
Completely different man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584700</id>
	<title>As the crow flies...</title>
	<author>CohibaVancouver</author>
	<datestamp>1269363360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One advantage to GPS navigation is it will allow more aircraft to fly to their destination "as the crow flies" as opposed to being forced to fly established ATC corridors.  This saves on both fuel and flight time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One advantage to GPS navigation is it will allow more aircraft to fly to their destination " as the crow flies " as opposed to being forced to fly established ATC corridors .
This saves on both fuel and flight time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One advantage to GPS navigation is it will allow more aircraft to fly to their destination "as the crow flies" as opposed to being forced to fly established ATC corridors.
This saves on both fuel and flight time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582414</id>
	<title>Re:What about $50 GPS Jammers?</title>
	<author>ConfusedVorlon</author>
	<datestamp>1269354240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...nothing bad happens. The pilot reports a gps failure, air traffic guide her by radar towards the airport. When in range of the airport (assuming the weather is bad enough that the pilot can't see out the window) the pilot lands using the airport's instrument landing beacons.</p><p>There is slight disruption to traffic in the area due to slightly wider berth being given to our troubled aircraft, and the priority landing pattern.</p><p>(precise details made up - broad effect accurate)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and then ...nothing bad happens .
The pilot reports a gps failure , air traffic guide her by radar towards the airport .
When in range of the airport ( assuming the weather is bad enough that the pilot ca n't see out the window ) the pilot lands using the airport 's instrument landing beacons.There is slight disruption to traffic in the area due to slightly wider berth being given to our troubled aircraft , and the priority landing pattern .
( precise details made up - broad effect accurate )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and then ...nothing bad happens.
The pilot reports a gps failure, air traffic guide her by radar towards the airport.
When in range of the airport (assuming the weather is bad enough that the pilot can't see out the window) the pilot lands using the airport's instrument landing beacons.There is slight disruption to traffic in the area due to slightly wider berth being given to our troubled aircraft, and the priority landing pattern.
(precise details made up - broad effect accurate)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584500</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>AgentMagneta</author>
	<datestamp>1269362460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You made a very good point. And it is not like it will replace the backup systems. <br>

But on the other hand we have had a lot of ships running aground here in my part of Europe. By the failure of the GPS.

What is important is that training does include the backup systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You made a very good point .
And it is not like it will replace the backup systems .
But on the other hand we have had a lot of ships running aground here in my part of Europe .
By the failure of the GPS .
What is important is that training does include the backup systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You made a very good point.
And it is not like it will replace the backup systems.
But on the other hand we have had a lot of ships running aground here in my part of Europe.
By the failure of the GPS.
What is important is that training does include the backup systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583412</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1269358140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPS is more accurate, updates faster, and provides coverage in places radar doesn't, like open ocean, mountain ranges, Alaska, Siberia, etc.  It also gives better data to other aircraft than current systems.  Current transponder-based radar systems (which also require aircraft to actively respond) will be retained in parallel for a long time to support older aircraft and serve as a backup; traditional "skin-paint" radar that works on passive or hostile aircraft will always be present too, just for those situations you speak of.</p><p>ADS-B (the GPS-based technology) significantly increases safety and provides a little workload reduction over the current system.  It's being used to great effect already in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS is more accurate , updates faster , and provides coverage in places radar does n't , like open ocean , mountain ranges , Alaska , Siberia , etc .
It also gives better data to other aircraft than current systems .
Current transponder-based radar systems ( which also require aircraft to actively respond ) will be retained in parallel for a long time to support older aircraft and serve as a backup ; traditional " skin-paint " radar that works on passive or hostile aircraft will always be present too , just for those situations you speak of.ADS-B ( the GPS-based technology ) significantly increases safety and provides a little workload reduction over the current system .
It 's being used to great effect already in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS is more accurate, updates faster, and provides coverage in places radar doesn't, like open ocean, mountain ranges, Alaska, Siberia, etc.
It also gives better data to other aircraft than current systems.
Current transponder-based radar systems (which also require aircraft to actively respond) will be retained in parallel for a long time to support older aircraft and serve as a backup; traditional "skin-paint" radar that works on passive or hostile aircraft will always be present too, just for those situations you speak of.ADS-B (the GPS-based technology) significantly increases safety and provides a little workload reduction over the current system.
It's being used to great effect already in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1269355260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some things have often bothered me about the way that congress does things. Its actually reading a bit about coding design that really sunk it home. This seems to me like a top down specification of implementation rather than a specification of interface.</p><p>That is, it doesn't say "this is the goal, this is what information we need, this is what you will get". Instead its "This is how you will do it".</p><p>"This is the information you will send to the tower, this is the format it will be in, these are the tolerance specifications for how accurate and precise your instruments will be, this is the standard reference that we will use" is much simpler in the long run, because it requires less changes to the specificaion.</p><p>Why should the tower care if its GPS, Cell phone tower positioning, or star charts that produce the data? As long as its accurate to a specified reference...</p><p>of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS? Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end. That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.</p><p>Just my thoughts.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some things have often bothered me about the way that congress does things .
Its actually reading a bit about coding design that really sunk it home .
This seems to me like a top down specification of implementation rather than a specification of interface.That is , it does n't say " this is the goal , this is what information we need , this is what you will get " .
Instead its " This is how you will do it " .
" This is the information you will send to the tower , this is the format it will be in , these are the tolerance specifications for how accurate and precise your instruments will be , this is the standard reference that we will use " is much simpler in the long run , because it requires less changes to the specificaion.Why should the tower care if its GPS , Cell phone tower positioning , or star charts that produce the data ?
As long as its accurate to a specified reference...of course , I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS ?
Radar does n't require an active participant on the other end .
That , in and of itself , conveys certain benefits , not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.Just my thoughts.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some things have often bothered me about the way that congress does things.
Its actually reading a bit about coding design that really sunk it home.
This seems to me like a top down specification of implementation rather than a specification of interface.That is, it doesn't say "this is the goal, this is what information we need, this is what you will get".
Instead its "This is how you will do it".
"This is the information you will send to the tower, this is the format it will be in, these are the tolerance specifications for how accurate and precise your instruments will be, this is the standard reference that we will use" is much simpler in the long run, because it requires less changes to the specificaion.Why should the tower care if its GPS, Cell phone tower positioning, or star charts that produce the data?
As long as its accurate to a specified reference...of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS?
Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end.
That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.Just my thoughts.-Steve</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590356</id>
	<title>Re:Security issue...</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1269343800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When tested back in WW2 radar managed to see a wood and fabric glider 20 miles out in the english channel (Phillip Wills Wiehe, see "On being a bird"), so good luck avoiding it in your DA40. (Thats if the engine still goes eh?)</p><p>Composite does not stop radar detection, if it did there would have been a metric shitload of cash wasted on Stealth aircraft shapes and their special paint.</p><p>(:</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When tested back in WW2 radar managed to see a wood and fabric glider 20 miles out in the english channel ( Phillip Wills Wiehe , see " On being a bird " ) , so good luck avoiding it in your DA40 .
( Thats if the engine still goes eh ?
) Composite does not stop radar detection , if it did there would have been a metric shitload of cash wasted on Stealth aircraft shapes and their special paint .
( :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When tested back in WW2 radar managed to see a wood and fabric glider 20 miles out in the english channel (Phillip Wills Wiehe, see "On being a bird"), so good luck avoiding it in your DA40.
(Thats if the engine still goes eh?
)Composite does not stop radar detection, if it did there would have been a metric shitload of cash wasted on Stealth aircraft shapes and their special paint.
(:</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984</id>
	<title>Both?</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1269360480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the sake of safety and security, why don't we use both? It isn't like they are mutually exclusive... Then if there is a failure, you have a, you know, a backup plan? Not to mention we have these new fangled things called computers, that are like, really good at doing calculations really fast... so you could like correlate both systems to each other and increase the accuracy of both likely. I am already assuming that they are going to use base stations to auto correct the positions from known values also. Anyway the more redundancy the better I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the sake of safety and security , why do n't we use both ?
It is n't like they are mutually exclusive... Then if there is a failure , you have a , you know , a backup plan ?
Not to mention we have these new fangled things called computers , that are like , really good at doing calculations really fast... so you could like correlate both systems to each other and increase the accuracy of both likely .
I am already assuming that they are going to use base stations to auto correct the positions from known values also .
Anyway the more redundancy the better I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the sake of safety and security, why don't we use both?
It isn't like they are mutually exclusive... Then if there is a failure, you have a, you know, a backup plan?
Not to mention we have these new fangled things called computers, that are like, really good at doing calculations really fast... so you could like correlate both systems to each other and increase the accuracy of both likely.
I am already assuming that they are going to use base stations to auto correct the positions from known values also.
Anyway the more redundancy the better I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585230</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>cheddarlump</author>
	<datestamp>1269365280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, I'll support it, as long as it leads to me getting my flying car..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I 'll support it , as long as it leads to me getting my flying car.. : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I'll support it, as long as it leads to me getting my flying car.. :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588130</id>
	<title>Re:GPS confusion</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1269376140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You would have thought the altitude difference would have been a dead giveaway. Either that or flight 235 needs to climb a bit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags .
You would have thought the altitude difference would have been a dead giveaway .
Either that or flight 235 needs to climb a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags.
You would have thought the altitude difference would have been a dead giveaway.
Either that or flight 235 needs to climb a bit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31591668</id>
	<title>Re:93-0 margin</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1269349440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll\_call\_lists/roll\_call\_vote\_cfm.cfm?congress=111&amp;session=2&amp;vote=00061" title="senate.gov">list</a> [senate.gov], by the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the list [ senate.gov ] , by the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the list [senate.gov], by the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587774</id>
	<title>Re:Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269374400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So exactly how prone will this system be to;</p><ol><li>Solar storms and sunspots?</li><li>Terrorism foreign or domestic?</li><li>Hacking or cracking?</li><li>The problems surrounding an aging satellite service?</li></ol><p>Don't get me wrong, this has a lot of upside, it's just important we have a good idea what the down side is, how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.</p></div><p>Inquire a little deeper..... GPS is already in use in just about everything that flies into controlled airspace. WAAS has enabled private planes to make precision instrument approaches to small airports where no NAVaids exist.  GPS has been on commercial aircraft for the last 8-10 years.  The only risk I see (as a private pilot) is if the economy tanks so badly that we cannot afford to maintain ground equipment properly.  As it is, AVGAS is in the $5/gal area, I can't wait to see what additional taxes on this will do to general aviation; that said it's WAY better than the Bush administrations user fees solution.</p><p>Sunspots have no effect above about 200MHz and ionospheric propagation is not a factor in satellite communications.<br>Jamming margin for GPS (DSSS) is greater than 50dB, unlikely, and difficult to do without being REALLY OBVIOUS to anyone monitoring<br>Spoofing / hacking / cracking is equally difficult especially for the type of enemy we have today, not impossible but very unlikely<br>Aging systems are likely the highest risk, but as long as the military still uses it even if not the primary system, we are fairly safe.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/$0.02</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So exactly how prone will this system be to ; Solar storms and sunspots ? Terrorism foreign or domestic ? Hacking or cracking ? The problems surrounding an aging satellite service ? Do n't get me wrong , this has a lot of upside , it 's just important we have a good idea what the down side is , how significant it is , and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.Inquire a little deeper..... GPS is already in use in just about everything that flies into controlled airspace .
