Slashdot Mirror


Google Earth Used to Find Ancient Roman Villa

cavehobbit writes "Google Earth leads to an archeology find, according to a Nature article. From the article: 'Using satellite images from Google Maps and Google Earth, an Italian computer programmer has stumbled upon the remains of an ancient villa. Luca Mori was studying maps of the region around his town of Sorbolo, near Parma, when he noticed a prominent, oval, shaded form more than 500 metres long. It was the meander of an ancient river ...' What's buried in your back yard?"

251 comments

  1. Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    WMD's in Iraq found!

    1. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "A bunch of faggots who never served in the military"

      You mean like Dick Cheney and the rest of the chicken hawks?

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 0, Troll

      They are now so hard up for recruits that they are sending recruiters to gay bars and promising them they can have their own tents together. All this while the Bush Crime Family goes around threatening to send "troops" into other countries that don't toe the line. No word yet on which Texas sheriff's department will be tapped for that duty.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      I was thinking this will bring crop-circle spotting to a whole new level.

    4. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by newsiness · · Score: 0

      maybe...:)

    5. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

                  Bush needs his
      Weapons of Mass Distraction
                so he can use his
        Weapons of Mass Deception

      w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

    6. Re:Next up from the Google Dog & Pony Show... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Last Post!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  2. I use Google Earth... by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to find my remote control. Though I guess it's hard to miss anyway, being 10 feet long.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:I use Google Earth... by themoodykid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like Satoru Iwata found it.

    2. Re:I use Google Earth... by sgant · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I submitted this story days ago, with more links and more information too.

      Guess one of the other editors didn't think it was that important. Should have waited until Zonks shift was going.

      But it's good that it finally made it to Slashdot as I think this is a very interesting story and use of internet technology.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    3. Re:I use Google Earth... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny
      Though I guess it's hard to miss anyway, being 10 feet long.

      Yeah, I use a stick, too.

      Speaking of which, one day long ago my wife and I were laying on the floor lazily watching TV. We decided to chang the channel but neither of us had the remote in hand. Laying there on the floor with our heads propped against the couch we noticed the remote laying a few feet away. For some reason there was a yardstick lying within reach and my wife grabbed it and began using it to drag the remote towards us. When we realized just how pathetic this little tableau was we jumped up, turned off the TV and went outside.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    4. Re:I use Google Earth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hahah... that's funny...

      wife.

    5. Re:I use Google Earth... by nes11 · · Score: 1

      lol, thanks for the laugh. i actually chuckled at that.

    6. Re:I use Google Earth... by branditlikeme · · Score: 1

      That is amazing.........

    7. Re:I use Google Earth... by Jokerz17 · · Score: 1

      I have one of those! A remote is a very nice thing to have...

  3. Wait a minute... by bigtallmofo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Luca Mori was studying maps of the region around his town of Sorbolo, near Parma,

    Is this the same Luca Mori that runs the www.ItalianSatellitePorn.com web site? I love that site!

    At least he found something scientific for once!

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Paleomacus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey...I can see Uranus from here!

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by HTTP+Error+403+403.9 · · Score: 1
      --
      I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
    3. Re:Wait a minute... by jrockway · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sorry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.

      What's it called now? Urectum.

      --
      My other car is first.
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by mr_walrus · · Score: 1

      Urectum?
      Hekildum!

  4. Re:frist post! by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aw come on. You never mentioned "All your base" or a "beowulf cluster". What type of slashdotter are you? ;)

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  5. Here you go by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1, Informative

    In case you don't want to learn Italian
    linkage

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    1. Re:Here you go by General+Alcazar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Try this link

    2. Re:Here you go by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      Yah I just noticed I linked to the map view rather then the satellite view.
      It's really annoying that the address bar doesn't update when you change the view. Leads to mistakes like that =/

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    3. Re:Here you go by SolarCanine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Welcome to the wonderful world of AJAX...

      You thought the HTTP protocol was stateless? In the words of Bachman Turner Overdrive, "You ain't seen nothin' yet..."

    4. Re:Here you go by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      What am I looking at? A dirt squiggle mark? I see nuhsing.....

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:Here you go by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      You don't see the big light coloured oval that clearly doesn't fit in with the surrounding area?
      It's not very impressive looking but it's rather hard to miss.....

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    6. Re:Here you go by deanc · · Score: 1

      The oval I can see... but what about the "rectangular shadows" he claims to have seen? Where are they supposed to be?

    7. Re:Here you go by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      Try looking with google earth instead of google maps ?

      also he could mean the dark patch in the middle of the oval... but I dont think so now that I've looked again. I dont have Earth installed here in work so I cant check with it...

  6. Re:Modern Archeology by montreal!hahahahah · · Score: 0, Funny

    It can't find you a date!
    ZING!

    Thank you, I'll be here all night folks...try the salmon!

    --
    I feel like I'm taking CRAZY pills!
  7. re: What's buried in your back yard? by saitoh · · Score: 0

    dog sh!t, and an old running shoe, next question.

    --
    We don't need an "overrated" so much as we need a "you completely missed the parent's point, dumbass..."
  8. Kick Ass...(!) by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 2, Funny

    .. So long as he doesn't kill himself geocaching
    at that site his find might be worthwhile!

  9. What's buried in my back yard by dotslasher_sri · · Score: 4, Funny

    deadbodies.

    1. Re:What's buried in my back yard by kfg · · Score: 1

      Well I should hope so.

      KFG

    2. Re:What's buried in my back yard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /rechecks the date...

      One might still be alive.

    3. Re:What's buried in my back yard by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 1

      A dead Lois?

      --
      If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
  10. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by bergeron76 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My ex-wife.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  11. Whatta moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The Roman's didn't have internet back then, but that's not what we're talking about, is it? An Italian used Google Earth to locate something that was already there. And just because an ancient civilization ceased to exist a long time ago, that doesn't mean that they took their ruins with them. Sheesh.

    1992 called, they want YOU to check your facts.

    --
    Trolling all trolls since 2001.

  12. Now they'll announce by Kuciwalker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    that they've finally found the WMD in Iraq, using Google Earth.

    1. Re:Now they'll announce by jazzman75 · · Score: 1

      Quick! Someone run out into the Iraqi desert and trace out 100 meter tall letters "WMD" and the outline of a mushroom cloud.

  13. re: What's buried in your back yard?" by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just had 20 tons of stamped concrete poured into my backyard - I'm kinda curious to see if that shows up on the next satellite pass. Right now, the Boulder, Colorado footage comes from the summer of 2002 (easy to tell because we had a major drought) - sure would be nice if they date stamped the imagery.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  14. let me know when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Googe Earth can find where I left my damn keys

    1. Re:let me know when by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 0
      Googe Earth can find where I left my damn keys

      And thus, as Google Maps was born and cast its ever-watchful eye on the world, the age of transparent roofs and high-contrast colors began.

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    2. Re:let me know when by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Google Earth isn't as hi-res as Google maps, at least as far as I can tell. Before seeing the map links, I tried exploring the town via Google Earth, but it's far less detailed.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:let me know when by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Google earth is slightly higher resolution for me... but it lets you zoom in so much farther than google maps so i can see why you'd think the images were blurrier ;) find a city with cars, and make the cars the Exact same size in google earth as on google maps. google earth should come out a hair sharper. the image data is the same, but google maps just gives you an image while google earth can perform processing effects on the image. It's also possible that your graphic card is buggy, and not rendering the image the way google earth told it to.

    4. Re:let me know when by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I found Google Earth was higher res in Boston, lower in Italy. However, when I started it up it remarked about a cache problem and the possible need to delete said cache. If you go to the town named in the story in Google Earth, can you see the ancient river bed?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  15. Kettle meet Pot! by darth_MALL · · Score: 1, Funny

    Perhaps google maps can find your sense of humour?

    1. Re:Kettle meet Pot! by Skreems · · Score: 2, Informative

      You, sir, are fucking hilarious :-)

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
  16. I'm not telling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I told you what was buried in my back yard, I'd be visited by the DEA, so you'll have to remain in the dark.

  17. The unexplored earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So much for the idea that the entire planet earth has been explored.

    And what does it say about the sheer volume of data on Google Maps that this had been missed until now?

    1. Re:The unexplored earth by katarac · · Score: 1

      Well, at least a few dudes explored this place and built a villa there.

  18. buried by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's buried in your back yard?

