Indians Use Google Earth and GPS To Protect Amazon

Damien1972 writes "Deep in the most remote jungles of South America, Amazon Indians are using Google Earth, GPS, and other technologies to protect their fast-dwindling home. Tribes in Suriname, Brazil, and Colombia are combining their traditional knowledge of the rainforest with Western technology to conserve forests and maintain ties to their history and cultural traditions. Indians use Google Earth to remotely monitor their lands by checking for signs of miners and GPS to map their lands. "Google Earth is used primarily for vigilance," says Vasco van Roosmalen, program director of a nonprofit involved in the project."

Comments

Best way to ensure conservation

[Harmonious Botch]

The combination of technology and private property looks like the best way to ensure conservation. Make sure the land in question belongs to somebody, so they have an incentive to take care of it; and give them the tech tools to do so. They will do it without taxing others. No EPA budget busting, no snail darter lawsuits, no taking of private property. About the only taxpayer expenses are the maintenance of the cops and judicial system to handle civil or criminal complaints that the tribe may have - and that is mostly a sunk cost anyway.

Sorry to risk starting a political debate ( but after all this is slashdot, so that is effectively a sunk cost too. )

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

It does belong to someone, the Indians and animals.

Duh.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[KillerCow]

The combination of technology and private property looks like the best way to ensure conservation. Make sure the land in question belongs to somebody, so they have an incentive to take care of it

The Tragedy of the Commons defeats this argument. If I'm the private owner, why should I spend my money to preserve it when I could make money be selling the land to a clear-cutter? Yes, there's less rain-forest now, but that cost is paid by society, not by me. I personally get net ahead by abusing my piece of the commons.

Individuals do what is best for themselves individually. Collectives can do what is best for the collective. The only way to protect a commons is through government, because it represents the collective of the people.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[griffjon]

I mostly agree, but many indigenous communities don't recognize land rights with a Western mentality; communal lands with no private ownership, for example. This is not due to a lack of understanding of private lands, which is why they lobby their government for land rights, but a cultural choice.

It can still work, just not as simply.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[diersing]

That worked wonder in North America didn't it.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The Tragedy of the Commons defeats this argument. If I'm the private owner, why should I spend my money to preserve it when I could make money be selling the land to a clear-cutter?

1) Because, as the owner of the land with a vested interest in the land, it is more valuable to you forested (an ongoing resource) than clear-cut (a one-time use). Sure there will be plenty of times when the owner decideds that partial clear-cutting is his ownly choice due to short-term economic problems. But, private ownership is meant to be the least wasteful model, not a utopian (in the classic sense) model.

This article is de facto proof that private ownership of the forest by those with a vested interest in the forest (the native indians) will work.

2) You are trying to use the tragedy of the commons to try to justify the commons (communal ownership of the forest) as the best economic model. Very ironic.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

Individuals do what is best for themselves individually. Collectives can do what is best for the collective.

1. A "collective" can't do anything, because a collective is, in reality, nothing but a group of unique individuals spoken for by some arbitrary leader. A collective is not a living, thinking being in itself; it does not "think" for itself. Unless each and every one of the unique, thinking individuals belonging to the collective decides for himself to offer voluntary support to the issue in question, then how can one logically claim that the collective has spoken? On the contrary, only a specific subset of the collective has spoken -- a "majority" for example -- and they have of course spoken only for themselves, not the collective in total, because individuals cannot think for anyone but themselves.

2. If individuals do what's best for themselves, as you claim, and collectives are nothing but groups of unique individuals spoken for by some arbitrary leader, as I have shown, then it follows that collectives do what's best for the leader of the collective (which you can define as the majority on a given issue), not the collective as a whole.

So collective rule doesn't serve the collective at all, but only a specific subset of the collective on any given issue, provided that individuals are unique and capable of unique thought processing, which of course they are. The question, then, should not be simply "what does the majority say", but "how strong is the majority", in other words how close to a 100% majority should the "collective" (government) need in order to impose coercion as their means.

I say 99.99999% - what do you think?