WAAS has enabled private planes to make precision instrument approaches to small airports where no NAVaids exist .
GPS has been on commercial aircraft for the last 8-10 years .
The only risk I see ( as a private pilot ) is if the economy tanks so badly that we can not afford to maintain ground equipment properly .
As it is , AVGAS is in the $ 5/gal area , I ca n't wait to see what additional taxes on this will do to general aviation ; that said it 's WAY better than the Bush administrations user fees solution.Sunspots have no effect above about 200MHz and ionospheric propagation is not a factor in satellite communications.Jamming margin for GPS ( DSSS ) is greater than 50dB , unlikely , and difficult to do without being REALLY OBVIOUS to anyone monitoringSpoofing / hacking / cracking is equally difficult especially for the type of enemy we have today , not impossible but very unlikelyAging systems are likely the highest risk , but as long as the military still uses it even if not the primary system , we are fairly safe .
/ $ 0.02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So exactly how prone will this system be to;Solar storms and sunspots?Terrorism foreign or domestic?Hacking or cracking?The problems surrounding an aging satellite service?Don't get me wrong, this has a lot of upside, it's just important we have a good idea what the down side is, how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.Inquire a little deeper..... GPS is already in use in just about everything that flies into controlled airspace.
WAAS has enabled private planes to make precision instrument approaches to small airports where no NAVaids exist.
GPS has been on commercial aircraft for the last 8-10 years.
The only risk I see (as a private pilot) is if the economy tanks so badly that we cannot afford to maintain ground equipment properly.
As it is, AVGAS is in the $5/gal area, I can't wait to see what additional taxes on this will do to general aviation; that said it's WAY better than the Bush administrations user fees solution.Sunspots have no effect above about 200MHz and ionospheric propagation is not a factor in satellite communications.Jamming margin for GPS (DSSS) is greater than 50dB, unlikely, and difficult to do without being REALLY OBVIOUS to anyone monitoringSpoofing / hacking / cracking is equally difficult especially for the type of enemy we have today, not impossible but very unlikelyAging systems are likely the highest risk, but as long as the military still uses it even if not the primary system, we are fairly safe.
/$0.02
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588992</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1269337260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way this GPS system works is by essentially broadcasting network packets of information that any properly equipped "node" can receive.  The requirements for format, accuracy and precision are necessary so anyone can interpret and trust the information received.  It's not just ATC that can receive the information but other airplanes as well so they can display the same information in the cockpit that ATC has in the tower.</p><p>The problem with radar is that it's fairly limited in its coverage.  It is mostly installed only around airports and doesn't cover mountainous regions or ocean areas well at all.  With this system each airplane originates the data which is available to any other airplane within range of the signal so they are able to see and avoid each other without the benefit of ATC.  This is particularly true above 18,000 feet elevation where all airplanes are required to fly by IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).</p><p>For more information on how it works look up ADS-B and for some real life data check out the Capstone project in Alaska.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way this GPS system works is by essentially broadcasting network packets of information that any properly equipped " node " can receive .
The requirements for format , accuracy and precision are necessary so anyone can interpret and trust the information received .
It 's not just ATC that can receive the information but other airplanes as well so they can display the same information in the cockpit that ATC has in the tower.The problem with radar is that it 's fairly limited in its coverage .
It is mostly installed only around airports and does n't cover mountainous regions or ocean areas well at all .
With this system each airplane originates the data which is available to any other airplane within range of the signal so they are able to see and avoid each other without the benefit of ATC .
This is particularly true above 18,000 feet elevation where all airplanes are required to fly by IFR ( Instrument Flight Rules ) .For more information on how it works look up ADS-B and for some real life data check out the Capstone project in Alaska .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way this GPS system works is by essentially broadcasting network packets of information that any properly equipped "node" can receive.
The requirements for format, accuracy and precision are necessary so anyone can interpret and trust the information received.
It's not just ATC that can receive the information but other airplanes as well so they can display the same information in the cockpit that ATC has in the tower.The problem with radar is that it's fairly limited in its coverage.
It is mostly installed only around airports and doesn't cover mountainous regions or ocean areas well at all.
With this system each airplane originates the data which is available to any other airplane within range of the signal so they are able to see and avoid each other without the benefit of ATC.
This is particularly true above 18,000 feet elevation where all airplanes are required to fly by IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).For more information on how it works look up ADS-B and for some real life data check out the Capstone project in Alaska.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588414</id>
	<title>surely glad...</title>
	<author>mathfeel</author>
	<datestamp>1269377640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that the senate is actually doing something without a single senator holding things up...and addressing a technological issue is a double plus for me. Just sayin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the senate is actually doing something without a single senator holding things up...and addressing a technological issue is a double plus for me .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the senate is actually doing something without a single senator holding things up...and addressing a technological issue is a double plus for me.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31594926</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>blake182</author>
	<datestamp>1269424080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?</p></div></blockquote><p>

From <a href="http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref\_text/chap08.htm" title="fas.org">http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref\_text/chap08.htm</a> [fas.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>Only the United States and the Soviet Union have ever demonstrated the ability to destroy an orbiting satellite. Of course, if an enemy is willing to expend enough time, money, materiel and other resources, any system can be disrupted, damaged or destroyed.</p></div></blockquote><p>As with many things, I guess it's a question of hoping someone doesn't do it. And then of course there's:</p><blockquote><div><p>In spite of the fact that satellites are designed to operate in space, more satellites have failed due to the effects of the environment than any other cause.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites ?
From http : //www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref \ _text/chap08.htm [ fas.org ] Only the United States and the Soviet Union have ever demonstrated the ability to destroy an orbiting satellite .
Of course , if an enemy is willing to expend enough time , money , materiel and other resources , any system can be disrupted , damaged or destroyed.As with many things , I guess it 's a question of hoping someone does n't do it .
And then of course there 's : In spite of the fact that satellites are designed to operate in space , more satellites have failed due to the effects of the environment than any other cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?
From http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/ref\_text/chap08.htm [fas.org] Only the United States and the Soviet Union have ever demonstrated the ability to destroy an orbiting satellite.
Of course, if an enemy is willing to expend enough time, money, materiel and other resources, any system can be disrupted, damaged or destroyed.As with many things, I guess it's a question of hoping someone doesn't do it.
And then of course there's:In spite of the fact that satellites are designed to operate in space, more satellites have failed due to the effects of the environment than any other cause.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582648</id>
	<title>Re:Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1269355020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sat-nav is too easy to attack"</p><p>"A UK GOVERNMENT BOFFIN has warned that it is too easy to jam GPS signals with cheap gear.</p><p>An engineer at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington warned that jamming sat-nav equipment with noise signals was on the rise and more sophisticated methods even allow hackers to program what GPS receivers display.</p><p>Speaking to the BBC, David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation said that GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, and emergency services operations.</p><p>He said that the Achilles heel of GPS is the extremely weak signals that reach the receiver and that the signals can be easily swamped by equipment here on Earth."</p><p>Full article at: <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1593314/sat-nav-easy-attack" title="theinquirer.net">http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1593314/sat-nav-easy-attack</a> [theinquirer.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sat-nav is too easy to attack " " A UK GOVERNMENT BOFFIN has warned that it is too easy to jam GPS signals with cheap gear.An engineer at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington warned that jamming sat-nav equipment with noise signals was on the rise and more sophisticated methods even allow hackers to program what GPS receivers display.Speaking to the BBC , David Last , a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation said that GPS gives us transportation , distribution industry , 'just-in-time ' manufacturing , and emergency services operations.He said that the Achilles heel of GPS is the extremely weak signals that reach the receiver and that the signals can be easily swamped by equipment here on Earth .
" Full article at : http : //www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1593314/sat-nav-easy-attack [ theinquirer.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sat-nav is too easy to attack""A UK GOVERNMENT BOFFIN has warned that it is too easy to jam GPS signals with cheap gear.An engineer at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington warned that jamming sat-nav equipment with noise signals was on the rise and more sophisticated methods even allow hackers to program what GPS receivers display.Speaking to the BBC, David Last, a consultant engineer and former president of the Royal Institute of Navigation said that GPS gives us transportation, distribution industry, 'just-in-time' manufacturing, and emergency services operations.He said that the Achilles heel of GPS is the extremely weak signals that reach the receiver and that the signals can be easily swamped by equipment here on Earth.
"Full article at: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1593314/sat-nav-easy-attack [theinquirer.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838</id>
	<title>GPS confusion</title>
	<author>kiehlster</author>
	<datestamp>1269351000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flight 235, we have your GPS signal.  Please adjust your flight path 35 degrees northeast.  Hold on one second, we're picking up an unidentified GPS signal.  They're heading right for you! Emergency maneuver 15 degrees east! --- Ground control, it's a clear sunny day. I don't see any other planes in my flight path. --- Hold on Flight 235, we've received new information.  We've identified the rogue GPS signal.  Continue on course.  It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flight 235 , we have your GPS signal .
Please adjust your flight path 35 degrees northeast .
Hold on one second , we 're picking up an unidentified GPS signal .
They 're heading right for you !
Emergency maneuver 15 degrees east !
--- Ground control , it 's a clear sunny day .
I do n't see any other planes in my flight path .
--- Hold on Flight 235 , we 've received new information .
We 've identified the rogue GPS signal .
Continue on course .
It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flight 235, we have your GPS signal.
Please adjust your flight path 35 degrees northeast.
Hold on one second, we're picking up an unidentified GPS signal.
They're heading right for you!
Emergency maneuver 15 degrees east!
--- Ground control, it's a clear sunny day.
I don't see any other planes in my flight path.
--- Hold on Flight 235, we've received new information.
We've identified the rogue GPS signal.
Continue on course.
It was only a migrating manatee with one of those older GPS tags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581824</id>
	<title>What happens when...</title>
	<author>CFBMoo1</author>
	<datestamp>1269350940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A solar flare, natural disaster, or something more nefarious takes out the GPS system? Would the individual independent radars still remain operational in those situations? To someone like me who doesn't really fly much or know much about things it seems like we're replacing multiple independent systems with a system that has a central point of failure if someone or some natural event knocked out the satellites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A solar flare , natural disaster , or something more nefarious takes out the GPS system ?
Would the individual independent radars still remain operational in those situations ?
To someone like me who does n't really fly much or know much about things it seems like we 're replacing multiple independent systems with a system that has a central point of failure if someone or some natural event knocked out the satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A solar flare, natural disaster, or something more nefarious takes out the GPS system?
Would the individual independent radars still remain operational in those situations?