    Those meddling kids and their dopey great dane

  19. Fantastic by fsh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I hope we see a lot more of this. It's like when airplanes became common, and suddenly lots of great archeaological sites were found, like the Nasca desert drawings.

    I'm sure Google isn't exactly hurt by the excellent free press, either.

    --
    fsh
  20. I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by dlleigh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I had loaned six foot aluminum parabolic dish to a church group a number of years back so that they could try to pick up some satellite broadcasts. They never did use it and I forgot all about it.

    Along comes Google Earth with six inch resolution in Cambridge, Massachusetts and, lo and behold, there the thing is sitting upside down on their roof, next to the upright dish (which is casting a shadow) that they are currently using.

    To see it, go to:
    42d 22' 34.0" N 71d 07' 34.4" W
    and zoom in to about 50 feet.

    1. Re:I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      Can you link to the page (hit the "link to this" on google maps) - I'm not sure how to convert those numbers into a location google maps understands.

      ~W

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by CuBr · · Score: 2, Informative
    3. Re:I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I've driven by that church a million times on my way to Memorial Drive from Harvard Square.

      FYI, to get it to work in Earth I had to remove the 'd' from the coordinates:

      42 22' 34.0" N 71 07' 34.4" W

    4. Re:I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by RollingThunder · · Score: 2, Informative

      The easiest way I find is to just take out the "d", at least under Google Earth.

      Once that's gone, it's recognized as lat/long.

    5. Re:I found something I'd lost with Google Earth by Dark$ide · · Score: 1

      Here's the XML.

      <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
      <kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
      <Placemark>
          <address>Satellite Dish</address>
          <name>Slashdot</name>
          <visibility>0</visibility>
          <styleUrl>root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x304+hic on=0x314</styleUrl>
          <Point>
              <coordinates>-71.126222,42.376111,0</coordinates>
          </Point>
      </Placemark>
      </kml>

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  21. A body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course

    1. Re:A body by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course

      With the rope, in the bedroom, by Ms. Green.

  22. my backyard? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not much to be found here. The Romans didn't find their way here, nor the Greeks, nor the Vikings. No populations with higher technology than the boomerang, spear and woomera (that's the spear throwing tool, rather than the rocket range) here until the 18th century, and those pre-european people weren't much into building buildings of the sort that leave a trace. Even our own civilisation's ruins top out at 200 odd years old, and around where I live only to about 80 years old.

    1. Re:my backyard? by donscarletti · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'd suggest you stop looking. If you were to find a big pile of shells, your house would be considered both an archaeological site and a sacred place that would be regulated as such.

      They are called middens and they are basically dumping grounds for used shellfish eaten by a community. In areas were there was no rock painting, they are the only perminent evidence of settlement.

      You do not want to find one of those things where you live.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    2. Re:my backyard? by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who knows, maybe you'll be the one to find evidence of a forgotten sea-faring neanderthal civilization no one knew about. Try to be a little more open minded.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:my backyard? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      I'm in Australias capital city - up in the mountains a hundred or so kilometers from the the nearest natural body of water of any noteworthy size - the Pacific Ocean. Not too many middens this far inland - what we've got to watch for is cave paintings. Anyway, an aboriginal would have trouble claiming the land I live on - it's an exclusive residential crown lease (as all residential properties in the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) are.

    4. Re:my backyard? by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      Ming Vases have been found here. They date circa 1600A.D.

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    5. Re:my backyard? by polysylabic+psudonym · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's insert a "permanent settlement of" before "populations".

      If the Chinese actually did land in pre-British Australia (which is not as yet particularly close to certain), the stories say they didn't stay long or do much.

      Of course, that's what this is all about. Just because it's not known doesn't mean there isn't evidence hiding away out there. So I'll be watching for geometric shapes in my google earth explorations. Maybe I'll find the foundations of a 17th century (or ever 1st century as some (probable nuts) claim) Chinese city.

    6. Re:my backyard? by JahToasted · · Score: 1
      Yeah, really. People thought the same things about Southern Africa until they discovered Great Zimbabwe. What about Easter Island? A civilisation existed there that created some pretty impressive statues and then disappeared.

      Sounds to me like the GP has a very dismissive attitude about Australia's aborginal people. They may have built great cities at one time, and we would never know until we dig it up.

  23. That got me looking at Google Earth... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...and noticing some new Layers from National Geographic Magazine. Nowhere near Italy (I see the additions mostly in Africa), but I think they're worth looking at if you like finding random stuff with something Google... ;)

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  24. I can see why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    this guy is doing archaeology.

    "Italian computer programmer"

    Sheesh, imagine the spaghetti code!

    1. Re:I can see why... by puppyfox · · Score: 1

      I'm an Italian programmer, you insensitive clod! P.S. It is true that I am, and it is also true that most italian programmers are lousy... I think I'm still amused by your remark, but I'm too confused to be sure...

      --
      The cookie told me to.
    2. Re:I can see why... by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      >>"Italian computer programmer"
      >>
      >Sheesh, imagine the spaghetti code!

      Welcome to the OO-age. Nowadays we have spaghetti patterns.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  25. Village Resevoirs by martalli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of when I was living in India back in 1996. In an effort to find good sites for village resevoirs for irrigation, India used its new space satellites to find appropriate spots. Low and behold, many of the best sites held actual remains of previous resevoirs, which had been abandoned centuries before!

    1. Re:Village Resevoirs by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

      It makes you wonder what knowledge has been lost over the centuries.

      It also makes you wonder how the ancients found that those sites were good for resevoirs without the use of technology.

      --
      I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    2. Re:Village Resevoirs by frankie · · Score: 1

      Trial and error. Given a few thousand years, brute force is very effective at finding good solutions.

      Similarly, ancient people ended up baking/brewing/chewing/rubbing just about every part of every lifeform in their area. Hey, willow bark makes pain go away, pass it on...

  26. what's buried in my BY by s388 · · Score: 0, Troll

    probably the remains of some folks that were flourishing in the area before the "genocide phase" of the American Experiment took place.

    when you mod me down as a troll, i'll consider it your conscience speaking.

    1. Re:what's buried in my BY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, if you want to induce a guilt trip, at least stick with recent exploitation of oppressed peoples. Not that I'm heartless, but anyone killed by any of my currently deceased relatives is not going to make me feel guilt. Did I do it? No. Can I do anything about it? No.

      With regard to the native population here, I can see giving a guilt trip over continued unfairness to several of the tribes, but does it serve any purpose to feel guilty over it? Remember it, don't do it in the future, best you can do in most cases.

      How long do you think guilt should last? Should I feel guilt because one of my ancestors was a lieutenant in William the Conqueror's army, and almost certainly responsible for hundreds or even thousands of deaths during the invasion? It's pointless navel gazing to feel guilty over things that occurred long before you were born.

  27. My backyard isn't in Google Earth by Zatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My (parent's) house is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Google Earth just shows a big blurry picture of cloud cover. My friend outside of Fairbanks? Big blur. Vacation cabin in Michigan? Big blur.

    I mean, the program is cool and all, but I'm really disappointed that it seems the only places you can see very well are the highly-populated/popular places that there's already lots of established pictures of anyway. I'd really like to be able to explore places I can't easily get to otherwise.

    I have no idea if they plan to fix this or if anyone even bothers taking high-res pictures of places that aren't militarily interesting (or whatever criteria they use) but so far the program just seems to be a "hey, I can see my own house in the big city" novelty.

    1. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd really like to be able to explore places I can't easily get to otherwise.

      I think GoogleDatesForNerds is currently under development...

    2. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by DashEvil · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that Port Colborne, Ontario ( URL:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=port+colborne,on tario&ll=42.898690,-79.253300&spn=0.005697,0.01011 1&t=k&hl=en>) is done in high res, despite only having a population of 19,000. I mean, granted, it's only because of the Welland Canal, but still.

      --
      -If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
    3. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

      Whatcha gunna do about it? Throw a snow ball? /born in Brooklyn, NY

    4. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think GoogleDatesForNerds is currently under development...

      Yeah, funny how sexy nerds become once they're millionaires.

    5. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by craXORjack · · Score: 2, Funny
      Google Earth just shows a big blurry picture of cloud cover. My friend outside of Fairbanks? Big blur. Vacation cabin in Michigan? Big blur.

      The island where they found King Kong... a big blur of cloud cover.

      --
      Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    6. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by dedeman · · Score: 1

      taking high-res pictures of places that aren't militarily interesting

      Here is something that is strange. If you try to find the the NYS captial building (Albany, NY), and the surrounding area, it is blurred (security reasons?)