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[saforrest]

You are trying to use the tragedy of the commons to try to justify the commons (communal ownership of the forest) as the best economic model. Very ironic.

Thats not really what he/she was doing. Communal ownership in the classical sense would mean that the private corporations doing the clearcutting would share the forest with the Indians, just as the village commons in the old economic parable was owned by everybody.

The "communalism" being proposed is sole communal ownership by the people living on the land (i.e. the Indians), with the exploiting corporations left out. Think of it as private ownership by a collective, if that makes any sense.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm the private owner, why should I spend my money to preserve it when I could make money be selling the land to a clear-cutter?

Because your a nice ecologically conscious person? My problem with collectives is that they are inevitably controlled by just a few individuals, or even just one anyway. That makes the whole idea of a collective moot.

In the United States, we have these things called homeowners' associations. They are essentially collectives that you are required to join if you want to live in certain neighborhoods/housing developments. Initially they are formed to establish rules for the common good. Rules are established that cater to the health and safety of the members. However, those elected to lead often end up as dictators, and bully the collective members into adopting any number of stupid rules. In the area that I live in these associations have rules covering things like: approved house paint colors, approved architecture and house plans, approved landscaping, the amount of time (in minutes) you are allowed to have your garage door open, the number of cars you can have parked in front of your house (having a party or not), the pets you are allowed to own (down to specific breeds of species), how long before and after garbage pickup your can is allowed to be on the street (your work schedule be damned), etc...

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[maxume]

Except that all over the world, private conservation funds are buying up huge tracts of land for the simple purpose of preserving it.

Government parks are nice, but don't get all rosy-eyed, much of the time they are on land that isn't good for much else, and in the U.S. anyway, plenty of resource extraction goes on(which is fine, 50-100 year old plantation trees are not real precious).

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[greginnj]

in other words how close to a 100% majority should the "collective" (government) need in order to impose coercion as their means.

I say 99.99999% - what do you think?

I think I'd like to know the size of the population you're taking a percentage of, so I know how many members I need in my soon-to-be-formed criminal conspiracy, to guarantee its safety. Thanks!



Heywaitaminnit .... impose coercion ? As opposed to getting people to submit to it voluntarily?

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[FLEB]

...and you'll catch me dead before you find me living in an HOA neighborhood. Really, that's one of those things you know going into the deal. Although I oppose them, I can't really feel sorry for the people who bought into restricting their own freedom.

(You can't get forced into an HOA unless you buy in, can you?)

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[nwbvt]

No, the tragedy of the commons applies when there is no property, and everything is part of the commons. Hence the name, tragedy of the commons. For instance, one could argue that with regard to the atmosphere. We cannot divide the atmosphere up into private lots, and there is no incentive to keep any of it clean.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

(You can't get forced into an HOA unless you buy in, can you?)

Typically, no. The vast majority of them are implemented via deed restriction (ie, you don't actually own your house, you just think you do) which means they had to have bought the property before you and then sold you a restricted deed from that property. There might be some place where people are allowed to organize one out of nowhere and force other landowners into the organization, though.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

"The only way to protect a commons is through government, because it represents the collective of the people."

Or somehow show each individual owner why keeping the land untouched is better for them individually than selling it to a clear-cutter.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[SnowZero]

The Nature Conservancy is a really nice organization that works that way. A friend who donates to it pointed it out to me. In short, they use donations to buy at-risk land, and also get conservation easements from private land owners who wish to protect their own land. Advocacy organizations can spend lots of money lobbying, and potentially fail anyway, while its extremely difficult to fight someone when they actually own the land.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to protect a commons is through government, because it represents the collective of the people.

I laugh at you.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[khallow]

A decade or more back, an old college friend bought into such a neighborhood. At the time, the homeowner's association tied to the deed was defunct and the seller claimed it was likely to stay that way. Unfortunately, it didn't stay that way with the association forming within a couple years of him buying in. And since then, he's had to deal with a bunch of carpers who get easily upset, if you don't mow your lawn every weekend.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[kabocox]

The combination of technology and private property looks like the best way to ensure conservation. Make sure the land in question belongs to somebody, so they have an incentive to take care of it

The Tragedy of the Commons defeats this argument. If I'm the private owner, why should I spend my money to preserve it when I could make money be selling the land to a clear-cutter? Yes, there's less rain-forest now, but that cost is paid by society, not by me. I personally get net ahead by abusing my piece of the commons.