To someone like me who doesn't really fly much or know much about things it seems like we're replacing multiple independent systems with a system that has a central point of failure if someone or some natural event knocked out the satellites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589154</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't they delay a launch</title>
	<author>Zoxed</author>
	<datestamp>1269337980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Didn't they delay a shuttle launch to avoid a GPS clock rollover?<br>The ground clock rollover to Day 1, yes. But GPS clock rollover is somewhere in 2137 ! (it is just seconds tick).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Did n't they delay a shuttle launch to avoid a GPS clock rollover ? The ground clock rollover to Day 1 , yes .
But GPS clock rollover is somewhere in 2137 !
( it is just seconds tick ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Didn't they delay a shuttle launch to avoid a GPS clock rollover?The ground clock rollover to Day 1, yes.
But GPS clock rollover is somewhere in 2137 !
(it is just seconds tick).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589936</id>
	<title>Re:Both?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269342060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will us both at the same time.  They can't not use radar as it will be decades before everyone supports it.  There are still aircraft without transponders, many classes that don't require them.  The same is true here, there are aircraft that simply don't require this, the only way to see them will be radar.  Radar will also be required around airports for weather info.  GPS on a plane isn't going to help you spot the microbursts that throw aircraft from 500 feet to 0 feet in a few seconds right off the end of the runway during a storm.</p><p>Radar isn't going anywhere any time soon for one other major reason.  This doesn't actually change anything, it really doesn't provide anything that radar doesn't already provide, if you can get a radio signal to the ground with your GPS info, then the ground can paint you with a radar and not need the signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will us both at the same time .
They ca n't not use radar as it will be decades before everyone supports it .
There are still aircraft without transponders , many classes that do n't require them .
The same is true here , there are aircraft that simply do n't require this , the only way to see them will be radar .
Radar will also be required around airports for weather info .
GPS on a plane is n't going to help you spot the microbursts that throw aircraft from 500 feet to 0 feet in a few seconds right off the end of the runway during a storm.Radar is n't going anywhere any time soon for one other major reason .
This does n't actually change anything , it really does n't provide anything that radar does n't already provide , if you can get a radio signal to the ground with your GPS info , then the ground can paint you with a radar and not need the signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will us both at the same time.
They can't not use radar as it will be decades before everyone supports it.
There are still aircraft without transponders, many classes that don't require them.
The same is true here, there are aircraft that simply don't require this, the only way to see them will be radar.
Radar will also be required around airports for weather info.
GPS on a plane isn't going to help you spot the microbursts that throw aircraft from 500 feet to 0 feet in a few seconds right off the end of the runway during a storm.Radar isn't going anywhere any time soon for one other major reason.
This doesn't actually change anything, it really doesn't provide anything that radar doesn't already provide, if you can get a radio signal to the ground with your GPS info, then the ground can paint you with a radar and not need the signal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746</id>
	<title>Our rights offline</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1269350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It must be a good thing since there were no nay votes, right?</p><p>Or should we believe that debate is a bad thing like we've been told time and again on this Universal Health Care issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It must be a good thing since there were no nay votes , right ? Or should we believe that debate is a bad thing like we 've been told time and again on this Universal Health Care issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It must be a good thing since there were no nay votes, right?Or should we believe that debate is a bad thing like we've been told time and again on this Universal Health Care issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>Vectormatic</author>
	<datestamp>1269352920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>besides the obvious satelite dependence, isnt it generally a better practice in high-safety sectors to use active sensors instead of relying on everyone else to announce their position? This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car, shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.</p><p>And if i can idiots advocate for a few lines, what about the terrorists? if they manage to hijack a plane, they just need to disable the GPS transponder and the plane dissapear of off the flight-control display?</p><p>and what the hell is wrong with radar anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>besides the obvious satelite dependence , isnt it generally a better practice in high-safety sectors to use active sensors instead of relying on everyone else to announce their position ?
This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car , shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.And if i can idiots advocate for a few lines , what about the terrorists ?
if they manage to hijack a plane , they just need to disable the GPS transponder and the plane dissapear of off the flight-control display ? and what the hell is wrong with radar anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>besides the obvious satelite dependence, isnt it generally a better practice in high-safety sectors to use active sensors instead of relying on everyone else to announce their position?
This would be the equivalent of going out in the streets in your car, shutting your eyes and hoping everyone else on the road is kind enough to honk their horn to signal their position.And if i can idiots advocate for a few lines, what about the terrorists?
if they manage to hijack a plane, they just need to disable the GPS transponder and the plane dissapear of off the flight-control display?and what the hell is wrong with radar anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582040</id>
	<title>How about the same procedure as when radar breaks?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Radars are very, very reliable nowadays but the backup for air traffic control is to then put all aircraft at different altitudes until they either exit the area with broken radar or land, if things really go awry. There's still plenty of space for aircraft to be at different altitudes if you go below cruise levels, albeit the increased fuel consumption at lower altitudes might then mean that some simply must land. But that's a relatively minor inconvenience in case of radar failure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Radars are very , very reliable nowadays but the backup for air traffic control is to then put all aircraft at different altitudes until they either exit the area with broken radar or land , if things really go awry .
There 's still plenty of space for aircraft to be at different altitudes if you go below cruise levels , albeit the increased fuel consumption at lower altitudes might then mean that some simply must land .
But that 's a relatively minor inconvenience in case of radar failure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Radars are very, very reliable nowadays but the backup for air traffic control is to then put all aircraft at different altitudes until they either exit the area with broken radar or land, if things really go awry.
There's still plenty of space for aircraft to be at different altitudes if you go below cruise levels, albeit the increased fuel consumption at lower altitudes might then mean that some simply must land.
But that's a relatively minor inconvenience in case of radar failure...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583060</id>
	<title>Re:The way I read it, radar won't be retired.</title>
	<author>eth1</author>
	<datestamp>1269356760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ATC primary radar (that tracks reflected radio signals) is generally only available near major airports anyway. The rest of the time, it just tracks the planes' transponder signals, which work over a much longer range. So the way things are now, a failed transponder would still mean it doesn't show up on radar until it was close to the airport. (and then it would still be missing a lot of information)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ATC primary radar ( that tracks reflected radio signals ) is generally only available near major airports anyway .
The rest of the time , it just tracks the planes ' transponder signals , which work over a much longer range .
So the way things are now , a failed transponder would still mean it does n't show up on radar until it was close to the airport .
( and then it would still be missing a lot of information )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ATC primary radar (that tracks reflected radio signals) is generally only available near major airports anyway.
The rest of the time, it just tracks the planes' transponder signals, which work over a much longer range.
So the way things are now, a failed transponder would still mean it doesn't show up on radar until it was close to the airport.
(and then it would still be missing a lot of information)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582654</id>
	<title>Passive versus active systems</title>
	<author>tomduck</author>
	<datestamp>1269355080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is an astoundingly bad idea to <i>replace</i> the radar network.  GPS is not a remote-sensing technology that can be used for aircraft detection.  Presumably a transponder will be used in conjunction with GPS locating.  Disconnecting the transponder would allow a plane to fly unseen through US airspace.  With radar this would only be possible for a stealth or very low-flying aircraft.  There is a huge difference between active (radar) and passive (gps transponder) detection systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is an astoundingly bad idea to replace the radar network .
GPS is not a remote-sensing technology that can be used for aircraft detection .
Presumably a transponder will be used in conjunction with GPS locating .
Disconnecting the transponder would allow a plane to fly unseen through US airspace .
With radar this would only be possible for a stealth or very low-flying aircraft .
There is a huge difference between active ( radar ) and passive ( gps transponder ) detection systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is an astoundingly bad idea to replace the radar network.
GPS is not a remote-sensing technology that can be used for aircraft detection.
Presumably a transponder will be used in conjunction with GPS locating.
Disconnecting the transponder would allow a plane to fly unseen through US airspace.
With radar this would only be possible for a stealth or very low-flying aircraft.
There is a huge difference between active (radar) and passive (gps transponder) detection systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582710</id>
	<title>Re:93-0 margin</title>
	<author>Linker3000</author>
	<datestamp>1269355260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their plane was late coming in due to a navigation problem in the cockpit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their plane was late coming in due to a navigation problem in the cockpit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their plane was late coming in due to a navigation problem in the cockpit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</id>
	<title>sounds risky</title>
	<author>seeker\_1us</author>
	<datestamp>1269350460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if some big foreign country who has anti satellite weapons decides to blow up our GPS satellites?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586028</id>
	<title>Re:GPS confusion</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269368100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The actual transmission would be:</p><p>"American ABC12, traffic 2 o'clock"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The actual transmission would be : " American ABC12 , traffic 2 o'clock "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The actual transmission would be:"American ABC12, traffic 2 o'clock"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582050</id>
	<title>Reconciliation!?</title>
	<author>Obyron</author>
	<datestamp>1269352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just a parliamentary tactic the Democrats are using to ram this unpopular legislation down the throats of ordinary, hard-working Americans. They're trying to pass this bill in the dead of night, under the old bridge down town, dressed as hobos and reeking of urine. Write your Congressman, radio your Precinct Boss, phone your local librarian. We need all hands on deck to kill this bill and show the Washington fatcats that we're not going to stand for this. I don't care if it's just to buy toilet paper, but getting a bill through our Congress should take a supermajority, the way God intended! Email Barack Hussein Obama and tell him you don't want socialist aviation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just a parliamentary tactic the Democrats are using to ram this unpopular legislation down the throats of ordinary , hard-working Americans .
They 're trying to pass this bill in the dead of night , under the old bridge down town , dressed as hobos and reeking of urine .
Write your Congressman , radio your Precinct Boss , phone your local librarian .
We need all hands on deck to kill this bill and show the Washington fatcats that we 're not going to stand for this .
I do n't care if it 's just to buy toilet paper , but getting a bill through our Congress should take a supermajority , the way God intended !
Email Barack Hussein Obama and tell him you do n't want socialist aviation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just a parliamentary tactic the Democrats are using to ram this unpopular legislation down the throats of ordinary, hard-working Americans.
They're trying to pass this bill in the dead of night, under the old bridge down town, dressed as hobos and reeking of urine.
Write your Congressman, radio your Precinct Boss, phone your local librarian.
We need all hands on deck to kill this bill and show the Washington fatcats that we're not going to stand for this.
I don't care if it's just to buy toilet paper, but getting a bill through our Congress should take a supermajority, the way God intended!