      But, if you find Norfolk Naval Station, you can not only see the base in relatively hi res, but you can tell which ships are in port when the imagery was captured. Last I checked, I could tell that the USS Theodore Roosavelt was in port when the imagery was taken.

      Of course, I'm assuming all the images to be horribly outdated.

      Edit: Actually, they erased (I think) the hull numbers on the carriers, usually painted on the fore end of the flight deck. You can still see the USS Saipan (#2 on the flight deck).

    7. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I find it is often the populated areas that have blurry satellite coverage, due to the restricted airspace around major airports which prevents higher resolution aerial photographs from being used.

    8. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give Nasa WorldWind a try (available on sourceforge). I found it has much more comprehensive coverage than Google Earth by virtue of allowing you to search a number of sattelite imagery databases.

      Furthermore suggesting that this is just a "'hey, I can see my own house in the big city' novelty." kinda ignores the point of this story, don't it?

    9. Re:My backyard isn't in Google Earth by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      My (parent's) house is in Ketchikan, Alaska. Google Earth just shows a big blurry picture of cloud cover.

      I've been to Ketchikan - all you have there is cloud cover.

      It rains almost every day in Ketchican - what do you expect Google to do?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  28. I used Google Earth to find something... by rindeee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...in my neck of the woods. It's not nearly as cool as the find in the article, but it was cool to me. Being a trail-runner and ultra-marathoner, I'm always on the lookout for new trails. There are some good trails not far from my home that I like to run. I always wished that I could just run to the trail, but the roads between home and trail were simply not safe for running. I had tried to use my GPS to map out the trail and some of the woods near my house that I knew should be the closest point near the trail, but the density of the trees (even in winter) rendered my GPS useless. Using Google Earth a while back, I was able to get a nice birds eye view of the entire area near my home including some old access roads that I didn't know existed. Now, I can leave my house, run to the back of my subdivision, down a dirt log-road and through about 100M of woods where I pick up the "top" of the main trail that I run. I even printed it out in tiles on 8.5x11 paper which I scotch-taped together into a poor-mans map. Again, it's not a big deal to most, but to me it was priceless.

    1. Re:I used Google Earth to find something... by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised. Can't you just buy good maps in the US? In Europe, we're used to 1:25'000 maps being available in most book stores and newspaper shops. Maybe not in all countries, but in most. These maps are issued by the national topographic agency.

      I'm sure such maps exist for the US. Originally, it's the military who have them made for them. Are they not available to the public in the US?

    2. Re:I used Google Earth to find something... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      AFAIK The USGS has excellent maps of the entire country.

    3. Re:I used Google Earth to find something... by chialea · · Score: 1

      You can, in fact, buy topological maps (and good ones, too) from the USGS. They don't have trails on them, however. There are some parks here in PA where the people running them don't even know where a lot of the trails are!

      Lea

    4. Re:I used Google Earth to find something... by rindeee · · Score: 1

      Of course you can...but I'm a cheapskate. ;)

    5. Re:I used Google Earth to find something... by yuiop · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who has spent years in both the states and England, the maps aren't as good here (in the US). Also, the area to cover is far larger. In England, I could cover all of the county I lived in with about 8 excellent Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 maps. They really showed roads, trails, buildings, historical features, etc beautifully. Due to the much greater density of the country, each map might have countless good hikes on. In Washington state USA, the hiking, though wonderful, is much more spread out. I would need hundreds of USGS maps to cover it. We usually stick to larger scale Green trails and still I'd need 50-100 to cover all the places I go. What's more neither kind of map is halfway as clear as Ordnance Survey. I couldn't describe them as a pleasure to use.

  29. Buy it back... by game+kid · · Score: 1

    ...and teach some kids how entertaining x^2** can be when combined with x^2+y^2=1.

    **Feature Request: Wikipedia-like math expression pictures on Slashdot. It would help with Math stories...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  30. link to villa by Polo · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:link to villa by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Too cool, although I would have thought that the farmers would have noticed the strange drying pattern - presuming that is a true-color image and not some kinda false-color.

      Nearby - wtf is this?

      http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.893298,10.365418 &spn=0.006426,0.007318&t=k&hl=en

      .

    2. Re:link to villa by jxs2151 · · Score: 1

      It is an automobile factory. Look to the south and you can see them loading the cars on a train.

  31. Japan by The+Real+Nem · · Score: 1

    A little unrelated, but any one else notice there is now a basic road map for Japan? Don't remember seeing this on slashdot (seeing how slashdot posts everything google related)...

    1. Re:Japan by alakon · · Score: 1

      Holy shit-- Google has maps of every BUILDING! The outline of every building in the area is visible.

      That's detail!

      http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=tokyo&ll=35.501679,13 9.705893&spn=0.005974,0.009652&hl=en

  32. 500m by zoogies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How do you miss something 500m long? Granted, the world is a big place, but I thought that SOMETHING would have found a great big 500m long object by now.

    1. Re:500m by ocelotbob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Same way you miss the Nasca sand art. They seem like odd ditches until you get some perspective. That villa seems like it's just irregular enough to look like it's just another feature of the land. Too insignificant to do major earthmoving, so the farmer who works that piece of land just works around it.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    2. Re:500m by dajak · · Score: 1

      That villa seems like it's just irregular enough to look like it's just another feature of the land. Too insignificant to do major earthmoving, so the farmer who works that piece of land just works around it.

      He might have suspected. It is just a Roman villa in Italy: nothing to risk losing income over while archeologists turn the site inside out.

      Land owners may even destroy traces to avoid becoming subject to some strict spatial planning regime if a Roman Villa is as unexciting to Italians as Iron Age village leftovers are to many Western Europeans.

      Roman leftovers are of great interest at the boundaries of the Roman Empire because even small settlements may prove or disprove theories about when the Romans left, or just whether the area was safe enough for Romans to actually settle there etc. The stuff you have a lot of tends to be pretty uninteresting to laymen. Who cares about more pottery and foundations of walls?

  33. Link to the exact location by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yah I just noticed I linked to the map view rather then the satellite view.

    Yeah, right. FYI this is the link to the exact location.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
    1. Re:Link to the exact location by bheading · · Score: 1

      How incredible - "2005 Google" is clearly visible all over the ground and buildings. Perhaps the extraterrestrials are trying to tell us something..

  34. New insult by pardasaniman · · Score: 4, Funny

    New /. insult.

    Your Mama, She's so fat, I typed her name in on google and saw a satellite photo of her!!

    1. Re:New insult by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 1

      Yo mama's so fat, she needs Google Mama to find her feet DJCC

    2. Re:New insult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really? Must have been voyager 1 ... no other satellite is far enough out to capture her fully

  35. Best use I've found for Google Satellite images... by doom · · Score: 1
    The best use I've found thus far for google's satellite images: finding train stations.

    Here in the United States, we're well into an era where road maps frequently don't have train stations indicated on them, and the Caltrains web pages don't see fit to give you a street address suitable for looking up an on-line map. But with Google's satellite imagery, I was able to scan along the train tracks looking for the station buildings.

    And I bet it's just as useful for pedestrians to see if it's actually possible to walk along a particular road.

    God bless America...

  36. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that slashdot has become the exact opposite of what the open source movement is supposed to be. The editors here are a stovepipe for information. Of course you'll have people screaming all the time "information wants to be free", however that doesn't happen on slashdot. So I for one will keep going to Digg because it is a better site.

    The real reason people will keep coming back to slashdot is that it had an early start in the technology news market and has built a brandname for itself. I find amusing parallels between Microsoft and slashdot that would make the most militant /.'er red with rage. It goes to show how blind some of the people here are to good news and community run news sites.

    Just remember, swarms of people can move faster than bureaucratic structures like slashdot.

  37. Just fired up google earth... by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

    I just fired up google earth, I typed in "Sorba, Italy" and after it zoomed in (I view google maps at 1024X768 - full screen)

    I looked around Sorba, and after the full image loaded I could see what is very likely it - (Northwest- Up and left of Sorba). You can see it in a farmers field in the "brown" image stands out from the rest of green pictures.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Just fired up google earth... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > Come on, try to hack my 31337 firewall! [127.0.0.1]

      I just ssh'd in and apparently your root user has the same password as mine!

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Just fired up google earth... by LuckyStarr · · Score: 1

      >> Come on, try to hack my 31337 firewall! [127.0.0.1]

      > I just ssh'd in and apparently your root user has the same password as mine!