Individuals do what is best for themselves individually. Collectives can do what is best for the collective. The only way to protect a commons is through government, because it represents the collective of the people.

You got moded +5 for this reply when your reply doesn't understand the "tragedy of the commons" at all? The tradegy of the commons was about group, town or government owned land being overused by individuals. The tragedy of the commons is "solved" in one manner by making sure the land is individually owned rather than collectively owned.

You then completely abuse the idea idea of of "tragedy of the commons" and mix in an idea that the entire global belongs to "society" and not individuals so your point makes sense in that respect. I have a small note to let you know: in the US and most European derived culturals the land is seen as owned by either individuals or the government/nobles. In the US, I can do almost anything that I want to my individually owned land. I can't go against the EPA and dump toxic waste or kill off any endangered species, but other than that if I owned a few thousand acres it's perfectly legit for me to sell it to a developer and have former farm land become a subdivison or strip mall. I'm one of those that thinks that other than EPA policies the government has no right to tell me how to use MY land. Your agruement hinges on the government managing all land/property as if they own it and we are mearly renting it from the government for a lifetime. That's not how our system works though some agrue taxes make it seem that way.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[operagost]

Unfortunately, it didn't stay that way with the association forming within a couple years of him buying in.

IANAL. But... if the association was defunct, it seems to be debatable. A new org under the same name is not the same org. This is the same as if the deed was tied to a local business "Vegan central" (that had originally owned the land) with an agreement that the land could not be used for, say, taxidermy. If "Vegan Central" went under, then some guy opened a new business under the same name, it would not be the same business.

Re:Best way to ensure conservation

[khallow]

The problem was that there apparently was a way to reestablish the homeowners' association charter for the whole neighborhood and he had to respect that as a condition of his deed to his house. Maybe some sort of majority vote or maybe it wasn't as dead as advertised, I don't know.

Too bad they can only stop what happened years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Those maps are out of date, it'll be useless to find new operations.

Google is a Duracell front

[jfclavette]

I knew it all along.

Re:Google is a Duracell front

[bbrand]

yea... i was about to post this.

Native Americans use Google Earth

[WillAffleckUW]

I don't think they outsourced it to India.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[the_wishbone]

Amazon probably outsources a lot of its call-center related jobs to India...so I'm not surprised the Indians are doing whatever they can to protect Amazon in order to keep as many jobs as possible.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[minus_273]

yeah, native americans in BRAZIL.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[redfieldp]

Um, yes, that would be Brazil in South AMERICA. Hence, Native AMERICANS.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[WillAffleckUW]

you'll have to excuse some posters. They seem to think America only means the USA, when it refers to two continents.

Just like India is a subcontinent just south of Asia.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[metalligoth]

The term American originally referred to the first nation in North or South America that was non-aboriginal. That nation of course is formed by the United States of America. Hence why people in Canada, for example, aren't called "Americans".

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The term American originally referred to the first nation in North or South America that was non-aboriginal. That nation of course is formed by the United States of America.

What a load of Bullshit. Next time, could you do you an iota of research before posting your facts?

The continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci who first landed at the mouth of the Amazon in 1499 and was the first explorer to realize that he was not in India but rather a new place.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[minus_273]

"The continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci who first landed at the mouth of the Amazon in 1499 and was the first explorer to realize that he was not in India but rather a new place"

right and how is that related to the term american? Your post has nothing to do with what the parent wrote. For example i can reply.

Sir Franceis Drake was a Brit! sure it is true but it has nothing to do with your post.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You respond to a post in which I castigate someone for not doing an iota of research with a similar post completely void of research. Ironic.

Read the the link dumbass.

