News wrote:

> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> On 2008-04-07, clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>>
>>>>clifto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>News wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>clifto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Kurt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>GPS, or at least the civilian version of it, is only accurate to within
>>>>>>>>>about 300 feet or 100 meters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's been changed for a few years, now more like 15 meters. Clinton was
>>>>>>>>the one that changed that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/faq/gpsfaq.htm#Standard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SPS provides accuracy's of (for position, the accuracy with respect to
>>>>>>>geographic, or geodetic coordinates of the Earth) within:
>>>>>>>100 meters (2 drms) horizontal 156 meters (2 Sigma) vertical 300 meters
>>>>>>>(99.99% prob.) horizontal 340 nanoseconds time (95% prob.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"What is the status of Selective Availability (SA)?
>>>>>
>>>>>What does SA have to do with the 2008 accuracy specification I posted?
>>>>
>>>>IIRC, SA encrypted the low order bits in order to prevent GPS being used
>>>>for weapons targeting and other anti-social behavior.
>>>
>>>That's true, but Clinton shut it off in 2001 and it hasn't been a problem
>>>for nearly seven years now.
>>
>> Sure, but no one in the government said they wouldn't turn it back on if
>> they felt like it which is why their SPS accuracy claims still always
>> include the effects of SA.
>>
>> In fact the paragraph just above the accuracy specifications you quoted
>> says, in part,
>>
>> "The SPS accuracy specifications, given below, include the effects of SA."
>>
>> which, I guess, is what SA has to do with the 2008 accuracy specification
>> you posted.
>>
>> Dennis Ferguson
>
> Bingo.

Except that the specs they show are with the old SA settings, not the
current zero setting.

--
Dutch