Billions of dollars of military spending, all to be able to look down a large breasted woman's cleavage.
Our tax dollars at work!
-- "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
Re:Military Might
by
CausticWindow
·
· Score: 5, Funny
This reminds me of a story from Sweden.
They had installed very expensive surveillance equipment along the whole Swedish coast, to monitor the baltic sea. The system was operated by drafted personell which were supposed to be looking for signs of Soviet submarine activity.
When it was uncovered that most of the time spent monitoring with the very expensive surveillance system was used to monitor hot chicks on the Swedish beaches, there were heads rolling.
-- How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Re:Military Might
by
Glytch
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Funny, I thought the US military stopped using draftees after Vietnam because of the way that citizens were getting pissed off with the whole sordid mess.
Google Partner Link
by
Ryan+Stortz
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Here's the google partner link for those of you to lazy to register.
If the satellite monitoring is so good, how did they
manage to be so wrong abount WMD in Iraq. I can't help wondering if there was ever any real evidence...
(or possibly because the government isn't ready to revel the information)
You have got to be kidding. If the goverment had that information it would be rammed down our throats 24/7 for the next month as justification for the war in the first place.
and they probably also moved them to other countries
Yeah I can just see the head of some bananna republic thinking to himself that despite the fact
that Sadam was universally hated in both east and west and the most powerful army in the world will invade on the even the assumption of possession of these weapons why not hide then for him. What harm could it do eh ?
Did Iraq have limited chemical weapon capability yes, probably developed from Antrax sold to them by the US. This is where the US certainty come in. They 'know' because they provided the foundation.
Did Iraq they have WMD? more than likely not. Does it matter? NO the US has access to the Oil, all else is irrelevant now.
-- Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no dupe
Correct. Saddam probably moved them to other countries, like say, Syria. Good thing we'll be bombing them next.
Your willingness to belive an obvious lie is stunning. I'm as happy as anyone to see Saddam's reign over, but he did not have WMD, had no connection to Bin Laden (or to any international terrorisim, beyond funds for PLO bombers families), and was not planning to suddenly rise up and destroy the U.S.
P.S. The 9/11 bomers all came from Saudi Arabia.
-- "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Haven't you people learned anything? The New York Times is obviously an untrusted news source. I mean, please, satelite imagery? Next thing you know, they'll tell us the Earth is round and the moon isn't made of cheese!
Damn it that green patch is not my dope!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Ignore any vegetation at:
Latitude: 45 53S. Longitude: 170 30E
Thank you.
The problem with spy satellites is predictability.
by
cheesybagel
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Re:Short but interesting.
by
Timesprout
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Dont worry the article will have a much more interesting header in the dupe tomorrow.
-- Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth What truth? There is no dupe
"Us conservatives?"
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't lump us all together with you. I'm a staunch conservative and considered the justifications for the Iraq "war" more or less fabricated (including the WMD charges.) The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.
Re:Ethical Issues
by
Wyatt+Earp
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The logistics of that would be very hard to do.
In a few years there will be 300 million people in the United States with roughly a 140 million autos on 6.7 million km of roads and nearly 15,000 airstrips.
There is no way that in a few years there will be any way anyone can track the movements of all those people and vehicles.
Have you any idea the amount of space required to store this stuff? Bandwidth costs?
Let's say you have a (currently non-existant) 1mm imaging platform on a satellite. 1mm per pixel of resolution allows you to identify most things fairly well, but you still might have trouble reading a newspaper's body clearly. Headlines would come through okay - keeping in mind, of course, that you have to make the shot obliquely to get some sort of an angle on it - straight down doesn't help here. Now take a picture of a square 200km by 200km. How many pixels is that? Let's say you take that picture with 24 bits per pixel denoting colour (and not, say, the way you would do it which is with more than three bands... but I digress). How many bits is that?
It's easier, by far, to do things like fly over the area you want at a less sexy height, like 20,000 feet, with a high-end remote imaging and sensing platform mounted inside your medium-to-low end plane. 500TB cartridges store a good amount of images, and you can jack them directly into your central machine back home while the computers go to work analysing the data they contain.
It's a good point, (the NYT article discusses total real-time surveillence, and this is not sensible with satellites, unless you have a large, maybe 1km, pixel size) but you're missing some key details.
First of all, a lot of these images are shot of hostile territory, and we can't fly over them. Think N. Korea, China, Russia, etc.
Second, if 1mm pixel resolution existed, why would you use it to shoot an area 200km x 200km? If you needed that much detail, you'd zoom in. If you wanted an overview, you'd zoom out. What technology you'd use doesn't affect that.
If you used a plane to shoot a 200km x 200km area at 1mm resolution, it'd take up just as much space, although bandwidth is more abundant at the lower altitudes. Even with that, at 3 bytes/ pixel * 200km * 200km * 1,000,000 mm/km *1,000,000 mm/km * 1 pixel/mm^2, that's a big number, 120,000 Terabytes! So you could use 240 500TB cartridges to take these pictures at a 1mm resolution. That amount of data of unwieldy at any altitude!
Finally, as far as using satellite photos of pedestrian locations (LAX, Washington DC, etc) that we could image using airplanes, I think it's more a matter of cost and convenience. For one-time site surveys, an airplane is clearly the way to go. But for sites that need to be re-imaged daily (highway and building construction, coastal erosion, etc), satellite imaging is probably both easier and cheaper.
Privacy Violation
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
The president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, keeps one on him at all times in case he is kidnapped or is the target of an assassination attempt.