In honor of Vespucci's discovery of the new forth portion of the world, Waldseemuller printed a wood block map (called "Carta Mariana") with the name "America" spread across the southern continent of the New World.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[minus_273]

funny, the link you provided has lots of information on the naming of America which i already said was true. It has nothing to do with the application of the label AMERICAN. Once again, Sir Francis drake was a Brit. Here is a link to prove it wikipedia link . Lots of great information. Just as true as your post, but says nothing about why americans are called americans and canadians, mexicans, brazillians etc are not called americans. Do you even understand the topic? We are not discussing who the Americas are named after, you are the one who brought that up.

If you just learned about Vespucci in school and just felt like sharing this with us, sorry for the harsh reply, but we already know this.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What part of "The term American originally referred to the first nation..." do you fail to understand as being incorrect?

The 'first' part?

The 'nation' part?

The point is that long before there was a USA there were Americans.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[jagdish]

exactly.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[metalligoth]

Yes, the continents were named after Amerigo Vespucci.

Can you name a non-aboriginal nation that was founded in North or South America before the United States in 1776? Didn't think so.

Europeans started referring to these people as not "Brits", "Spaniards", or "Frenchmen", but as Americans. Hence why people in other independent states on those continents aren't referred to as such.

From Wikipedia: The word can be used as both a noun and an adjective. In adjectival use, it is generally understood to mean "of or relating to the United States of America"; for example, "Elvis Presley was an American singer" or "the American president gave a speech today;" in noun form, it generally means "United States national".

It's a matter of precedence. Had Mexico or Quebec been the first region to throw off it's colonial power, those people would likely be referred to as "Americans" on the international stage.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[falconwolf]

people in Canada, for example, aren't called "Americans".

Frequently they'er called "North Americans" though I like Canucks.

Falcon

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey retard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_american says that the term "Native American" is often used to refer to the povos indigenas of Brazil. Next time you decide to look up a term in the encyclopedia, look up the whole term. A Sir Francis Drake (pirate) is very different from a drake (duck).

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Had Mexico or Quebec been the first region to throw off it's colonial power, those people would likely be referred to as "Americans" on the international stage.

Baloney.

It's not the Canadian Republic of America, nor is it the United Mexican States of America. The reason citizens of the USA are commonly referred to as American is because the 'A' in USA stands for America. It is shorthand. But it is hardly uniquely restricted to the USA.

Nation of origin and citizenship are not the only criteria for the naming of ethnic and geographic groups - else only Chinese would be Asians and only Egyptians would be Africans, only Scotts would be Celts, only Georgians would be Caucasians, etc.

There were Americans long before there was a USA.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[minus_273]

let me guess, you use AOL.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[indifferent children]

A Sir Francis Drake (pirate)

This is /. You are required to call him a 'copyright infringer', not a 'pirate'. Thank you.

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys are a little bad in History! America was discovered by Cristovão Colombo. But because of politics that name America was given because of Americo Vespúcio. You guys should now that politics made this to History... Just like here in Brazil we learn in schools that Pedro Alvares Cabral discovered our country... But we all now that Cristovao Colombo did it years before Cabral and Vespucio -.-

Re:Native Americans use Google Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

United States of America is reffering to the United States of the country America, not the United States of the continent of America. If they were referring to the continent, then it would be known as the United States of North America. Also, when referring to both continents, it is usually stated as 'The Americas', which is plural meaning both continents.

Campers, I tell you!

[Ninjaesque One]

Campers, all of them! They maphack and wait for our attacks, and they try to defend! I tell you, they camp and maphack and everything! That's not fair, the Amazonians defending their base!

Re:Campers, I tell you!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

All their base are belong to us. Or at least, belong to the corps.....

Heh.. For a second

[Anonymous Coward]

I was puzzled as to why a bunch of people in South Asia wanted to protect something in South America. :)

Re:Heh.. For a second

[Anonymous Coward]

I was puzzled as to why they wanted to protect Amazon.com.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

... they're using the 'net to find old National Geographic issues with photos of boobs.

oh

[eneville]

Ohhhh! /American/ Indians!

Re:oh

[Tackhead]

> Ohhhh! /American/ Indians!

You mean, like amazon.br?