      Quick! Delete all his data before he has a chance of changing passwords!

      --
      Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
  38. The following text by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 1, Funny

    "©2005 Google"

    It's HUGE. How did I not notice that before?

    --
    Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
  39. Jimmy Hoffa found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Given enough eyes (in the sky), all bogs are shallow."

  40. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by game+kid · · Score: 1
    God bless America...

    You misspelled Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Stanford University as America.

    Then again, seeing this Google Earth thingumebob, I guess you misspelled Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Stanford University as God too... ;)

    Bus, subway, and road maps are a double-edged sword. They are clearer because they distort and omit some of the actual geography, but because of that, we (I, at least) don't always know if we're there yet.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  41. Re:frist post! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, me and my friends just used a beowulf cluster of computers running Google Earth to find all your base... They're now belong to us. As well as your statue of Natalie Portman. Yes, the naked and petrified one with the hot grits.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  42. Oh God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh God. The collective slapping sounds of all the Google / Slashbots masturbating right now is deafening!

  43. Clouds by TheBrez · · Score: 1

    At least that's all that Google Maps/Earth show where my house is... I wish they'd get some new aerial photos on a clear day. I wonder if they've thought about getting some IR/near-IR photography done too. That might be interesting for research purposes.

  44. Funny coincidence... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    I just was on Google Maps where I noticed that in Rouses Point, NY, where I noticed that, even after a half-century, one can still see the old legendary Rutland Railroad right-of-way, and follow it through the Lake Champlain Islands as it made it's way down to Burlington, VT.

  45. reminds me of the story... by blue_adept · · Score: 5, Funny

    A fellow used google maps to discover some ruins in his own back yard. while digging up the ruins, he comes across some cable, and tells his his neighbour "well there you have it, this proves that our ancient ancestors had internet".

    His neighbor replies "that's nothing, yesterday I used google to find some ruins in *my* backyard. When I dug them up, I didn't find ANY cable at all. That proves that our ancient ancestors had wireless".

    --

    "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
    1. Re:reminds me of the story... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I used Google to look at my backyard, and all I found was my septic tank!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  46. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 0

    My pr0n time capsule. I show probably throw in an external floppy disk drive, just in case...

    --
    Favorite quote: &quot;
  47. gis existed long before it was available in google by aleator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i just read this "story" and want to exchange some remarks with the world about it:

    GIS (geographical information systems) are using satellite pictures now for decades to monitor and work with them. from farming (how much water is in my soil), geology, archeology and so on, people already use this technologies in daily use.

    for example see here:
    http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/remote_sensing/ind ex.php
    also wikipedia has a nice article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gis

    the great thing google provides is that everybody - no matter if professor in geology or not - can now have a look at the data and do something with it. a region that never was of much interest to experts can become of interest by the people living there and doing the first step of discovery they themselves.

    google did not re-invent gis and its application. but what google did was to offer parts of the data satellites collect daily to the "people" with a simple user interface.

    everybody can have a look at our planet from space and do something with the data.

  48. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, what do you want?

  49. Keyhole/Google Earth location file by jgaynor · · Score: 3, Informative

    I made up a quick-n-dirty keyhole file of the place:

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jgaynor/random/slashdo t-09-16-05.kmz

    For the paranoid, feel free to save it and then open it up from within Google Earth. For the rest of us just launch it directly.

  50. Re:Digg.com.... by qualico · · Score: 1

    Got to agree with this.

    At least Slashdot could put a link to Digg.com on the main page so I can quickly switch to a faster news source.

  51. Know what I see? by e4tmyl33t · · Score: 1

    Absolutely nothing, because if I zoom in to the point where I SHOULD be able to see the damn city I live NEAR (not the dinky ass town I live IN) all I get is a blurry as crap vague-street-and-building picture. But I shall now try to use this program to hunt around the globe for funnies to laugh at.

    --
    --"Hm. It seems the waffle couldn't handle it."
    1. Re:Know what I see? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      On Google Maps I can easily make out my house. Google Earth lets me zoom in a few more notches and I can make out my truck and boat in the driveway.

      There's also something sitting in my back yard in the picture, but it's too blurry to make out what it is.

    2. Re:Know what I see? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      At max zoom I can see the white topper on my truck. (Tho the only reason I know what I'm seeing is because of where it was parked at the time the image was made.)

      A consistent oddity: despite being "too small to see" compared to other objects, striping down the middle of two-lane roads is often clearly visible. You can even tell whether it's a passing zone or not.

      Oh, the blurry thing in your back yard is a UFO. ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:Know what I see? by bonehead · · Score: 1

      Oh, the blurry thing in your back yard is a UFO. ;)

      Cool! That's fuckin' awesome! And here I was thinking it might be something mundane like my lawn mower....

    4. Re:Know what I see? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      You MOW your lawn? I just invite the aliens over for lunch.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Know what I see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't grass-eating aliens, they are COWS.

    6. Re:Know what I see? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Nonsense, they're aliens pretending to be cows. Fooled you, tho, huh? :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  52. what's buried in my backyard? by pbjones · · Score: 1

    the last person that said, 'just google for it'

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  53. that's nothing by pyrrho · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was able to find a lost baseball in my back yard using Google Earth.

    --

    -pyrrho

    1. Re:that's nothing by martalli · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that the picture was 6 months old, and the bat was stolen four months ago. =(

  54. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by zenlunatics · · Score: 1

    shit, shit, shit! it's just a fucking word. how the hell did we evolve to be at the top of the brain size pile and think that spelling words slightly differently absolves of some absurd sin? weird.

  55. Mods are fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What idiot mod mods the second comment of a story Redundant?

    Thank god for meta-moderation. Idiots that do that won't have mod points ever again.

    1. Re:Mods are fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually in meta-moderation we're not supposed to worry about if it's really "funny" or "informative" etc, but if it deserved positive or negative moderation, that post was garbage, and it's unlikely that anyone will meta-mod it unfair, however there are a bunch of meta-trolls that click unfair for all negative moderation. they're worthless.

  56. Google Maps for future archeologists by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If all these images are being archived, future archeologists will have a lot of interesting stuff to see. Any place that you want to know more about, just look up the images from the right year.

    Another thing that will be awesome is to take imagery of a particular city, for example, and animate it over time to watch sprawl, decay, renewal, etc.

    1. Re:Google Maps for future archeologists by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...Except that this digital info is not likely to survive quite as well as the stone buildings from 1000 years ago.

      Heck, even our VHS tapes wont be viewable by most people soon, but I can see the photos taken by my great grandparents.

      We're creating a history which is increasingly malleable and vulnerable to destruction.

      Technology is great, but tech wasn't meant to last or to be archived.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    2. Re:Google Maps for future archeologists by patternjuggler · · Score: 1

      .Except that this digital info is not likely to survive quite as well as the stone buildings from 1000 years ago.

      Heck, even our VHS tapes wont be viewable by most people soon, but I can see the photos taken by my great grandparents.

      We're creating a history which is increasingly malleable and vulnerable to destruction.


      Once you've copied your vhs tapes or similar onto a digital format on a computer, they can be media independent, and the data can be put onto fresher formats repeatedly until you stop caring or archival grade media is more readily available. I've got friends who love their old home videos but just continue to watch the same tapes over and over and the video quality just degrades continually- they don't listen when I tell them to back it up right.

    3. Re:Google Maps for future archeologists by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      "Once you've copied your vhs tapes or similar onto a digital format on a computer, they can be media independent"

      True. But they have to be copied to new media occasionally. No digital media lasts forever. And it's possible they may even have to be put into new formats. If we're dilligent and our recordings are distributed, we might be able to save a lot more... but for 200 years let alone 500?

      In the past, only the rich could afford paintings while today anyone in the US can get a digital camera, but paintings lasted for generations.

      What survives will be much more democratized, sure, but its unlikely to survive as long unless it's carefully mirrored by multiple locations in multiple countries.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    4. Re:Google Maps for future archeologists by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Quick! Open this First Choice document.

      What do you mean, "You've never heard of it?" Okay, don't worry, I've got the installation program on this 5 1/4 disk.

      What do you mean, "You don't have a 5 1/4 drive?"

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  57. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by ckedge · · Score: 1

    Not a homeowner, so don't mind my impertinent question... but:

    I usually think of a deck as something that's raised up off of the ground and/or covered. Yours seems to be just a near-level with the grass surface to stand on. Why not simply grow grass and ... walk on that?