Email Barack Hussein Obama and tell him you don't want socialist aviation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584016</id>
	<title>Re:Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1269360660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should the GPS fail for whatever reason, there are plenty of backup systems that will keep things going.</p><p>Airplanes (at least the big ones) have various collision avoidance systems that will sound an alarm anytime one flies too close to an obstacle (be it mountains, tall buildings, other airplanes or whatever) and will allow the pilot to navigate around the obstacle.</p><p>There are many layers of backup systems that would allow a pilot to safety navigate and land (either at the intended destination or at the closest suitable airport depending on the conditions and situation) even if GPS was non functional.<br>Landing is going to use runway lights, instrument landing system, primary radar and the pilots eyeballs anyway and not GPS (which doesn't have enough accuracy to reliably tell the difference between the center of the runway and the edge of it, hence the need for ILS and the glide slope)</p><p>There are all kinds of situations where pilots have been able to land airplanes of all kinds with NO electrical power in the aircraft whatsoever. And the response in these situations wont change because of the introduction of GPS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the GPS fail for whatever reason , there are plenty of backup systems that will keep things going.Airplanes ( at least the big ones ) have various collision avoidance systems that will sound an alarm anytime one flies too close to an obstacle ( be it mountains , tall buildings , other airplanes or whatever ) and will allow the pilot to navigate around the obstacle.There are many layers of backup systems that would allow a pilot to safety navigate and land ( either at the intended destination or at the closest suitable airport depending on the conditions and situation ) even if GPS was non functional.Landing is going to use runway lights , instrument landing system , primary radar and the pilots eyeballs anyway and not GPS ( which does n't have enough accuracy to reliably tell the difference between the center of the runway and the edge of it , hence the need for ILS and the glide slope ) There are all kinds of situations where pilots have been able to land airplanes of all kinds with NO electrical power in the aircraft whatsoever .
And the response in these situations wont change because of the introduction of GPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the GPS fail for whatever reason, there are plenty of backup systems that will keep things going.Airplanes (at least the big ones) have various collision avoidance systems that will sound an alarm anytime one flies too close to an obstacle (be it mountains, tall buildings, other airplanes or whatever) and will allow the pilot to navigate around the obstacle.There are many layers of backup systems that would allow a pilot to safety navigate and land (either at the intended destination or at the closest suitable airport depending on the conditions and situation) even if GPS was non functional.Landing is going to use runway lights, instrument landing system, primary radar and the pilots eyeballs anyway and not GPS (which doesn't have enough accuracy to reliably tell the difference between the center of the runway and the edge of it, hence the need for ILS and the glide slope)There are all kinds of situations where pilots have been able to land airplanes of all kinds with NO electrical power in the aircraft whatsoever.
And the response in these situations wont change because of the introduction of GPS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584548</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1269362700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace.</p></div><p>Isn't this a bad thing?<br>I thought that airports specifically didn't release realtime information so that it couldn't be used as targeting data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data ( including skin-paint targets ) on a separate radio frequency , so any airplane ( or even ground observers ) can learn about everything in the airspace.Is n't this a bad thing ? I thought that airports specifically did n't release realtime information so that it could n't be used as targeting data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ground-based system rebroadcasts ALL of its data (including skin-paint targets) on a separate radio frequency, so any airplane (or even ground observers) can learn about everything in the airspace.Isn't this a bad thing?I thought that airports specifically didn't release realtime information so that it couldn't be used as targeting data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583566</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1269358740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean as opposed to the many inevitable solar flares that have already been and gone in the last 15 years without actually knocking out any GPS satellites at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean as opposed to the many inevitable solar flares that have already been and gone in the last 15 years without actually knocking out any GPS satellites at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean as opposed to the many inevitable solar flares that have already been and gone in the last 15 years without actually knocking out any GPS satellites at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590060</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1269342600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I think the EU system will be a good addition. Units which diff both the US and Euro systems should be even more accurate and reliable in general than any single system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think the EU system will be a good addition .
Units which diff both the US and Euro systems should be even more accurate and reliable in general than any single system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think the EU system will be a good addition.
Units which diff both the US and Euro systems should be even more accurate and reliable in general than any single system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587616</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269373800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time, and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on. It's really not the end of the world. In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.</p></div></blockquote><p>I can believe that a single plane with severe avionics failure can make it to its intended destination (or an alternate) relatively safely, especially if it can communicate with ATC. But if every plane in the system is using GPS and GPS goes down, they're <i>all</i> going to be suffering a severe avionics failure at the same time. I doubt the ATC can keep track of all of them using radio, paper, and the pilot's estimated position, especially after years of being used to using the GPS. How do you simulate and train all of the controllers and pilots for a total system failure like that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time , and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on .
It 's really not the end of the world .
In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.I can believe that a single plane with severe avionics failure can make it to its intended destination ( or an alternate ) relatively safely , especially if it can communicate with ATC .
But if every plane in the system is using GPS and GPS goes down , they 're all going to be suffering a severe avionics failure at the same time .
I doubt the ATC can keep track of all of them using radio , paper , and the pilot 's estimated position , especially after years of being used to using the GPS .
How do you simulate and train all of the controllers and pilots for a total system failure like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time, and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on.
It's really not the end of the world.
In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.I can believe that a single plane with severe avionics failure can make it to its intended destination (or an alternate) relatively safely, especially if it can communicate with ATC.
But if every plane in the system is using GPS and GPS goes down, they're all going to be suffering a severe avionics failure at the same time.
I doubt the ATC can keep track of all of them using radio, paper, and the pilot's estimated position, especially after years of being used to using the GPS.
How do you simulate and train all of the controllers and pilots for a total system failure like that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581680</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HOw close to first am I?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HOw close to first am I ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HOw close to first am I?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584490</id>
	<title>Re:Soo the FAA said this was good?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1269362400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.</p></div></blockquote><p>In our system of government, regulatory agency guidelines don't govern Congress, it works the other way around. FAA guidelines are adopted within whatever regulatory authority Congress grants the FAA.</p><p>If it worked the other way around, we'd have some kind of weird bureaucratic dictatorship instead of a representative democracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.In our system of government , regulatory agency guidelines do n't govern Congress , it works the other way around .
FAA guidelines are adopted within whatever regulatory authority Congress grants the FAA.If it worked the other way around , we 'd have some kind of weird bureaucratic dictatorship instead of a representative democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this appropriately meets FAA guidelines than this is fine.In our system of government, regulatory agency guidelines don't govern Congress, it works the other way around.
FAA guidelines are adopted within whatever regulatory authority Congress grants the FAA.If it worked the other way around, we'd have some kind of weird bureaucratic dictatorship instead of a representative democracy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</id>
	<title>What about UFO's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the literal sense, light aircraft not equiped with GPS, (Drug or people smugglers), and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.</p><p>Or some kid in a baloon (hoax or not, its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...</p><p>And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...</p><p>It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the literal sense , light aircraft not equiped with GPS , ( Drug or people smugglers ) , and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.Or some kid in a baloon ( hoax or not , its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...It doesnt sound safe to me , especially in a post 911 world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the literal sense, light aircraft not equiped with GPS, (Drug or people smugglers), and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.Or some kid in a baloon (hoax or not, its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582502</id>
	<title>I can't believe they're that dumb</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1269354480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GPS will tell you where you are... if you have a GPS.</p><p>Radar will tell you what's out there... as long as it reflects RADAR waves.</p><p>I'd say RADAR is a whole lot more useful than GPS in avoiding collisions.  Do you think that flock of birds has a GPS?  How about that meteor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GPS will tell you where you are... if you have a GPS.Radar will tell you what 's out there... as long as it reflects RADAR waves.I 'd say RADAR is a whole lot more useful than GPS in avoiding collisions .
Do you think that flock of birds has a GPS ?
How about that meteor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GPS will tell you where you are... if you have a GPS.Radar will tell you what's out there... as long as it reflects RADAR waves.I'd say RADAR is a whole lot more useful than GPS in avoiding collisions.
Do you think that flock of birds has a GPS?
How about that meteor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>shrtcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1269354780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Planes already send their location back to ATC using query/response from the ground radar in an easily breached system.  We haven't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet.  In fact the current system is significantly more vulnerable, as it can only handle so many planes in its "view" at a time.  Try to imagine loading that up with a few hundred fake transponders that block out real aircraft from showing up - essentially an ATC DoS attack.  NextGen would, I hope, be considerably harder to attack in that method.  With the current method it isn't unheard of for busy areas to DoS themselves from overload so it's already a weak model.<br><br>Also while I don't think GPS is or could ever be 100\% reliable, we pilots do have something called pilotage, paper charts, and good old fashioned flying that we can use to get where we're going.  It isn't as cool or convenient as a big moving map on your panel, but is a tried and true way to safely navigate that folks have been using since Jeppesen invented aeronautical charting.  Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost, and planes aren't going just drop out of the sky.  GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time, and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on.  It's really not the end of the world.  In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.<br><br>NextGen is not the end of the world, it's a much needed upgrade to a vastly outdated system.  It's better than what we have now, and if it breaks there won't be airliners crashing right and left.  It's OK.<br><br>My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing.  I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.  Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Planes already send their location back to ATC using query/response from the ground radar in an easily breached system .
We have n't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet .
In fact the current system is significantly more vulnerable , as it can only handle so many planes in its " view " at a time .
Try to imagine loading that up with a few hundred fake transponders that block out real aircraft from showing up - essentially an ATC DoS attack .
NextGen would , I hope , be considerably harder to attack in that method .
With the current method it is n't unheard of for busy areas to DoS themselves from overload so it 's already a weak model.Also while I do n't think GPS is or could ever be 100 \ % reliable , we pilots do have something called pilotage , paper charts , and good old fashioned flying that we can use to get where we 're going .
It is n't as cool or convenient as a big moving map on your panel , but is a tried and true way to safely navigate that folks have been using since Jeppesen invented aeronautical charting .
Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites , pilots are n't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost , and planes are n't going just drop out of the sky .
GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time , and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on .
It 's really not the end of the world .
In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.NextGen is not the end of the world , it 's a much needed upgrade to a vastly outdated system .
It 's better than what we have now , and if it breaks there wo n't be airliners crashing right and left .
It 's OK.My personal beef with it is the " personal electronics " thing .
I use my phone to access aviation information ( weather , databases , etc ) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers could n't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing .
Federal Aviation Regs * already * have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity , this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Planes already send their location back to ATC using query/response from the ground radar in an easily breached system.
We haven't seen the big scary terrorists making fake planes appear on screens yet.
In fact the current system is significantly more vulnerable, as it can only handle so many planes in its "view" at a time.
Try to imagine loading that up with a few hundred fake transponders that block out real aircraft from showing up - essentially an ATC DoS attack.
NextGen would, I hope, be considerably harder to attack in that method.
With the current method it isn't unheard of for busy areas to DoS themselves from overload so it's already a weak model.Also while I don't think GPS is or could ever be 100\% reliable, we pilots do have something called pilotage, paper charts, and good old fashioned flying that we can use to get where we're going.
It isn't as cool or convenient as a big moving map on your panel, but is a tried and true way to safely navigate that folks have been using since Jeppesen invented aeronautical charting.
Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost, and planes aren't going just drop out of the sky.
GPS receivers and transponders fail in planes from time to time, and we have backup plans to account for that and continue on.
It's really not the end of the world.
In effect an aircraft could suffer entire avionics failure and still make it down just fine.NextGen is not the end of the world, it's a much needed upgrade to a vastly outdated system.
It's better than what we have now, and if it breaks there won't be airliners crashing right and left.
It's OK.My personal beef with it is the "personal electronics" thing.
I use my phone to access aviation information (weather, databases, etc) and fail to see why I should stop just because a couple wankers couldn't stop playing Doom in the cockpit or whatever they were doing.