Re:oh

[Rix]

You do know that the US is not America, right?

Re:oh

[script_daddy]

Take your cheese-eating, liberal lies elsewhere!

We know you dirty liberals hate America, but we also know that you love the rain-forest, Che Guevara, latino prostitues, and Mexican marijuana. You even seem to like the Canadians fer chrissakes! Ergo, America = The US. It's simple logic!

Re:oh

[Rix]

Why would I want Mexican marijuana when I've got all the Canadian marijuana I want up here? ;)

Ergo, The US = poppie. Or something.

Forget the sharks.

[ExFCER]

This real leapfrogging...

grassroots effort?

[binarybum]

weird, why doesn't Amazon just use their lawyers?

Re:grassroots effort?

[WillAffleckUW]

weird, why doesn't Amazon just use their lawyers?

They're busy fighting for the spaceport in Texas.

That or to keep the Sonics here in Seattle.

Amazonian rainforests

[56ker]

It is in everyone's best interests that we don't destroy more of the tropical rainforests to make way for short-term profits such as gold. The innovative use of technology with tribes seen to be primitive is a good example of how technology can be used as a useful tool.

However the article doesn't mention why these illegal logging/mining operations are going on (other than the profit motive). Perhaps the Brazilian government (as well as other South American governments) could put money into deterring these types of operations as well as dealing with them once they have sprung up. It is in humanity's best interest to deal with issues such as these now which affect quality of life and climate change. If we just do nothing and continue on our current path it will eventually lead to the biosphere being hostile to human life and possibly the extinction of humankind as a species.

Re:Amazonian rainforests

[gustgr]

While mining is a huge problem in South America's tropical forests, there is also the deforestation problem, both for the value of the wood itself and for cleaning the soil in order to expand the agriculture. The Brazilian government, as I can see it as a Brazilian myself, isn't doing nothing at all to prevent this. In fact, one of the biggest producers of soy in Brazil is also governor of Mato Grosso (a state in which there is a reasonable part of the Amazon forest). His farms are located both in Mato Grosso and in Amazonas (the state where the Amazon forest has its greatest coverage). There are a lot of farmers like him, they take down the trees, sell the woods and then plant soy on the cleaned area.

Brazilian government is actually proud to be in the head at a time when Brazil is exporting soy (and others commodities) as hell. Brazil is not the only guilt though. The buyers (mainly from Europe) should reject soy that was planted on former forest's territory, cattle (meat) created on former forest's territory, etc.

Re:Amazonian rainforests

[/dev/trash]

Everything was once forest.

Re:Amazonian rainforests

[WilliamSChips]

Even the Sahara desert?

Bah

[corychristison]

But I always thought Amazon.com was bad. Why would anyone want to conserve it?

Oh... nevermind.

:-P

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if you cut down all the Amazon trees, where are you going to get paper wood for producing Amazon books?

A certain Bash.org quote comes to mind

[Mikachu]

Reminds me of a certain bash.org quote...

<Rebbel> Man Google Earth is awesome
<Android18> Why?
<Rebbel> Im looking at my house
<Rebbel> brb, pizzas here
<BFMV> Now thats what i call technology

old data?

[collinong]

since google map and earth data is not at all real time, wouldn't it be hard for them to use these tools to find new encroachments? a forest or jungle could be cut down in the year or two it takes for google to get new sat images up.

Re:old data?

[quixote9]

Yeah. That was my first thought, too. I'm in Southern California, and the frame with my house in it is over two years old. I kind of like that as far as my street is concerned (reminds me of what was there before a bunch of new construction), but it does make Google Earth a blunt tool for tracking clearcutting. Unless they update the Amazon much more often?

Re:old data?

[sasdrtx]

Hahahahahahahahaha... they'll be surprised when they see our new clear-cut start, and then drive out there and find nothin' but dirt for 10,000 miles!

Best Way: Firepower

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality of business is that it thrives on profit. If you spot hunters violating conservation laws in the Amazon, a little warning here and there will do nothing.

Dian Fossey, famed protector of the gorillas, tried issuing warnings to poachers. The warnings did not stop the poaching but did encourage the poachers to successfully kill her.

