Any receiver that does not directly sample the RF input employs a "superheterodyne" design with a local oscillator and a mixer to downconvert the desired signal to something that can be demodulated and processed. GPS frequencies are high enough that it's not practical (today) to directly sample them.

There is always some leakage of the local oscillator through the other mixer port. There may also be some leakage of the downconverted intermediate frequency (IF).

In my youth I made a "police detector" using this principle. It worked quite well.

I don't tweet, but I have served on several juries. The judge always admonishes the jury to not discuss the trial until after it's over. The judge does not prevent any and all contact with other people, only contact related to the proceedings. Tweeting is not much different than talking and this juror was not sequestered and not talking about the case. I see this as a bad decision. (I cannot read the whole decision itself. Only the first few pages appear at the link from TFA.)

Why not outsource the whole task to somebody like Iron Mountain? They could get it done quickly and economically. It might even create a few jobs.

Yep. The 70cm amateur radio spectrum sits right in the middle of that range. It's widely used and will not be surrendered without a fight. Why not instead use some of the frequency spectrum recently freed up by the analog television broadcast transmitters for this purpose?

The nuclear winter theory was different. That one was related to post-apocalyptic cooling. There was a measured cooling trend that lasted for decades. (Does that sound familiar?)

Here are a few quick links to stimulate some thought. The Wikipedia article walks a thin line between presenting facts and remaining objective. This isn't really a surprise given the nature of Wikipedia. There are certainly better sources out there if you look for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8V8rtdXnLA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Our current president demonstrates the fallacy of your argument. He was born a poor minority but overcame adversity to become an educated, rich and powerful individual.

I understand that it's human nature to ask for more than you want, but when Mr. Paul does this, he is alienating a large portion of the electorate.

Go back and look at the campaign promises of GWB and see how many of them he kept (or at least tried hard to keep). Compare that with our current president. Did you notice the striking difference?

A candidate can either promise "a chicken in every pot", or he/she can make realistic promises. It is possible to get elected either way but one way demonstrates integrity while the other does not.

Integrity is a desirable personality trait in a president.

I understand that the popular trend is to blame mankind, but I'm old enough to recall the same mass hysteria about the coming ice age 40 years ago. Back then the science was undeniable too. The history of the Earth is full of warming and cooling trends; it would be unusual if temperatures remained static for any length of time.

Don't worry, I will not be worrying about global warming within my lifetime. The worst case projections from the alarmists show only a slight increase in average global temperature over the next century. I'm perfectly comfortable with performing some real science and collecting lots of data over that period. Assuming mankind survives another century, we'll have bigger problems to deal with than a degree or two of extra warmth.

Note: The human population just reached the seven billion mark.

The same principal has been affecting the cost of health care for decades. When people started buying health insurance, the cost of health care went up. The recent overhaul does nothing to bring down costs, it simply mandates that everyone has insurance. Do you smell something?

OK I'll bite.

Are you saying that because some people are better at playing the markets, they must surrender their earnings to the masses?

Do you believe in the rights of an individual to rise to his potential, or are your beliefs closer to those of Carl Marx?

I do not understand why socialists and communists want to reform the United States. Why don't they just move to some other country that already operates under those principals?