Shutting down GPS for other than brief moments would be such a
public and economic hazard, I doubt if it will ever happen unless
some large danger existed.

Doug

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:42:29 -0500, JGS jgs123@comcast^dot^net
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:06:43 GMT, wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:50:37 -0500, JGS jgs123@comcast^dot^net
wrote:

On 16 Dec 2004 08:07:22 -0800, wrote:

Bush people announce they may end GPS.

Get your facts straight. Sounds like you are putting a partisan twist to
it.


He is, indeed spinning it, but then, so are you.

The USGIC is a paid lobby in Washington that is happy that it got some
of the things that it wanted included in the new policy. The USGIC,
however doesn't mention the "other" part of the policy that isn't
concerened with their narrow commercial interests.


So what is the "big downside"? I have no problems with the selected
shutting
down of GPS in localized areas in the event of a national emergency. Heck,
we grounded all commercial and private aircraft flight after 9/11. We
lived
through that.

I believe the safety of the citizens of this country takes precedence over
commercial interests or hobbies. That is what I got out of reading the
document, "while the administration realizes the economic impact of
shutting
down GPS in selected areas, the safety of the people comes first". Nothing
wrong with that.


The problem comes in because the government (notice I'm not saying
Right or Left, Democrat or Republican) has made a habit of
understating what it is actually going to do. Or, saying one thing and
then doing something quite different. They say it will only happen
under extreme circumstances in limited areas, but no one who has been
alive and paying attention for the last 40 or 50 years will believe
that whopper.

Nowhere does it say or even imply that GPS is to be stopped as implied by
the OP.

I agree that the subject line of the post was quite misleading. That
doesn't change my evaluation of the real issue one bit.

BB