If you identify the location of illegal hunters by using Google Earth, I suggest that you keep the matter to yourself. Hook up with some CIA-funded guerillas still operating in the region. Do some favors for the guerillas. In turn, they will help you to permanently solve the problem of illegal hunting. A hunter with his puny rifle is no match for a CIA-backed guerilla armed with the latest shoulder-fired missile.

oblig. South Park reference

[alexhard]

There's a place called the rainforest; it truly sucks ass. Let's knock it all down and get rid of it fast. You say, "Save the rainforest," but what do you know? You've never been to the rainforest before.

Re:oblig. South Park reference

[john83]

Oh, that Amazon. I was wondering what Google Earth and Amazon.com had to do with one another.

Images were updated by request

[xPsi]

Initially, I thought that their exercise was futile because Google Earth doesn't not have real time images and it is impossible (at a glance, although sometimes you can tell with some detective work) to know when various pictures were taken (e.g. see the Google Earth FAQ). But, it turns out that the group working in the Amazon actively makes requests to Google to update certain images faster so they can legitimately monitor various regions. e.g. from TFA:
""When Google Earth updated these images earlier this year with higher resolution versions, we could find nearly all the disturbances in the forest....We offered the Google Earth team a list of coordinates where it would be helpful to have sharper images. We also discussed the possibility of finding ways to include the Indians' nonproprietary data, as a layer with Indian names, on Google Earth."

Re:Images were updated by request

[Mark_in_Brazil]

The weird thing is that as a result, there are super-up-to-date pix of remote parts of the rainforest in Google Earth, but some more densely populated regions have old pictures.
For example, I live in São Paulo, easily the largest and most important city in Latin America and in the Southern Hemisphere. For people who know US cities, here are some references: try and imagine a city that occupies a significantly larger area than Los Angeles, but has a density of buildings like Manhattan. It's just ridiculous. When you come in for a landing at the domestic airport in the south side of the city on a clear day, it looks like the buildings just go on forever.
Anyway, here I am in this metropolis, and yet the satellite photos of my neighborhood appear to be from about August of 1991, based on the state of the construction of two major condos in the neighborhood at the time the pictures were taken. Meanwhile, the pictures of remote parts of the rainforest are updated often enough that it can be used as a monitoring tool.

Hmm.

[Dyeane]

Am I the only one that went, "Amazon.com? Huh?"

Re:Hmm.

[zen-theorist]

Hm I the only one that went, "Amazon.com? Huh?"

no, and you twats should be shot at sunrise.

Re:Hmm.

[Dyeane]

Pardon me for sooner relating a popular website than a rain forest to a word in a slashdot article! Surely there is no greater folly ;P

Re:Hmm.

[LazLong]

No, I did the same. Maybe I'm a brainwashed consumer. Guess it's a context thing - Slashdot usually means web/technology, so of course I add a .com to everything. Or maybe I just need sleep.

Data age a problem.

[DerekLyons]

I doubt scanning GE provides much more than warm fuzzy feeling to the scanners - as the data is routinely anwhere from 1-5 years (or more) out of date. The article itself is little more than a fuzzy headed puff piece.

Re:Data age a problem.

[Goaway]

It's a good thing you pointed this out, because I am sure none of the people who do this have realized this yet. They're just sitting around looking at the maps without ever noticing that they don't update and are out of date! You will truly be heralded as a hero for this revelation.

Satellite Recon

[tsotha]

That's the great thing about Google Earth - it's a poor man's satellite recon.

If I were fighting some brush war on a shoestring budget, you can bet I'd be using Google Earth to figure out where my opponent's weaknesses are. Old intelligence is way better than no intelligence.

Re:Satellite Recon

[meringuoid]

Old intelligence is way better than no intelligence.

Bollocks. Ask Rumsfeld about the fine distinctions of military intelligence - he's got time on his hands now. 'No Intelligence' puts you in the position of an Known Unknown, which you can account for and you can be careful about. 'Old Intelligence' is an Unknown Unknown. You don't know where the opponent's weaknesses are but you THINK YOU DO. That's lethal. Especially when your opponent might know you're using Google Earth, and can then look at the same maps you're using, say 'Ah - he'll think we're weak HERE', and set up a nice trap for you...