    I guess a pain to maintain? The grass under the table/etc would not grow/do-well because it's shaded, then you have to move everything when you want to mow, etc etc.

    (Very cool big-ass shade thingie btw!)

  58. What buried in my backyard? by dev32810 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jimmy Hoffa...

  59. asteroid collision site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the most interesting things I found nearby with Google Maps satellite images was an ancient asteroid impact site. I was reading about craters on Earth, and found out that there was an ancient weathered crater in the area (WI). I found maps of it that were based on geological data from the ground, and wanted to find out what it might look like from a satellite photo--both to see it and to get a better idea of where it was.

    It was fascinating to me--when I looked at the satellite image, it was very clear where the crater was--there was a big circle imprint on the ground that was completely visible in a variety of ways.

    What was even more interesting was that the ground -based data seemed to put the crater at a slightly different location from where it was in the satellite image. In the ground-based map, the crater is shifted slightly (if I recall correctly, to the southeast) from where it is in the satellite image. I came to the conclusion that conclusions about the location of the crater based on the ground data (based on e.g., mineral deposits) must have been off a bit.

    Then again, I'm not a geologist, so I don't really know. But in the satellite image, it was absolutely clear where the crater was.

  60. I kind of know the feeling... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1
    All I have for the areas around my house and where I work are very low resolution satellite pictures just outside of some very nice high resolution areas. :(

    Here is my Neighborhood Notice the nice high resolution area across the river

    Here is the area around where I work. Notice the high resolution areas on either side.

    Hopefully that will get updated someday.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:I kind of know the feeling... by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

      There is very little hires data for the Netherlands. I live in Utrecht, the fourth largest city of the Netherlands but unfortunately there is only ~30m resolution data for it. There is ~1m data for some places (about 2% of Netherlands' surface area) and super high resolution data for the city center of Amsterdam but that's it. Does anyone have a clue if and if so, when, better data for the Netherlands will be available?

  61. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex and Beer!

  62. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by BigGerman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Wish I had modpoints for you, Mr. Coward

  63. I'll be impressed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they find Jimmy Hoffa.

  64. Middle of nowhere? by heho · · Score: 1

    Ok, I've been to Italy before, but why is it that we have high resolution images of this area, but yet, a simple Southern Ontario location (2 hours west of Toronto, yet alone most of Ontario) http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.886140,-81.31093 0&spn=0.043135,0.081050&t=k&hl=en still doesn't have an equivalent zoom level? Is it that we're just cannucks or what?

    1. Re:Middle of nowhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parma is a rather important city, think Prosciutto and you'll know why.

      What's special about Wingham?

  65. Those are all bad sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they all washed away...

  66. SciFi vs. Reality by NetSettler · · Score: 0

    Wow. That's just eerily similar to David Brin's The Loom of Thessaly.

    --

    Kent M Pitman
    Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    1. Re:SciFi vs. Reality by Pedersen · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I've heard of David Brin before, but never read anything of his. This story was amazing, and I'm off to buy the entire Uplift saga today. I've got some reading to do :)

      --

      GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
  67. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use it to find terrorists. Try it, zoom in on an area, type 'terrorists', and take stock of where the danger lies.

    The authorities should seriously consider using this...

  68. Durable digital by Nerdposeur · · Score: 0

    I agree in general that a lot of our information won't last, but information to stone buildings is not a fair comparison. Papyrus to paperback is closer.

    Still, although lots of data will be lost, anything that continues to interest people will be preserved. Think about this: the commercial value of satellite maps from 2005 may go up or down in coming years, depending on what it's needed for. But the cost of storing that info will certainly go down as drives get larger. (That's why I can easily keep all my files from older computers in a subdirectory on my current one.) As long as anyone cares about it, why can't it be maintained? (Barring Armageddon, of course.)

    Also, think about how MUCH information we now have. Our society produces more text about itself in a day than the Romans probably did in their whole history. Even if a small fraction survives, it will be a lot.

    1. Re:Durable digital by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Papyrus to paperback is closer.

      Or even from parchment to paper. But still, fair enough.

      From
      http://www.hp.com/sbso/product/supplies/paper/imag es/acid_lignin.pdf

      In the paper industry, acid-free paper is often tied to longevity. For example, according to
      International Paper's Pocket Pal, creating an acid-free paper is defined as a "process that gives paper over four times the life (200 years) of acid-sized paper (40-50 years).


      In short, our paper records are gone after 200 years. Our digital records are likely not to survive somthing as cataclysmic as a war.

      Our society produces more text about itself in a day than the Romans probably did in their whole history. Even if a small fraction survives

      True, but most of it is in formats which won't be easily accessible in the future. Anyone can look at a photo. But every time I change my reel tapes to VHS to DVD etc. it gets a little bit fuzzier. Compression and recompression. Replica to fading.

      We create a lot of information, but none of it in a form that will last for over 200 years. Paper, film, digital photos. They fade or are lost or become obsolete.

      From an archeologist's perspective nothing that is digitally recorded will exist. Paper lasts 200 years. We're unlikely to find paper in a garbage dump that's legible the way the Nag Hamadi(sp?) scrolls were.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    2. Re:Durable digital by hobbes75 · · Score: 1

      Try something like this : http://www.norsam.com/hdrosetta.htm/ if your data is worth being kept for a longer time. Be sure to use the version that is readable without electron microscope.
      Maybe there is a service for etching data into stone... if there isn't, maybe there is a business opportunity ;-)

  69. Re:I call bullshit! by bullshit+detector · · Score: 1

    *answers phone*

  70. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by xmas2003 · · Score: 1
    It's actually 12-16" above ground level (depending on where you are) and even with the back house door. We had a wood deck there before, but as noted on the deck design page, wood basically sucks in the dry, sunny Colorado environment. There allready is a ton of grass in the backyard (and yes, I mow it myself - note the concrete edging as a mow strip) so we wanted more of a hang-out place. I've been told that "patio" is more of a correct term than "deck" when it comes to concrete.

    I assume the "big-ass shade thingie" refers to the patio umbrellas - yea, my wife did good on these. What's really cool is that I buried a pipe into the flowerpot concrete so that it is at the level of the dirt ... but with another "pipe sleeve" that drops into that, I can then place the umbrella there ... i.e. no bases to drag around. Check back in a few weeks to see that - some semi-clever engineering went into this as it is not as trivial as you might think at first glance.

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
  71. Uh...not quite by MixmastaKooz · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Uh...not quite by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1

      Yeah I love bringing up Cahokia to people. Many people don't know that there was an actual civilization in what is now the United States before any Europeans arrived here. It was quite the civilization in it's day. Grand public marketplace with goods from all over North America, large temples, a stonehenge-like solar calendar, thousands of people, and many smaller outposts and villages spread throughout the Mississippi River region. They even worked copper.

      However, from the sound of it...I don't believe the person you're saying "not quite" to is American. But hey, you never know, maybe the Aborigines did have some ancient lost civilization that nobody's found yet...

    2. Re:Uh...not quite by vidarh · · Score: 1

      So exactly when did Illinois get transplanted to Australia?

  72. Google Maps doesn't have the resolution by dlleigh · · Score: 3, Informative

    You have to use Google Earth to get the nice six inch resolution which allows you to see the dish.

  73. Re:gis existed long before it was available in goo by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

    For neat GIS stuff see www.esri.com (GIS Software and links to sites) www.geodata.gov (GIS of USA)

  74. It would not surprise me by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The 12,000 year old site currently being excavated in the town I grew up was discovered by chance during a severe drought - discoloration clearly marked outlines of ancient structures. The site has been worked by archaeologists for about 7 years now and they're uncovering a vast amount each year.


    (Having said that, the entire settlement is believed to be hundreds - if not thousands - of times larger than the area actually examined by archaeologists. Add in nearby standing stones and round barrows, and the area in need of study is maybe hundreds of thousands of times larger than what they've studied. Makes you wonder what they haven't found!)


    You can't expect a good pair of eyes (and a brain) to exist in every town or village that has ancient remains. On the other hand, with something like Google Maps, all it really requires is someone anywhere taking the time to look through the images.


    Well, if they're sophisticated enough, all they really need to do is write a good image processing algorithm that detects definite artifacts in the image (straight lines, circles, etc) that do NOT correspond to anything that is a definite surface structure. All the person need do then is search through the candidate images, not the entire database, which would be a much more practical task to do.