Federal Aviation Regs *already* have clauses to deal with pilot stupidity, this is just extra bullshit with literally zero benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585410</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1269365880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy? what if...</p>   </div><p>
Quick! Put William Shatner on on the No-Fly List!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy ?
what if.. . Quick ! Put William Shatner on on the No-Fly List ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what if evil munchkins land on the wing to sabotage the engine and the only one who sees it is a guy who every one thinks is crazy?
what if...   
Quick! Put William Shatner on on the No-Fly List!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582784</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1269355560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they've banned laptops, so the pilots will be able to check their visuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they 've banned laptops , so the pilots will be able to check their visuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they've banned laptops, so the pilots will be able to check their visuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581780</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blow up all 24 GPS satellites?</p><p>Even if you are talking about a localized problem they would need to destroy 3 or more that cover an area I believe.  Also I believe the AF maintains a few redundant sats that can be pulled into orbit as needed.</p><p>It seems unlikely as a form of attack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blow up all 24 GPS satellites ? Even if you are talking about a localized problem they would need to destroy 3 or more that cover an area I believe .
Also I believe the AF maintains a few redundant sats that can be pulled into orbit as needed.It seems unlikely as a form of attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blow up all 24 GPS satellites?Even if you are talking about a localized problem they would need to destroy 3 or more that cover an area I believe.
Also I believe the AF maintains a few redundant sats that can be pulled into orbit as needed.It seems unlikely as a form of attack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584520</id>
	<title>Tax the little guy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269362580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a typical example of those without a voice paying for services enjoyed by those who can afford lobbyists. This new system will be paid for with a tax on fuel sold to private pilots. Folks like your next door neighbor who takes his little Cessna out on weekends. However, this system is needed due to heavier and heavier commercial air traffic in Class A and B airspace and commercial traffic over the ocean (both of which are areas which seldom see private pilots).</p><p>So, if you can afford a small army of lobbyists and brib... I mean campaign contributions, you can get a law passed that taxes private citizens to raise money to pay for infrastructure necessitated by business activity. This would be like placing a high road-use tax on private automobiles while allowing commercial trucking to use the roads without road-use taxes. Completely backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a typical example of those without a voice paying for services enjoyed by those who can afford lobbyists .
This new system will be paid for with a tax on fuel sold to private pilots .
Folks like your next door neighbor who takes his little Cessna out on weekends .
However , this system is needed due to heavier and heavier commercial air traffic in Class A and B airspace and commercial traffic over the ocean ( both of which are areas which seldom see private pilots ) .So , if you can afford a small army of lobbyists and brib... I mean campaign contributions , you can get a law passed that taxes private citizens to raise money to pay for infrastructure necessitated by business activity .
This would be like placing a high road-use tax on private automobiles while allowing commercial trucking to use the roads without road-use taxes .
Completely backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a typical example of those without a voice paying for services enjoyed by those who can afford lobbyists.
This new system will be paid for with a tax on fuel sold to private pilots.
Folks like your next door neighbor who takes his little Cessna out on weekends.
However, this system is needed due to heavier and heavier commercial air traffic in Class A and B airspace and commercial traffic over the ocean (both of which are areas which seldom see private pilots).So, if you can afford a small army of lobbyists and brib... I mean campaign contributions, you can get a law passed that taxes private citizens to raise money to pay for infrastructure necessitated by business activity.
This would be like placing a high road-use tax on private automobiles while allowing commercial trucking to use the roads without road-use taxes.
Completely backwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524</id>
	<title>This is BAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269358560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell from comments that not many of you are private pilots. They are paying for this with yet another tax on fuel for private planes. The FAA keeps raising fees on everything associated with having a private plane while giving big breaks to commercial companies. I'm sick of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell from comments that not many of you are private pilots .
They are paying for this with yet another tax on fuel for private planes .
The FAA keeps raising fees on everything associated with having a private plane while giving big breaks to commercial companies .
I 'm sick of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell from comments that not many of you are private pilots.
They are paying for this with yet another tax on fuel for private planes.
The FAA keeps raising fees on everything associated with having a private plane while giving big breaks to commercial companies.
I'm sick of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586398</id>
	<title>When your plane is going down?</title>
	<author>PDX</author>
	<datestamp>1269369600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When your plane is going down do you want your pilot unable to download a patch through his or her cell phone to repair the plane. Nope your cell phone isn't allowed into the cockpit. Probably what happened on Lost. No reception!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When your plane is going down do you want your pilot unable to download a patch through his or her cell phone to repair the plane .
Nope your cell phone is n't allowed into the cockpit .
Probably what happened on Lost .
No reception !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When your plane is going down do you want your pilot unable to download a patch through his or her cell phone to repair the plane.
Nope your cell phone isn't allowed into the cockpit.
Probably what happened on Lost.
No reception!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583580</id>
	<title>pros and cons</title>
	<author>chappel</author>
	<datestamp>1269358800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad they passed the bill, we really need an updated system. The new stuff gives more accurate info, and (supposedly) will include very accurate weather information (for free) similar to what XM sells for something like $500/yr. Old-fashioned radar coverage works poorly in hilly / mountainous terrain, and gps navigation allows direct flight which will save time, fuel and bucks. The old-time systems are disappearing (NDBs are becoming a rare novelty - and good riddance, I say). I'm also pleased that this doesn't seem to have included 'user fees' for general aviation, which would serve as a deterrent to private flight, and make it more expensive to stay in practice, and more dangerous as a result.</p><p>Having said all that, I AM disappointed at the general direction of being tracked and my whereabouts logged with even more consistency and precision by some government entity. Big brother is smacking his lips over this, but at least THIS time we actually get some convenience for our trade off of privacy.</p><p>I live in a radar 'dead' zone, and don't have to worry about the FAA watching when occasionally buzzing a neighbor; guess I'd better enjoy it while I can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad they passed the bill , we really need an updated system .
The new stuff gives more accurate info , and ( supposedly ) will include very accurate weather information ( for free ) similar to what XM sells for something like $ 500/yr .
Old-fashioned radar coverage works poorly in hilly / mountainous terrain , and gps navigation allows direct flight which will save time , fuel and bucks .
The old-time systems are disappearing ( NDBs are becoming a rare novelty - and good riddance , I say ) .
I 'm also pleased that this does n't seem to have included 'user fees ' for general aviation , which would serve as a deterrent to private flight , and make it more expensive to stay in practice , and more dangerous as a result.Having said all that , I AM disappointed at the general direction of being tracked and my whereabouts logged with even more consistency and precision by some government entity .
Big brother is smacking his lips over this , but at least THIS time we actually get some convenience for our trade off of privacy.I live in a radar 'dead ' zone , and do n't have to worry about the FAA watching when occasionally buzzing a neighbor ; guess I 'd better enjoy it while I can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad they passed the bill, we really need an updated system.
The new stuff gives more accurate info, and (supposedly) will include very accurate weather information (for free) similar to what XM sells for something like $500/yr.
Old-fashioned radar coverage works poorly in hilly / mountainous terrain, and gps navigation allows direct flight which will save time, fuel and bucks.
The old-time systems are disappearing (NDBs are becoming a rare novelty - and good riddance, I say).
I'm also pleased that this doesn't seem to have included 'user fees' for general aviation, which would serve as a deterrent to private flight, and make it more expensive to stay in practice, and more dangerous as a result.Having said all that, I AM disappointed at the general direction of being tracked and my whereabouts logged with even more consistency and precision by some government entity.
Big brother is smacking his lips over this, but at least THIS time we actually get some convenience for our trade off of privacy.I live in a radar 'dead' zone, and don't have to worry about the FAA watching when occasionally buzzing a neighbor; guess I'd better enjoy it while I can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582352</id>
	<title>reminds me of</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269353880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tomorow never dies</p><p>where they attempt to start a war by spoofing satelite timing signals</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tomorow never dieswhere they attempt to start a war by spoofing satelite timing signals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tomorow never dieswhere they attempt to start a war by spoofing satelite timing signals</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589310</id>
	<title>Re:Security issue...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269338760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point one: The signal comes from above, the antenna is on top of the aircraft.  There is a 80-90 ton aircraft made of nice shielding materials like metal inbetween the likely source of the interference and the signal source, as well as in most cases 5 or 6 miles of vertical distance between the aircraft and the closest point of Earth.  Its highly unlikely anyone on the ground is going to be doing any jamming of airliners at cruising altitudes, and just unlikely when you get close to the ground.</p><p>Point two: Radar can be easily jammed.  Really, its easy as cake.   To do it on a scale large enough to cause a problem you're going to have to build a large, easy to spot and notice structure and consume enough power to make people notice you're going to do so.  To which the military has a very specially designed missile for just such an occasion.  You won't just block one 'radial' either, it doesn't work that way, you cause enough background interference and the SNR is so bad that bounce off the aircraft thats being painted simply is lost in the noise.  Think of it as trying use a parabolic microphone to hear a bird chirping a block away, while a marching band plays behind you 10 feet.  Its really not hard for them to screw up your bird watching, but its also REALLY easy for you to figure out who is doing it so it just doesn't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point one : The signal comes from above , the antenna is on top of the aircraft .
There is a 80-90 ton aircraft made of nice shielding materials like metal inbetween the likely source of the interference and the signal source , as well as in most cases 5 or 6 miles of vertical distance between the aircraft and the closest point of Earth .
Its highly unlikely anyone on the ground is going to be doing any jamming of airliners at cruising altitudes , and just unlikely when you get close to the ground.Point two : Radar can be easily jammed .
Really , its easy as cake .
To do it on a scale large enough to cause a problem you 're going to have to build a large , easy to spot and notice structure and consume enough power to make people notice you 're going to do so .
To which the military has a very specially designed missile for just such an occasion .
You wo n't just block one 'radial ' either , it does n't work that way , you cause enough background interference and the SNR is so bad that bounce off the aircraft thats being painted simply is lost in the noise .
Think of it as trying use a parabolic microphone to hear a bird chirping a block away , while a marching band plays behind you 10 feet .
Its really not hard for them to screw up your bird watching , but its also REALLY easy for you to figure out who is doing it so it just does n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point one: The signal comes from above, the antenna is on top of the aircraft.
There is a 80-90 ton aircraft made of nice shielding materials like metal inbetween the likely source of the interference and the signal source, as well as in most cases 5 or 6 miles of vertical distance between the aircraft and the closest point of Earth.
Its highly unlikely anyone on the ground is going to be doing any jamming of airliners at cruising altitudes, and just unlikely when you get close to the ground.Point two: Radar can be easily jammed.
Really, its easy as cake.
To do it on a scale large enough to cause a problem you're going to have to build a large, easy to spot and notice structure and consume enough power to make people notice you're going to do so.
To which the military has a very specially designed missile for just such an occasion.
You won't just block one 'radial' either, it doesn't work that way, you cause enough background interference and the SNR is so bad that bounce off the aircraft thats being painted simply is lost in the noise.
Think of it as trying use a parabolic microphone to hear a bird chirping a block away, while a marching band plays behind you 10 feet.