The growth of the technology-enabled police state is shocking. You can't even kidnap a guy anymore without worrying the victim might violate your privacy by hiding some beeper up his butt. We better think long and hard before letting this genie out of it's bottle.
Satellite Imagery at Home
by
Yupnik
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you like playing around with satellite images from Microsoft's Terraserver, try USAPhotoMaps. This (Windows only) software will download multiple images from Terraserver and stitch them together seamlessly. You can also switch between photo images and USGS topo map images.
Spy on you your neighbors. Check out the 6 pixels representing the car you owned 5 years ago. Really cool.
The USA was only 30 minutes away. The missiles took the closest path...across the pole.
You are preoccupied with the only scenario that mattered to the Americans: a missile attack. What was a real threat to the Europeans was a ground war in Europe that did not involve any direct hostilities between the US and the USSR. And that was a fairly likely scenario: the US and USSR knew that it would have been the end of both countries to send off their missiles, but a ground war in Europe would have been acceptable to both.
along with the point that the USA repeatedly put its ass on the line for Europe, only to receive lukewarm thanks at best,
And why do you think the US did that? Out of nobility? Out of humanitarian instincts? I don't think so. The US got involved in Europe because if Europe had fallen to the Nazis or to the Soviet Union, the US would have been in very deep trouble, economically and politically.
While Americans have delusions of grandeur because of a huge military-industrial complex, the reality of it all is that the US needs Europe at least as much as Europe needs the US. And until American politicians and voters come to appreciate that, there will be a lot more "hostility" because 600 million Europeans don't like having their foreign and defense policy dictated to them by 300 million US voters. That was vaguely acceptable in the decades after WWII, but it is coming to an end now. You'll just have to deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Billions of dollars of military spending, all to be able to look down a large breasted woman's cleavage.
Our tax dollars at work!
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
Here's the google partner link for those of you to lazy to register.
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
If the satellite monitoring is so good, how did they manage to be so wrong abount WMD in Iraq. I can't help wondering if there was ever any real evidence...
Haven't you people learned anything? The New York Times is obviously an untrusted news source. I mean, please, satelite imagery? Next thing you know, they'll tell us the Earth is round and the moon isn't made of cheese!
Ignore any vegetation at:
Latitude: 45 53S. Longitude: 170 30E
Thank you.
The satellites often use well defined orbits and hence are easily trackable. This means someone using deception techniques can hide their actions.
They have their uses. But you will always get higher resolution using aircraft (they are closer to the ground). Not to mention aircraft can actually be easily directed to a target.
Dont worry the article will have a much more interesting header in the dupe tomorrow.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Don't lump us all together with you. I'm a staunch conservative and considered the justifications for the Iraq "war" more or less fabricated (including the WMD charges.) The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.
The logistics of that would be very hard to do.
In a few years there will be 300 million people in the United States with roughly a 140 million autos on 6.7 million km of roads and nearly 15,000 airstrips.
There is no way that in a few years there will be any way anyone can track the movements of all those people and vehicles.
Have you any idea the amount of space required to store this stuff? Bandwidth costs?
Let's say you have a (currently non-existant) 1mm imaging platform on a satellite. 1mm per pixel of resolution allows you to identify most things fairly well, but you still might have trouble reading a newspaper's body clearly. Headlines would come through okay - keeping in mind, of course, that you have to make the shot obliquely to get some sort of an angle on it - straight down doesn't help here. Now take a picture of a square 200km by 200km. How many pixels is that? Let's say you take that picture with 24 bits per pixel denoting colour (and not, say, the way you would do it which is with more than three bands... but I digress). How many bits is that?
It's easier, by far, to do things like fly over the area you want at a less sexy height, like 20,000 feet, with a high-end remote imaging and sensing platform mounted inside your medium-to-low end plane. 500TB cartridges store a good amount of images, and you can jack them directly into your central machine back home while the computers go to work analysing the data they contain.
It also costs signficantly less.
The president of Colombia, Álvaro Uribe, keeps one on him at all times in case he is kidnapped or is the target of an assassination attempt.
The growth of the technology-enabled police state is shocking. You can't even kidnap a guy anymore without worrying the victim might violate your privacy by hiding some beeper up his butt. We better think long and hard before letting this genie out of it's bottle.
If you like playing around with satellite images from Microsoft's Terraserver, try USAPhotoMaps. This (Windows only) software will download multiple images from Terraserver and stitch them together seamlessly. You can also switch between photo images and USGS topo map images.
Spy on you your neighbors. Check out the 6 pixels representing the car you owned 5 years ago. Really cool.
The USA was only 30 minutes away. The missiles took the closest path...across the pole.
You are preoccupied with the only scenario that mattered to the Americans: a missile attack. What was a real threat to the Europeans was a ground war in Europe that did not involve any direct hostilities between the US and the USSR. And that was a fairly likely scenario: the US and USSR knew that it would have been the end of both countries to send off their missiles, but a ground war in Europe would have been acceptable to both.
along with the point that the USA repeatedly put its ass on the line for Europe, only to receive lukewarm thanks at best,
And why do you think the US did that? Out of nobility? Out of humanitarian instincts? I don't think so. The US got involved in Europe because if Europe had fallen to the Nazis or to the Soviet Union, the US would have been in very deep trouble, economically and politically.
While Americans have delusions of grandeur because of a huge military-industrial complex, the reality of it all is that the US needs Europe at least as much as Europe needs the US. And until American politicians and voters come to appreciate that, there will be a lot more "hostility" because 600 million Europeans don't like having their foreign and defense policy dictated to them by 300 million US voters. That was vaguely acceptable in the decades after WWII, but it is coming to an end now. You'll just have to deal with it.