    Ideally, you'd use several layers of image processing, to whittle down the pool of images to highly probable cases, then subtract out known archaeological sites from a database.


    Really, really ideally, you'd program the individual layers as BOING components and run the computation part of it as a gigantic @Home venture, as this would be massively parallelizable and sufficiently CPU intensive for most academics who would be interested in such work to not be able to afford a computer (or cluster) that could actually carry out the work in a reasonable timeframe.


    Hmmmm. It's a pity Google don't cover enough of the UK in enough depth to be able to do good work there.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:It would not surprise me by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      definite artifacts in the image (straight lines, circles, etc)

      Man, every freakin' road, building, semi-circular lake and all sorts of other nonsense would be found. So I say that idea, though interesting, would be very, VERY difficult to implement in software.

    2. Re:It would not surprise me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about discolorations produced in the grass above structures. Roads and lakes aren't green.

    3. Re:It would not surprise me by m00nch1ld · · Score: 1

      And who will pay for all the excavations?
        Living in an area of great archaeological value and being an archaeologist myself, I know the problems at excavations. As soon as you announce a find and don't secure it (which costs money, which isn't there), the whole area is swarming with "hobby-archaeologists", namely, thiefs.
        Whole sarcophargi have been looted, and the whole academic value is simply destroyed. There are simply not enough fundings to pay for all excavations.
        Mind, of interest are not only the objects, but the context, which is completely missing if somebody just comes around with heavy earthmoving gear to extract the objects.

    4. Re:It would not surprise me by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The world has plenty of futures to choose from, but it only has one past and if you lose something from it, it can't be replaced. As such, I'd argue that serious Government funding of archaeological projects (as a science, as a method of recording the past and as a method of conserving heritage) makes considerable sense.


      In England, you can do almost nothing in the way of construction without an archaeological survey of a site. Which is a sound and rational policy. Or would be, if the Government contributed towards the cost, because then the survey might have some quality to it.


      In consequence, you might well expect construction firms to be interested in finding where sites were, so they could be somewhere else. Or, finding them now BEFORE they buy the land, to give the archaeologists time to dig everything of importance up by the time the land deal goes through.


      So there are plenty of people who might very well have a use for such data. Certainly, the current hit-or-miss method doesn't help in conservation (obscurity simply offers more opportunity to damage or destroy in ignorance). I guess the way I look at it is that a gravity wave detector was built in Scotland for about $30bln. and it was really just a repeat of the M-M ether experiment, so guaranteed to fail.


      If you can afford to throw away thirty billion dollars on something you know won't work when you've finished it, you've enough spare cash to completely excavate and document virtually every potential archaeological site in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And STILL have change for a quiet evening down the pub.


      Rebuilding New Orleans is going to cost something like $200 billion, but without new taxes, the costs are going to end up on the US national debt to be paid later. If you can do that, you can surely borrow enough to get every unemployed person in America in one gigantic human chain to go through the Amazon, locating ruins. It would probably cost less and if the Governments agreed on profit-sharing, the added tourism would be far more likely to pay the costs back than President Bush's New Orleans vision ever will.


      In other words, the money isn't the problem. There will always be someone with money you could convince. The problem is getting enough data together to be able to convince people that it is worth investing the money.


      Oh, and you're absolutely right about the importance of the data and context. Which is why I was bloody furious with the fiasco over Seahenge, where the archaeologists kept only one copy of all the notes in a single building which was poorly maintained. They'd excavated the entire site, so the ONLY existant data was in the notes, which were destroyed when an electrical fire burned the place to the ground.


      Serious archaeologists will never convince the average person not to be destructive, with incidents like that. You only need one or two - reputations can be destroyed far more easily than they can be built up.


      It didn't help matters when the US forces in Iraq were shown to have damaged or destroyed ancient sites (including Babylon) and to have stolen artifacts from archaeological sites. Again, what does this teach others? That such stuff is yours for the taking, if you're "bad" enough.


      Nor did it help when an ancient North American site, held secret for many years, was handed over to the US Government and promptly pilfered. Quite probably by people within the Government, as they're the ones who knew about it.


      You teach by example, and the examples that have been shown aren't good. As I see it, the only way to build a good image is to make communities more actively involved in preservation - not as a burden but as an opportunity. But you'll only succeed if those with the money (and authority) back that up by making it more profitable to be honest than corrupt.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:It would not surprise me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and you're absolutely right about the importance of the data and context. Which is why I was bloody furious with the fiasco over Seahenge, where the archaeologists kept only one copy of all the notes in a single building which was poorly maintained. They'd excavated the entire site, so the ONLY existant data was in the notes, which were destroyed when an electrical fire burned the place to the ground.


      The thinking of those who only thought we needed one copy really pisses me off. If they're like the people I work with they're too fucking thick to *think* things through to see if there might be a reason to store at least one other copy. They have to actually *see* the disaster and go "oh, okay now we have proof that that is a danger we should worry about so we'll do better next time." I feel like a fucking visionary compared to them.
  75. God can see all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the miracles of orbital cameras... Now I know how God must feel when looking down upon His creation.

  76. I'm bored of linux and slashdot by vensub · · Score: 0

    F(u)ck linux

  77. A .kml file for the latitude/longitude impaired by dlleigh · · Score: 1

    Use the below .kml file with Google Earth, or just paste the following line into the search box and then zoom in:

    42d 22' 34.0" N, 71d 07' 34.4" W

    .kml file:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    <kml xmlns="http://earth.google.com/kml/2.0">
    <Placema rk>
      <name>Once was lost, but now is found.</name>
      <LookAt>
        <longitude>-71.12622070312499</longitude>
        <latitude>42.37611007690431</latitude>
        <range>13.45464104141381</range>
        <tilt>2.462932646186065e-009</tilt>
        <heading>-2.7879963396615e-014</heading>
      </LookAt>
      <styleUrl>root://styleMaps#default+nicon=0x307+hic on=0x317</styleUrl>
      <Point>
        <coordinates>-71.12622070312499,42.37611007690431, 0</coordinates>
      </Point>
    </Placemark>
    </kml>

  78. Look at that resolution change! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Just a little ways over to the east you can notice that the satellite resolution drops off precipitously. If the satellite had just switched off a few seconds earlier (or is it on a few sconds later?) I guess that this villa would have remained unfound.

    I'm also a little bitter because the satellite maps around where I live

    are pretty lousy quality - and just a screen to the southwest, the resolution picks up again. Phooey.

    The other thing annoys me is that they don't pixelate the image when you zoom in, they just cut it off. Check around here, for instance. It would be nice to have the general diffuse pixellated background anyway, if only to get a rough idea of the terrain when you're in Overlay mode. Notice also that if you zoom out even one step you can't get the little side streets anymore. No-fun at all!

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  79. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by sik0fewl · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have to check "Post Anonymously" before you press submit.

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  80. Re:Digg.com.... by Mancat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, just about every story I've seen on /. in the past few months, I've seen on digg days beforehand.

    --
    hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
  81. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

    Well, duh.. stop reading digg.

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  82. What's buried in my back yard? by Slavinski · · Score: 1

    The family cat. Shhh... don't tell the kids Fifi died. :(

  83. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look everyone it's a fat German!

    Don't chase me I'm full of nazi chocolate!

    Fatty Fatty Fat Fat German. Go burn some jews.

  84. somethings shouldn't be uncovered by nihaopaul · · Score: 1

    like the neibours dog.

  85. I read it for the articles.... by martalli · · Score: 1

    The joy of /. is not the timely news (even anandtech.com one ups /. frequently). The fun is in the funny and occasionally insightful comments.

    Even the occasional "In Soviet Russia, AYBABTU..."

    1. Re:I read it for the articles.... by Mancat · · Score: 1

      Heh.. Well even though some of the stories here are a bit stale if you read some of the other sites, the discussion here is usually more in-depth.

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
  86. You forgot... by max99ted · · Score: 1

    ...in Soviet Russia, Google Earth finds YOU.

    --

    Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.

  87. Re:I call bullshit! by DavidTC · · Score: 1
    You dumbass.

    They obviously got someone else to use Google Earth for them.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  88. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    There allready is a ton of grass in the backyard (and yes, I mow it myself

    Kill it and replace it with fake grass.

    1) Good fake grass is indistinguishable from the real thing unless you get down and stick your face within inches of it. Your bare feet will never know the difference.

    2) Fake grass is better for the environment because it requires no water nor chemicals like weed killer, bug killer or fertilizer.

    3) You never have to mow it again.