Its really not hard for them to screw up your bird watching, but its also REALLY easy for you to figure out who is doing it so it just doesn't happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583548</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1269358680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget about hoarding shotguns and canned food for the apocalypse, you really ought to be hoarding sextants and compasses as they will be very valuable in a world without GPS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget about hoarding shotguns and canned food for the apocalypse , you really ought to be hoarding sextants and compasses as they will be very valuable in a world without GPS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget about hoarding shotguns and canned food for the apocalypse, you really ought to be hoarding sextants and compasses as they will be very valuable in a world without GPS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589882</id>
	<title>Re:This is BAD</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1269341820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but I see one way its good.</p><p>Lets be realistic, this is a retarded idea.  Radar is accurate enough and they aren't going to relay the GPS data to the ground anywhere that you can't be pinged by radar so they really won't be adding anything useful.</p><p>However, they will be 'upgrading' lots of equipment, and I'm positive that the new 'GPS radar' system is really an excuse to fund 'upgrading the 30-50 year old, buggy as hell, ignorantly written systems' that are still in use when they should have been blown up 20 years ago.</p><p>I look at this as a bullshit way of getting an upgrade to the radar installations out there without saying 'please allow us to do what we need to do'  they said 'hey, buzzword buzzword, shiny shiney object, it'll be great, and we're going to only charge a new little tax'  and all of the sudden they got approval.</p><p>Remember, this has all happened before, last time it was the transponder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but I see one way its good.Lets be realistic , this is a retarded idea .
Radar is accurate enough and they are n't going to relay the GPS data to the ground anywhere that you ca n't be pinged by radar so they really wo n't be adding anything useful.However , they will be 'upgrading ' lots of equipment , and I 'm positive that the new 'GPS radar ' system is really an excuse to fund 'upgrading the 30-50 year old , buggy as hell , ignorantly written systems ' that are still in use when they should have been blown up 20 years ago.I look at this as a bullshit way of getting an upgrade to the radar installations out there without saying 'please allow us to do what we need to do ' they said 'hey , buzzword buzzword , shiny shiney object , it 'll be great , and we 're going to only charge a new little tax ' and all of the sudden they got approval.Remember , this has all happened before , last time it was the transponder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but I see one way its good.Lets be realistic, this is a retarded idea.
Radar is accurate enough and they aren't going to relay the GPS data to the ground anywhere that you can't be pinged by radar so they really won't be adding anything useful.However, they will be 'upgrading' lots of equipment, and I'm positive that the new 'GPS radar' system is really an excuse to fund 'upgrading the 30-50 year old, buggy as hell, ignorantly written systems' that are still in use when they should have been blown up 20 years ago.I look at this as a bullshit way of getting an upgrade to the radar installations out there without saying 'please allow us to do what we need to do'  they said 'hey, buzzword buzzword, shiny shiney object, it'll be great, and we're going to only charge a new little tax'  and all of the sudden they got approval.Remember, this has all happened before, last time it was the transponder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583138</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>deblau</author>
	<datestamp>1269357000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that most laws regulating human behavior haven't been properly tested for failure modes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that most laws regulating human behavior have n't been properly tested for failure modes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that most laws regulating human behavior haven't been properly tested for failure modes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581834</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>petaflop</author>
	<datestamp>1269351000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely! I'm flabbergasted!

The US commercial air fleet could be grounded for days at a time during the next sunspot maximum (probably around 2015).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely !
I 'm flabbergasted !
The US commercial air fleet could be grounded for days at a time during the next sunspot maximum ( probably around 2015 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely!
I'm flabbergasted!
The US commercial air fleet could be grounded for days at a time during the next sunspot maximum (probably around 2015).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585862</id>
	<title>Re:I've helped test this system, and it's good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269367500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Definitely some good things, but if I recall correctly a component of ADS-B is a Mode S transpnder. With Mode S codes being registered to an individual aircraft they will know who you are, where you are and where to mail the bill...</p><p>All the navigation and safety aspects are great. I fully expect them to start sending bills for "services" in a few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Definitely some good things , but if I recall correctly a component of ADS-B is a Mode S transpnder .
With Mode S codes being registered to an individual aircraft they will know who you are , where you are and where to mail the bill...All the navigation and safety aspects are great .
I fully expect them to start sending bills for " services " in a few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Definitely some good things, but if I recall correctly a component of ADS-B is a Mode S transpnder.
With Mode S codes being registered to an individual aircraft they will know who you are, where you are and where to mail the bill...All the navigation and safety aspects are great.
I fully expect them to start sending bills for "services" in a few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583238</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1269357420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only that, but if they disable their radar systems, unlicensed aircraft will be able to fly about at will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but if they disable their radar systems , unlicensed aircraft will be able to fly about at will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but if they disable their radar systems, unlicensed aircraft will be able to fly about at will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582984</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269356340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just so the government can track us via GPS. Any pilots interested, I sell GPS jammers for $90. Turn this device on, and all GPS around you will not work. They are the size of a regular cell phone and can fit in your pocket.   if interested email me mr.cann0n@yahoo.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just so the government can track us via GPS .
Any pilots interested , I sell GPS jammers for $ 90 .
Turn this device on , and all GPS around you will not work .
They are the size of a regular cell phone and can fit in your pocket .
if interested email me mr.cann0n @ yahoo.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just so the government can track us via GPS.
Any pilots interested, I sell GPS jammers for $90.
Turn this device on, and all GPS around you will not work.
They are the size of a regular cell phone and can fit in your pocket.
if interested email me mr.cann0n@yahoo.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582406</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite vulnerability</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1269354180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which radar are they talking about?<br><br>I thought the radar on passenger planes is just weather radar?<br><br>e.g. it detects clouds and not other planes.<br><br>OK there's also the "going to hit the ground" detection stuff, but I don't think that's what the story is about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which radar are they talking about ? I thought the radar on passenger planes is just weather radar ? e.g .
it detects clouds and not other planes.OK there 's also the " going to hit the ground " detection stuff , but I do n't think that 's what the story is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which radar are they talking about?I thought the radar on passenger planes is just weather radar?e.g.
it detects clouds and not other planes.OK there's also the "going to hit the ground" detection stuff, but I don't think that's what the story is about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582664</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269355080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you find out the view of the airlines without listening to lobbyists?</p><p>Lobbyists are people hired to speak on behalf of the airlines. You cannot always trust that speech to be in the best interest of society as a whole, for example, if a tiny cost for airlines would result in a very small increase in airline safety in a way that wouldn't be noticable to customers, they would probably speak against it.</p><p>But if you don't listen to lobbyists, you must have the view that there's a lot of people out there who know a lot better than the airlines themselves what the major issues for the industry are. You had better be correct about that, because if you aren't, there's a social cost from getting it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you find out the view of the airlines without listening to lobbyists ? Lobbyists are people hired to speak on behalf of the airlines .
You can not always trust that speech to be in the best interest of society as a whole , for example , if a tiny cost for airlines would result in a very small increase in airline safety in a way that would n't be noticable to customers , they would probably speak against it.But if you do n't listen to lobbyists , you must have the view that there 's a lot of people out there who know a lot better than the airlines themselves what the major issues for the industry are .
You had better be correct about that , because if you are n't , there 's a social cost from getting it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you find out the view of the airlines without listening to lobbyists?Lobbyists are people hired to speak on behalf of the airlines.
You cannot always trust that speech to be in the best interest of society as a whole, for example, if a tiny cost for airlines would result in a very small increase in airline safety in a way that wouldn't be noticable to customers, they would probably speak against it.But if you don't listen to lobbyists, you must have the view that there's a lot of people out there who know a lot better than the airlines themselves what the major issues for the industry are.
You had better be correct about that, because if you aren't, there's a social cost from getting it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589494</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>phliar</author>
	<datestamp>1269339780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may be right about congress, but in this case we're not talking about <em>laws</em> but <em>regulations</em>. Regulations are enacted by agencies, and Congress passes appropriate laws so the agencies regulations have some teeth.

</p><p>In the present case: the aviation regulations -- the FARs -- are all about exactly how things are done. Try reading an airline's Ops Spec sometime -- it spells out <em>exactly</em> what is to be done and how, for all operations conducted by the airline. The FAA specs on navigational beacons lay out <em>everything</em> about the system, not just what but how. This ensures that all users of the ATC system have the same view of reality.

</p><p>So of course ATC (not "tower") cares about exactly how the information is sent from an aircraft to the system. ATC does in general care about what kind of nav system you're getting your info from, since the different systems have different error characteristics. (Also, this is an automated system, we're not talking about pilot reports.) All the information required for a company to implement the components of the system -- like the airborne transmitter -- is fully specified.

</p><p> <em>Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end.</em>

</p><p>Not true. You're thinking of what's called "primary" radar, where the target reflects the transmitter's signal. The problem with primary radar is that range falls off as the inverse <em>fourth</em> power of signal strength -- inverse-square loss on the way to the target and another inverse-square from the target. That's why most ATC radar is "secondary" -- there is a specialized transmitter on the airplane (called a transponder) that the radar system interrogates, and the aircraft replies with its ID, altitude, and a couple of other things. Since it's an active system, it's ordinary inverse-square falloff, <em>and</em> it provides more information. (If you look carefully at airport radar installations, you'll notice that there are two antennas spinning together, one above the other. The "secondary" antenna is usually on top and flat; the primary is on the bottom and is usually paraboloid.

</p><p>Today, in the US, primary radar is almost never used; most controllers configure their screens to not show "primary only" targets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be right about congress , but in this case we 're not talking about laws but regulations .
Regulations are enacted by agencies , and Congress passes appropriate laws so the agencies regulations have some teeth .
In the present case : the aviation regulations -- the FARs -- are all about exactly how things are done .
Try reading an airline 's Ops Spec sometime -- it spells out exactly what is to be done and how , for all operations conducted by the airline .
The FAA specs on navigational beacons lay out everything about the system , not just what but how .
This ensures that all users of the ATC system have the same view of reality .
So of course ATC ( not " tower " ) cares about exactly how the information is sent from an aircraft to the system .
ATC does in general care about what kind of nav system you 're getting your info from , since the different systems have different error characteristics .
( Also , this is an automated system , we 're not talking about pilot reports .
) All the information required for a company to implement the components of the system -- like the airborne transmitter -- is fully specified .
Radar does n't require an active participant on the other end .
Not true .
You 're thinking of what 's called " primary " radar , where the target reflects the transmitter 's signal .
The problem with primary radar is that range falls off as the inverse fourth power of signal strength -- inverse-square loss on the way to the target and another inverse-square from the target .
That 's why most ATC radar is " secondary " -- there is a specialized transmitter on the airplane ( called a transponder ) that the radar system interrogates , and the aircraft replies with its ID , altitude , and a couple of other things .
Since it 's an active system , it 's ordinary inverse-square falloff , and it provides more information .
( If you look carefully at airport radar installations , you 'll notice that there are two antennas spinning together , one above the other .
The " secondary " antenna is usually on top and flat ; the primary is on the bottom and is usually paraboloid .
Today , in the US , primary radar is almost never used ; most controllers configure their screens to not show " primary only " targets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be right about congress, but in this case we're not talking about laws but regulations.
Regulations are enacted by agencies, and Congress passes appropriate laws so the agencies regulations have some teeth.
In the present case: the aviation regulations -- the FARs -- are all about exactly how things are done.
Try reading an airline's Ops Spec sometime -- it spells out exactly what is to be done and how, for all operations conducted by the airline.
The FAA specs on navigational beacons lay out everything about the system, not just what but how.
This ensures that all users of the ATC system have the same view of reality.
So of course ATC (not "tower") cares about exactly how the information is sent from an aircraft to the system.
ATC does in general care about what kind of nav system you're getting your info from, since the different systems have different error characteristics.
(Also, this is an automated system, we're not talking about pilot reports.
) All the information required for a company to implement the components of the system -- like the airborne transmitter -- is fully specified.
Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end.
Not true.
You're thinking of what's called "primary" radar, where the target reflects the transmitter's signal.
The problem with primary radar is that range falls off as the inverse fourth power of signal strength -- inverse-square loss on the way to the target and another inverse-square from the target.
That's why most ATC radar is "secondary" -- there is a specialized transmitter on the airplane (called a transponder) that the radar system interrogates, and the aircraft replies with its ID, altitude, and a couple of other things.
Since it's an active system, it's ordinary inverse-square falloff, and it provides more information.
(If you look carefully at airport radar installations, you'll notice that there are two antennas spinning together, one above the other.
The "secondary" antenna is usually on top and flat; the primary is on the bottom and is usually paraboloid.
Today, in the US, primary radar is almost never used; most controllers configure their screens to not show "primary only" targets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586174</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1269368700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then we will respond quickly with our high-tech assests, which are capable of pinpoint targeting accuracy provided by all-weather, satellite-based GP...<br> <br>...oops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then we will respond quickly with our high-tech assests , which are capable of pinpoint targeting accuracy provided by all-weather , satellite-based GP... ...oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then we will respond quickly with our high-tech assests, which are capable of pinpoint targeting accuracy provided by all-weather, satellite-based GP... ...oops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584002</id>
	<title>Can't regulate stupidity</title>
	<author>dammy</author>
	<datestamp>1269360600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personal electronics ban is trying to regulate stupidity.  Won't help, it will only hurt those of us who don't fly large aircraft which have working toys.  I think Congress needs to do a bit of flying during the summer in singles or light twins while dodging thunderstorms with no onboard wx RADAR and see if that smartphone (or netbook) is worth it's weight in gold for near live RADAR updates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal electronics ban is trying to regulate stupidity .
Wo n't help , it will only hurt those of us who do n't fly large aircraft which have working toys .
I think Congress needs to do a bit of flying during the summer in singles or light twins while dodging thunderstorms with no onboard wx RADAR and see if that smartphone ( or netbook ) is worth it 's weight in gold for near live RADAR updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal electronics ban is trying to regulate stupidity.
Won't help, it will only hurt those of us who don't fly large aircraft which have working toys.
I think Congress needs to do a bit of flying during the summer in singles or light twins while dodging thunderstorms with no onboard wx RADAR and see if that smartphone (or netbook) is worth it's weight in gold for near live RADAR updates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584098</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1269360960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The country doesn't have to be big.  There are probably 20 countries that could, in theory, destroy GPS satellites.  And they don't even have to destroy them, all they have to do is jam them from orbit.  At least 10 countries have launched satellites -- not all of them countries you'd expect.  Iraq launched one in the late 1980s.  Many more could launch a satellite if they wished.  For all we know, the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese already have GPS jammers/spoofers in orbit ready to be turned on should the need ever arise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The country does n't have to be big .
There are probably 20 countries that could , in theory , destroy GPS satellites .
And they do n't even have to destroy them , all they have to do is jam them from orbit .
At least 10 countries have launched satellites -- not all of them countries you 'd expect .
Iraq launched one in the late 1980s .
Many more could launch a satellite if they wished .
For all we know , the Russians , Chinese , Indians , Japanese already have GPS jammers/spoofers in orbit ready to be turned on should the need ever arise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The country doesn't have to be big.
There are probably 20 countries that could, in theory, destroy GPS satellites.
And they don't even have to destroy them, all they have to do is jam them from orbit.
At least 10 countries have launched satellites -- not all of them countries you'd expect.
Iraq launched one in the late 1980s.
Many more could launch a satellite if they wished.
For all we know, the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese already have GPS jammers/spoofers in orbit ready to be turned on should the need ever arise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583966</id>
	<title>Re:Security</title>
	<author>arielCo</author>
	<datestamp>1269360420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lost</p></div><p>I just hope they keep practicing their regular navigation/IFR from time to time, or they might get completely lost or at least partially blind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites , pilots are n't going to suddenly find themselves completely lostI just hope they keep practicing their regular navigation/IFR from time to time , or they might get completely lost or at least partially blind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if some freak solar storm blew out all of the GPS satellites, pilots aren't going to suddenly find themselves completely lostI just hope they keep practicing their regular navigation/IFR from time to time, or they might get completely lost or at least partially blind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582060</id>
	<title>Why not have both?</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1269352320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WHy not have both. Redundancy is a good thing when it comes to this sort of stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHy not have both .
Redundancy is a good thing when it comes to this sort of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHy not have both.
Redundancy is a good thing when it comes to this sort of stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586874</id>
	<title>Re:Both?</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269371160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then, you know, we could like use these computers to consolidate information from a lot of different sources.  Then we could transmit all the information as one cohesive stream to everybody.  So, like, you could have radar inputting information into the system where it is available.  And people who know about weather could have an input about what they know about.  Then airplanes could be reporting their own position, and companies like Garmin could input terrain information.</p><p>Wouldn't it be neat if someone came up with such a system?</p><p>http://www.itt.com/adsb/adsb-explained.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then , you know , we could like use these computers to consolidate information from a lot of different sources .
Then we could transmit all the information as one cohesive stream to everybody .
So , like , you could have radar inputting information into the system where it is available .
And people who know about weather could have an input about what they know about .
Then airplanes could be reporting their own position , and companies like Garmin could input terrain information.Would n't it be neat if someone came up with such a system ? http : //www.itt.com/adsb/adsb-explained.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then, you know, we could like use these computers to consolidate information from a lot of different sources.
Then we could transmit all the information as one cohesive stream to everybody.
So, like, you could have radar inputting information into the system where it is available.
And people who know about weather could have an input about what they know about.
Then airplanes could be reporting their own position, and companies like Garmin could input terrain information.Wouldn't it be neat if someone came up with such a system?http://www.itt.com/adsb/adsb-explained.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496</id>
	<title>Really guys?</title>
	<author>drumcat</author>
	<datestamp>1269354420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love how everyone here just damn well knows what's better for the FAA.  All the OMG they better have a backup, as if it's Windows Me or something.

Look; pilots are very smart people.  They aren't going to get in a plane that doesn't have some sort of backup nav.  That said, you guys worry about things way too much.  I know one-engine props crash more than passenger airliners, but how many of you have been on a dual turbo-prop?  They say the other engine will get you all the way to the crash site...  And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes?  No?  No one?  OMG!!!  Really?  You could skid through an intersection at any time!

Look at what Microsoft has done to everyone.  As they say, I'm really glad the rest of the world is more reliable than Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how everyone here just damn well knows what 's better for the FAA .
All the OMG they better have a backup , as if it 's Windows Me or something .
Look ; pilots are very smart people .
They are n't going to get in a plane that does n't have some sort of backup nav .
That said , you guys worry about things way too much .
I know one-engine props crash more than passenger airliners , but how many of you have been on a dual turbo-prop ?
They say the other engine will get you all the way to the crash site... And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car 's brakes ?
No ? No one ?
OMG ! ! ! Really ?
You could skid through an intersection at any time !
Look at what Microsoft has done to everyone .
As they say , I 'm really glad the rest of the world is more reliable than Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how everyone here just damn well knows what's better for the FAA.
All the OMG they better have a backup, as if it's Windows Me or something.
Look; pilots are very smart people.
They aren't going to get in a plane that doesn't have some sort of backup nav.
That said, you guys worry about things way too much.
I know one-engine props crash more than passenger airliners, but how many of you have been on a dual turbo-prop?
They say the other engine will get you all the way to the crash site...  And how many of you guys have backup systems for your car's brakes?
No?  No one?
OMG!!!  Really?
You could skid through an intersection at any time!
Look at what Microsoft has done to everyone.
As they say, I'm really glad the rest of the world is more reliable than Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31593710</id>
	<title>Re:This is BAD</title>
	<author>B4D BE4T</author>
	<datestamp>1269363720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. One of the greatest advantages of the new system is that it increases the amount of available routes through Class A airspace (where mostly commercial airliners hang out). It does this by increasing altitude measurement accuracy and reporting frequency. This allows the FAA to cut separation distance minimums in half, doubling the number of routes through Class A airspace. It also allows direct routing (you don't have to follow airways over VORs anymore). This further increases the amount of airspace available to commercial aircraft and allows for shorter flights, which cuts the airlines' fuel costs.</p><p>With all of the advantages that this new system provides for commercial traffic, the airlines have the most to gain. Why should private pilots have to shoulder the burden of upgrading the system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
One of the greatest advantages of the new system is that it increases the amount of available routes through Class A airspace ( where mostly commercial airliners hang out ) .
It does this by increasing altitude measurement accuracy and reporting frequency .
This allows the FAA to cut separation distance minimums in half , doubling the number of routes through Class A airspace .
It also allows direct routing ( you do n't have to follow airways over VORs anymore ) .
This further increases the amount of airspace available to commercial aircraft and allows for shorter flights , which cuts the airlines ' fuel costs.With all of the advantages that this new system provides for commercial traffic , the airlines have the most to gain .
Why should private pilots have to shoulder the burden of upgrading the system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
One of the greatest advantages of the new system is that it increases the amount of available routes through Class A airspace (where mostly commercial airliners hang out).
It does this by increasing altitude measurement accuracy and reporting frequency.
This allows the FAA to cut separation distance minimums in half, doubling the number of routes through Class A airspace.
It also allows direct routing (you don't have to follow airways over VORs anymore).
This further increases the amount of airspace available to commercial aircraft and allows for shorter flights, which cuts the airlines' fuel costs.With all of the advantages that this new system provides for commercial traffic, the airlines have the most to gain.
Why should private pilots have to shoulder the burden of upgrading the system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584806</id>
	<title>Re:sounds risky</title>
	<author>tangelogee</author>
	<datestamp>1269363780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe you mean Gremlin...<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you mean Gremlin.. . http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you mean Gremlin...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremlin [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584978</id>
	<title>Re:Great...</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1269364440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS? Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end. That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.</p><p>Just my thoughts.</p><p>-Steve</p></div><p>Wrong type of radar, Steve.  The "radar" used by ATC is not a military radar that sends out a powerful signal and measures what is bounced back to it.  The ATC radar sends an signal that causes the airplane based transponder to send a response with it's transponder code and (possibly) the locally measured altitude.  Transponders are finicky, and the associated altitude measuring equipment requires periodic calibration (meaning someone could be reporting the wrong altitude).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>of course , I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS ?