    4) It always looks perfect, no browning, etc.

    And, in case you were wondering, if a dog takes a crap on it, the crap will weather away like on real grass, you can scoop it off and the next rain will probably wash away the remains.

    PS, the trendy name is 'lanai' from the Hawaiian for 'patio.'

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  89. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by eosp · · Score: 0

    She was that fat? In Soviet Russia, Google Maps finds YOU!

  90. Either take out the "d" or by dlleigh · · Score: 1

    you can leave the "d" in and put a comma between the latitude part and the longitude part.

    I wonder where these rules came from?

    1. Re:Either take out the "d" or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OR you could use the Alt+0176 keystroke combo for the degree symbol!!

  91. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by superdude72 · · Score: 1

    and the Caltrains web pages don't see fit to give you a street address suitable for looking up an on-line map.

    Huh?

    http://caltrain.org/caltrain_stations.html

    Found it in 2 clicks. Click on the station links for location on an online map.

  92. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by nyri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My ex-wife.

    Am I only one having this eery uncomfortable feeling that this guy isn't joking?

  93. Civil War battle lines by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1

    I used Google Maps to locate the trench lines for the Siege of Vicksburg. You can see the streets that run along the trenches. Namely, Confederate Avenue and Union Avenue.

    --
    There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    1. Re:Civil War battle lines by BulbVivid · · Score: 1

      That would be a nice addition to Wikipedia--links to satellite imagery of battlefields and the like.

  94. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you ...

  95. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by tono · · Score: 1

    Or you could choose NOT to be a tree hugging hippy and buy real grass and waste all our precious water. That would be my choice, and by the looks of his "estate" it would be his choice as well. However, he lives in Boulder, so he may be a hippy after all.

    --
    cheese logs keep my wang warm at night.
  96. I keep tabs on my mom... by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ever since I've moved out here five years ago I've had a yearly ritual to find out how long it would take to drive back home from Boston. Long story short, while doing this last month with Google Earth it appeared that my mother had drained our pool, and finally finished putting up that old porch roof I had started years ago. I gave her a call and yup, the pool had been drained about 6 months back and the roof (a big white rectangle) was finished by a friend.

    37d 23' 55.50 N, 121d 59' 31.63" W

    You can even see that the backyard has had most of the grass removed, though the patch of the garden she has fixed up nicely is underneath a shadow.

    It also turns out that my local school, which closed it's doors years ago, has re-opened as a school... They've re-painted the 4-square and tetherball courts.

    Personally I can't wait for google 3D maps. Nothing cures heartache like a VRML walkthrough. Hopefully they will add avatar and family chat options as well. Of course, I would love to have Google Earth connected to Google Chat, so that you could click on someone's physical location to open a chat session with them... I'd love to chat with old friends by going to their house.

  97. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    That's probably why he was modded funny. Misogyny plays well around here.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  98. Re:frist post! by bobbomo · · Score: 1

    so you find an ancient Roman villa... but does it run linux? :-D

  99. WMD in Italy by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 1
    Nearby - wtf is this?
    http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=44.893298,10.365418 &spn=0.006426,0.007318&t=k&hl=en

    Oops! You were not supposed to see this... ok, I admit that we in Italy are producing a lot of WMDs against the evil Free America.

    But, please, don't tell it to your president! :-)

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  100. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    Doesn't grass turn CO2 into O?

    I like oxygen. A lot.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  101. What's buried in your back yard? by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 1

    Oh no, Officer. You're not going to get me like that.

    --
    Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    1. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you ... ... And then I'd have to bury you ... ... in my backyard.

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    2. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Nah, you need to sign up for my Home Law 101 class:
      Q. What's the first thing you do if you see a body floating face-down in your pool?
      A. You put it BACK in the neighbours' pool, THEN you call 911.
    3. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by chawly · · Score: 1

      But the non-arrival of an expected cold beer often leads to burials in the back-yard (or the front-yard, for that matter). Perhaps the Officer had this in mind ?

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
    4. Re: What's buried in your back yard? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      "Am I only one having this eery uncomfortable feeling that this guy isn't joking?"
      A relatively low-ID Slashdot subscriber talking about an ex-wife?!
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  102. World Wind also helps to find thins by ButcherCH · · Score: 1

    NASA World Wind helps solve 3,000 year old mystery of ancient Ithaca, the island home of Homer's Odysseus http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/odysseus.html

    --
    Do or do not, there is no try.
  103. I did the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was suspicious about a place of Spain, and I visited the SIG OLEICOLA (that area is not covered by Google Earth). I saw squares in the terrain.

    I don't want to tell you the place, or the thieves are going to destroy that place, and anyway there are so many places like that in my country... I believe there are other 4 or 5 romans farms like that in an area of 3 kilometers. I mean, that is not a incredible archeological finding.

    But I believe this is a good idea for a webpage, people trying to find new ruins with aerial photography, but NOT TELLING the place, just the Country.

    1. Re:I did the same by chawly · · Score: 1

      These Romans - just roamin' all over the place, eh !

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  104. What's buried in your back yard? by Gax · · Score: 1

    The ex-wife.

    Wait! This is anonymous, right?

  105. can't see it... by Caydel · · Score: 1

    Too all those who claim they can't see it, I think we have to give alot of props to this guy for spotting it. You'll notice if you zoom out, the surrounding areas havelower resolution. I think the high-res photo was only taken since perhaps the archeology began.

  106. Sam and Frodo... by CarlJagt · · Score: 1
    Yes, I spent an hour using Google Earth locating and carooming around Mount Ruapehu, New Zealand a.k.a Mount Doom. And I had secret suspicions the geeks at Google might have put a small image of Sam and Frodo struggling up its side. No such luck.

    Yet. Maybe they put the Shire in?

  107. Inherited data by Nerdposeur · · Score: 1

    I realize we're getting further off-topic, but what I'm trying to say is, the media doesn't have to last, as long as the data is worth something to somebody - and that criteria will get easier to meet as storage space gets cheaper.

    Google, for example, is putting the content of tons of books into a database. Fifty years from now, you might be able to download the whole thing onto a disk in a few seconds. Each time disk formats change, lots of individuals and instituations will say, "Let's see, well, we've got the entire canon of English literature on the old computers; let's migrate those to new ones. After all, it's only a few hojillion gigabytes."

    Ancient libraries couldn't be distributed all over the world; ours can. In Rome, you could burn one library and lose irreplacable documents. For us, if anything is *almost* lost, and one individual copy is found, bingo, copies all over the world again.

    I don't see why this couldn't continue indefinitely.

    And if EVERY computer archive is destroyed by nuclear war, there won't be any archeologists in the future anyway.

  108. You don't even have to go to Alaska for that... by fizbin · · Score: 1

    I decided to try out google earth and the first thing I do is look up my house an the church about a mile down the road where I got married - and the pictures there were slightly better than what can be seen on google maps, so not terribly impressive.

    Then I tried to look at pictures of my alma mater. And got... nothing. Some indistinct mottled red and green.

    It's not as though Northfield, MN is really all that rural; I kind of expected bad results when searching for some really rural place in wisconsin, but I got nothing better when looking at a town that is, essentially, a far-flung suburb of Minneapolis.

    And what's with the entire state of Indiana being provided in a different color from surrounding states?

  109. Enable the DG Coverage layers... by yalla · · Score: 1

    ...to see the date when the image was taken.

    Alex.

    --
    You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled.
  110. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Or you could choose NOT to be a tree hugging hippy and buy real grass and waste all our precious water.

    If you are using fake grass, at most that would make you a fake-tree hugging hippy.

    Sounds to me like you are just a redneck who needs to justify his supercharged rider-mower.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  111. USAPhotoMaps and MSN Virtual Earth by donutello · · Score: 2, Informative

    USAPhotoMaps is excellent for downloading and viewing USGS topo maps. The interface is terrible and clunky to use but once you figure it out, it's awesome. It also has a database of USGS landmarks that you can use. I use it when planning hiking trips.

    I know we hate Microsoft here but VirtualEarth has much higher resolution pictures of many areas. In general, I've found that once you're outside the major metropolitan areas MSNs maps are much better than Google's.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  112. City of the mole people by jafac · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure that satellite imagery will help with this one, but last night, I discovered a new gopher-hole in my back yard. Determined to flood them out, I stuck my hose down the hole and turned it on. In the past, they usually fill-up in about 30 seconds, and often, the gopher will come out, being pushed by the water, and head off into the bushes.