Radar does n't require an active participant on the other end .
That , in and of itself , conveys certain benefits , not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.Just my thoughts.-SteveWrong type of radar , Steve .
The " radar " used by ATC is not a military radar that sends out a powerful signal and measures what is bounced back to it .
The ATC radar sends an signal that causes the airplane based transponder to send a response with it 's transponder code and ( possibly ) the locally measured altitude .
Transponders are finicky , and the associated altitude measuring equipment requires periodic calibration ( meaning someone could be reporting the wrong altitude ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course, I do wonder.... why do they want to replace radar with GPS?
Radar doesn't require an active participant on the other end.
That, in and of itself, conveys certain benefits, not the least of which is not requiring much specification beyond not allowing air craft with the radar signature of small birds to be flying around.Just my thoughts.-SteveWrong type of radar, Steve.
The "radar" used by ATC is not a military radar that sends out a powerful signal and measures what is bounced back to it.
The ATC radar sends an signal that causes the airplane based transponder to send a response with it's transponder code and (possibly) the locally measured altitude.
Transponders are finicky, and the associated altitude measuring equipment requires periodic calibration (meaning someone could be reporting the wrong altitude).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698</id>
	<title>GPS and altitude</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269355260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope they're not going to rely on the GPS for altitude. I've notice a number of times on my bike that my wrist GPS says I'm going downhill when it's obvious to me that I'm going <em>uphill</em>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they 're not going to rely on the GPS for altitude .
I 've notice a number of times on my bike that my wrist GPS says I 'm going downhill when it 's obvious to me that I 'm going uphill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they're not going to rely on the GPS for altitude.
I've notice a number of times on my bike that my wrist GPS says I'm going downhill when it's obvious to me that I'm going uphill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582118</id>
	<title>Re:Finally Congress gets down to business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269352560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally got round to it yesterday didn't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally got round to it yesterday did n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally got round to it yesterday didn't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581702</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582038</id>
	<title>Radar detects stuff without GPS.</title>
	<author>AssTard</author>
	<datestamp>1269352140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With a radar you can detect stuff that's solid.
With GPS, I'm guessing you can only see other GPS enabled stuff.
Anyone else see a problem here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>With a radar you can detect stuff that 's solid .
With GPS , I 'm guessing you can only see other GPS enabled stuff .
Anyone else see a problem here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With a radar you can detect stuff that's solid.
With GPS, I'm guessing you can only see other GPS enabled stuff.
Anyone else see a problem here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772</id>
	<title>Inquiring minds...</title>
	<author>Genda</author>
	<datestamp>1269350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So exactly how prone will this system be to;</p><ol>
<li>Solar storms and sunspots?</li><li>Terrorism foreign or domestic?</li><li>Hacking or cracking?</li><li>The problems surrounding an aging satellite service?</li></ol><p>
Don't get me wrong, this has a lot of upside, it's just important we have a good idea what the down side is, how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So exactly how prone will this system be to ; Solar storms and sunspots ? Terrorism foreign or domestic ? Hacking or cracking ? The problems surrounding an aging satellite service ?
Do n't get me wrong , this has a lot of upside , it 's just important we have a good idea what the down side is , how significant it is , and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So exactly how prone will this system be to;
Solar storms and sunspots?Terrorism foreign or domestic?Hacking or cracking?The problems surrounding an aging satellite service?
Don't get me wrong, this has a lot of upside, it's just important we have a good idea what the down side is, how significant it is, and what the expected impact on American business and transportation will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582436</id>
	<title>Re:What about UFO's</title>
	<author>mooglez</author>
	<datestamp>1269354300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the literal sense, light aircraft not equiped with GPS, (Drug or people smugglers), and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.</p><p>Or some kid in a baloon (hoax or not, its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...</p><p>And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...</p><p>It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.</p></div><p>Does it matter? GPS is passive, it only figures out its current location via the satellite signals, it does not broadcast it onwards.</p><p>To replace radars on the ground for tracking aircraft, you need something in addition to the GPS (what is that, it's not mentioned in the summary?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the literal sense , light aircraft not equiped with GPS , ( Drug or people smugglers ) , and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.Or some kid in a baloon ( hoax or not , its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...It doesnt sound safe to me , especially in a post 911 world.Does it matter ?
GPS is passive , it only figures out its current location via the satellite signals , it does not broadcast it onwards.To replace radars on the ground for tracking aircraft , you need something in addition to the GPS ( what is that , it 's not mentioned in the summary ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the literal sense, light aircraft not equiped with GPS, (Drug or people smugglers), and of course aircraft that have been hijacked and their transponders disabled.Or some kid in a baloon (hoax or not, its probably not going to do an engine any good if it sucks it in...And if the pilots are too busy playing with their laptops to even look out of the window...It doesnt sound safe to me, especially in a post 911 world.Does it matter?
GPS is passive, it only figures out its current location via the satellite signals, it does not broadcast it onwards.To replace radars on the ground for tracking aircraft, you need something in addition to the GPS (what is that, it's not mentioned in the summary?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584092</id>
	<title>Redundancy, Reliability and Recovery</title>
	<author>Technomonics</author>
	<datestamp>1269360960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In replacing the existing radar systems with GPS, this seems a very stupid thing to do.  Clearly, the safety and security of the travelling public should be first and foremost.  While GPS seems to have proven itself for a myriad of applications, does it mean we place all of our trust in that system of satellites?  A more logical approach would be to merge radar and GPS to have a system that can tolerate the failure of either method and provide fault tolerance in the process.</p><p>Imagine a scenario where a plane is being directed to fly along a particular path that is being tracked by GPS and the radar system does not identify the object appropraitely?  I more intensive triangulation can be done to determine the true location of the flight and take appropriate action.  Ideally, this could be logged as a exception automatically while adjusting the Air Traffic Controlling system information to the most accurate data.  There is true inherent value in having two separate and distinct processes that can maintain survivability independently, and the odds of a random occurrence taking out both at the same time (short of an engineered attack) would be highly improbable.</p><p>In addition, radar is more of an absolute method of measurement, meaning that detecting an object can be done without requiring any action (or equipment) being used by the object being tracked.  I think that if GPS rules, then that will be the first thing that terrorists will assume absolute control over in a plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In replacing the existing radar systems with GPS , this seems a very stupid thing to do .
Clearly , the safety and security of the travelling public should be first and foremost .
While GPS seems to have proven itself for a myriad of applications , does it mean we place all of our trust in that system of satellites ?
A more logical approach would be to merge radar and GPS to have a system that can tolerate the failure of either method and provide fault tolerance in the process.Imagine a scenario where a plane is being directed to fly along a particular path that is being tracked by GPS and the radar system does not identify the object appropraitely ?
I more intensive triangulation can be done to determine the true location of the flight and take appropriate action .
Ideally , this could be logged as a exception automatically while adjusting the Air Traffic Controlling system information to the most accurate data .
There is true inherent value in having two separate and distinct processes that can maintain survivability independently , and the odds of a random occurrence taking out both at the same time ( short of an engineered attack ) would be highly improbable.In addition , radar is more of an absolute method of measurement , meaning that detecting an object can be done without requiring any action ( or equipment ) being used by the object being tracked .
I think that if GPS rules , then that will be the first thing that terrorists will assume absolute control over in a plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In replacing the existing radar systems with GPS, this seems a very stupid thing to do.
Clearly, the safety and security of the travelling public should be first and foremost.
While GPS seems to have proven itself for a myriad of applications, does it mean we place all of our trust in that system of satellites?
A more logical approach would be to merge radar and GPS to have a system that can tolerate the failure of either method and provide fault tolerance in the process.Imagine a scenario where a plane is being directed to fly along a particular path that is being tracked by GPS and the radar system does not identify the object appropraitely?
I more intensive triangulation can be done to determine the true location of the flight and take appropriate action.
Ideally, this could be logged as a exception automatically while adjusting the Air Traffic Controlling system information to the most accurate data.
There is true inherent value in having two separate and distinct processes that can maintain survivability independently, and the odds of a random occurrence taking out both at the same time (short of an engineered attack) would be highly improbable.In addition, radar is more of an absolute method of measurement, meaning that detecting an object can be done without requiring any action (or equipment) being used by the object being tracked.
I think that if GPS rules, then that will be the first thing that terrorists will assume absolute control over in a plane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581876</id>
	<title>Re:93-0 margin</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1269351240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it passed by a 93-0 margin, it's conceivable your senate's vote wasn't needed.</p><p>Washington operated on a mix of reality, image, and rumor.  Occasionally there's some morality thrown in.  (To be fair, there is a lot of morality if you look in the right offices, but they usually aren't in the capitol building.)  It's not so much because people are immoral as because they're busy and one misstatement costs them their career.  It's hard to say anything when that's true, so you get very good at saying nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it passed by a 93-0 margin , it 's conceivable your senate 's vote was n't needed.Washington operated on a mix of reality , image , and rumor .
Occasionally there 's some morality thrown in .
( To be fair , there is a lot of morality if you look in the right offices , but they usually are n't in the capitol building .
) It 's not so much because people are immoral as because they 're busy and one misstatement costs them their career .
It 's hard to say anything when that 's true , so you get very good at saying nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it passed by a 93-0 margin, it's conceivable your senate's vote wasn't needed.Washington operated on a mix of reality, image, and rumor.
Occasionally there's some morality thrown in.
(To be fair, there is a lot of morality if you look in the right offices, but they usually aren't in the capitol building.
)  It's not so much because people are immoral as because they're busy and one misstatement costs them their career.
It's hard to say anything when that's true, so you get very good at saying nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581862</id>
	<title>What about $50 GPS Jammers?</title>
	<author>IDtheTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1269351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>./ had an article a few days ago about<a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/01/17/2238205/GPS-Jamming-for-50" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">a gps jammer for $50</a> [slashdot.org].  It seems to me that it wouldn't be all that hard to make one with a pretty powerful jammer and a timer, put it in some checked baggage, and let the thing go off about 20 minutes before landing...</htmltext>
<tokenext>./ had an article a few days ago abouta gps jammer for $ 50 [ slashdot.org ] .
It seems to me that it would n't be all that hard to make one with a pretty powerful jammer and a timer , put it in some checked baggage , and let the thing go off about 20 minutes before landing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>./ had an article a few days ago abouta gps jammer for $50 [slashdot.org].
It seems to me that it wouldn't be all that hard to make one with a pretty powerful jammer and a timer, put it in some checked baggage, and let the thing go off about 20 minutes before landing...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31593710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31602170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31592020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31594926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31591668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_23_0859257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31592020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31594926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581754
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581932
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31602170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31588130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31593710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31591668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31589154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31590828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31583566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31582698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31585116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31587234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31584442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_23_0859257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31581872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_23_0859257.31586162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