    This time, the hole didn't fill up. I kept running the hose. 5 minutes. 10 minutes. Where the fuck is all this water going. 15 minutes. I stopped. I didn't see anywhere else where the water might have been draining downhill through other channels. But at a rate of about 10 gallons per minute, I wasted about 150 gallons down that gopher hole, which is far beyond what a normal gopher hole should hold. Unless there's a connection to a void, or an underground city of mole-people. (I usually leave moles alone, because they don't do much damage. Not like those damn gophers).

    Tomorrow, I'm going to get my shovel out, and find the answer.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:City of the mole people by chawly · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to encourage you, sir. Life's little mysteries are there to be explored, and exercise is good. Go phor it (sorry, couldn't resist) but carefully - with the on-set of winter many of God's creatures go into hibernation, and they tend to be in a bad temper if awakened. Suggest wearing your running shoes.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  113. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

    What's fake grass made of? Plastic uses oil. How's it made? Manufacturing most things uses energy, usually electricity or oil. Why the fuck do you want to use fertiliser on it or bug spray? If it needs pepping up, go find a stable and get some horse manure. And that bug spray? Not clinical clean enough for you? Bugs are good for the environment, leave them be. Finally you can use water butts to collect rain water and use that to water the grass in dry periods.

    That whole post seems to highlight the throw away culture of the US. You do something which is bad, but just not as bad as something else which is also bad, but is done because you can't be arsed to do things properly.

  114. Re:Breaking news from Slashdot by scottv67 · · Score: 1

    Sex and Beer!

    Your wish is my command:

    Sex and Beer

  115. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you missed the part about water. Watering lawns is a significant source of water wastage. Additionally, horse manure, just because it is "natural" doesn't mean that its use is riskfree and void of any dangerous consequences. As for bug killer, use of that has nothing to do with being "clinically clean" -- fungicide and insecticide are commonly used to protect the grass from parasites.

    For a tree-hugging hippy, you sure don't know shit about just how bad for the environment lawns are. The environmental impact of manufacturing fake grass is a drop in the bucket compared to the environmental costs of maintaining a typical american lawn.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  116. Re:frist post! by bhiestand · · Score: 1
    naked bodies of linux users!

    Aw come on. You never mentioned "All your base" or a "beowulf cluster". What type of slashdotter are you? ;)

    Do you really want to see a beowulf cluster of naked linux users?
    --
    SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  117. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by arete · · Score: 1

    I have a bridge I'd like to sell you over Lake Pontchartrain.

    In general, fake grass is not better for the environment by any stretch of the imagination.

    1. Made from plastic, from oil.
    2. Plants make oxygen.
    3. Grass doesn't require fertilizer, and watering usually doesn't hurt.

    To clarify: use plants appropriate to your climate. If you live in a desert, using real OR fake grass is bad for the environment.

    If you live somewhere it actually rains, most of the time moderate watering grass ISN'T bad for the environment, because that water goes back into the environment - largely as immediate humidity. And you only need moderate watering if you use the right plants.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    1. Re:I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Hey look, another guy going off about what he "knows" rather than the facts.

      1. Made from plastic, from oil.

      Big deal, the oil is not being burnt is it? It is sitting there, basically inert on the ground for 10+ years, and once it is replaced it can be recycled. Meanwhile, every year 800 million gallons of gas are burnt by lawnmowers alone in the USA.

      2. Plants make oxygen.

      Big deal. Plants also consume oxygen and make carbon dioxide, ever hear of the Kreb's cycle? All of the grass in the entire country - lawns, golf-courses, etc account for under 5% of the total CO2 sink from all plants. Furthermore, grass like any other plant, is only a CO2 sink when it grows - which means heavy watering, lots of mowing and typically lots of chemical lawn treatments.

      3. Grass doesn't require fertilizer, and watering usually doesn't hurt.

      During growing season in the USA, Americans pour up to about 240 gallons of water per person per day on their lawns. And while grass doesn't require fertilizer to exist, it does require fertilizer and an assload of other chemical treatments to grow into the lush, verdant lawns that are the ideal of the average american home owner.

      In general, fake grass is not better for the environment by any stretch of the imagination.

      Looks like you better get crackin, get get crackin on those mental calisthetics.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by arete · · Score: 1

      Anyone putting in fake grass BECAUSE it is good for the environment is not doing the right thing for the environment.

      Your argument is essentially that you're better off to buy a car with slightly better gas mileage since you're driving 50,000 miles a year. My argument is that for most people there is no need to drive those 50,000 miles, and cutting down on it is more important. In most cases it IS better to own an SUV than to routinely have to make multiple trips with a smaller car... if you actually need that much space. (And, if so you should probably get a van or minivan instead of an SUV...)

      Just because some people excessively fertilize and water doesn't mean you have to do it. And it really does matter what breed of grass you use for where you are. If you want to be good for the environment find green ways to keep your lawn green - or don't do it and do something else.

      Our recycling of some types of plastic is fine, but most of them amount to "we chop it up and there are a very few things we can make out of it" It is much more likely to just be landfilled than aluminum.

      That some rare freaks use 240 gallons of water a day doesn't surprise me - that doesn't mean they're a good standard for being enviromentally friendly.

      You ignored me, but I wasn't kidding about the watering not being that bad in lots of places... basically anywhere that gets their water from a nearby stationary source - if it rains someitmes and you're near a lake, it's probably not a big deal* because it rapidly returns to its natural cycle.

      On the other hand, if you're piping water thousands of miles from a mountain-fed river into a desert, you shouldn't have a lawn - you live in a freakin' desert. That water is not going to return to its natural place anytime soon, if at all.

      *Of course, there is some energy cost involved in processing the water before it got to your lawn and then getting it there. Since it doesn't need to be potable, you'd be even better off to pump it from a local source directly onto your lawn without processing.

      --
      Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    3. Re:I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Anyone putting in fake grass BECAUSE it is good for the environment is not doing the right thing for the environment.

      Translation: It's bad dammit! I don't care what you say, my knee has jerked my foot into my mouth, and that's all there is to it!!! I need more strawmen, bring me more strawmen!!

      Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by arete · · Score: 1

      Fine, I'll clarify and agree:

      IF you are a worst-case environmental offender with your lawn, and the legal, economic or social situation hasn't yet evolved a way to get you to behave in a way that is substantially less harmful to the environment, plastic grass might be be less harmful to it than your terrible behavior with the real grass.

      Did I inappropriately summarize your point in some way?

      But I still sustain that if you're discussing making the situation really better you shouldn't overlook the much better solutions in favor of the slightly better one.

      --
      Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
    5. Re:I have a bridge I'd like to sell you by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      IF you are a worst-case environmental offender with your lawn,

      Which a very large proportion of the US population is - see the numbers about 850 million gallons of gas on lawn mowers per year. Most of your "solutions" have close to zero chance of being adopted by the average suburban household because they are impractical. Fake grass, on the other hand is quick and painless with an end result that is practically indistinguishable from the real thing.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  118. Google Earth live cloudmap layer by Smoke2Joints · · Score: 1

    thought you guys might like this.. http://verti.orcon.net.nz/live_cloudmap_2048.kmz

  119. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by doom · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I figured if I whined about that someone would prove me wrong. All I can tell you is the last time I looked I kept coming up with a list of train stations with the name of the town, but no address. The trick is to find the right two clicks.

  120. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by superdude72 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't have been so snarky if I'd noticed you had a 5-digit slashdot ID. The caltrain site must have been upgraded since you last checked, old-timer. :-)

  121. Re:Best use I've found for Google Satellite images by superdude72 · · Score: 1

    That was kind of snarky too, wasn't it. Sorry.

  122. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Goth+Biker+Babe · · Score: 1

    Add perhaps you missed the bit about the water butts (barrels, tanks whatever). A lot of the US gets a lot of rain at certain times. When it rains you collect the water which means you're not wasting water. I agree about lawns in the desert, but in Colorado you should have some rain.

  123. Re: What's buried in your back yard?" by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Add perhaps you missed the bit about the water butts (barrels, tanks whatever)

    Don't think I missed at all, I don't see you say shit about that in your previous post.

    A lot of the US gets a lot of rain at certain times. When it rains you collect the water which means you're not wasting water.

    Just what kind of drugs are you on? How many suburban homes even have the potential, never mind the capacity or motivation to do that?

    Not only are you a tree-hugging hippie, you are clearly a frog-licker too.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  124. LP by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    This is the Last Post!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year