One Problem?

[UltraAyla]

From TFA:

With the newly updated, high-resolution images of the region, they can see river discoloration which could be the product of sedimentation and pollution from a nearby mine. They are able to use these images to find the smallest gold mine."

One thing I don't get is how Google Earth has the resolution or frequency of updates that you'd need to monitor anything.

I live in a major urban area in California, and while the resolution is easily up to snuff for IDing swimming pools, cars, and the occasional frisbee, the image data is easily over 3 years old (denoted by the fact that my neighbor still has his doughboy swimming pool in their pictures, which I personally helped him uninstall long ago). In addition, once you leave the urban areas on this map, the resolution goes to crap.

This seems odd to me, so my question is: does Google, for some odd reason update images of the Amazon more often than they update major metropolitan areas (or at least mine)? Is the resolution of their land good enough? If so, can somebody explain to me what sort of incentive they have for this sort of thing?

Re:One Problem?

[UltraAyla]

Nevermind, while I was posting, someone answered my question above.

Re:One Problem?

[falconwolf]

I live in a major urban area in California, and while the resolution is easily up to snuff for IDing swimming pools, cars, and the occasional frisbee, the image data is easily over 3 years old (denoted by the fact that my neighbor still has his doughboy swimming pool in their pictures, which I personally helped him uninstall long ago). In addition, once you leave the urban areas on this map, the resolution goes to crap.

This seems odd to me, so my question is: does Google, for some odd reason update images of the Amazon more often than they update major metropolitan areas (or at least mine)? Is the resolution of their land good enough? If so, can somebody explain to me what sort of incentive they have for this sort of thing?

Maybe you missed it but tfa said Google was asked to update the photos, which they did early this year with higher resovultion photos. Now it woud be more helpful if Google Earth was frequently updated.

Falcon

Re:One Problem?

[MemoryAid]

Well, it's good to see you didn't abandon your post. Kudos on your tenacity.

I wonder

[chord.wav]

What are indians doing in the Amazon jungle? Don't they have their own problems in India? You know, their home country?

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you jackasses quit making that fucking joke? Indian is a term dating from the European dominance of the land here, people from the US didn't start the use of the term. We're talking about a specific geographical location, there's plenty of evidence to support that it's fucking South America that we're talking about, and here you are pretending to be clueless so that you can point out to the rest of us clueless SOBs that Indians don't live in the rainforests of South America. Thank you for reminding me of something that everyone in the US learns in elementary school. The Amazon.com jokes are acceptably moronic, but having to look at 10 different people all observing the same thing and making it into a joke is really annoying.

Re:Best Way: Firepower

[Anonymous Coward]

so right, I mean, look how awesome a job those shoulder fired missiles are doing in Iraq!

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[ArcherB]

This is not a troll! Whoever modded this should be meta-moderated out of existence!

I was going to say the same thing. When I pull up my house on Google Earth, it shows an empty lot where my house has been for at least three years. Yeah, these Indians may find a mine, but by the time they get there, all the miners would have left and the forest would have retaken the land.

I mean, it's not like you can go outside, wave at the sky and find yourself on GoogleEarth!

Could the title be more ambiguous?

[meringuoid]

I mean, I got the mental image of a bunch of guys in Bombay using Google Earth to protect an online bookstore...

Re:Could the title be more ambiguous?

[natrius]

After 500 years, we still have to deal with namespace collisions caused by Columbus covering his ass.

Aw crap, we're lost. What do I tell the crew...
"Congratulations, everyone! We've made it to India!"

Re:Could the title be more ambiguous?

[Ben Hutchings]

As I understand it, Columbus always intended to reach the "", believing the world was about 28,000 km in circumference. (People were sceptical about his voyage not because they believed the earth was flat but because they knew the Indies were much too far away.)

Re:Could the title be more ambiguous?

[Ben Hutchings]

Let's try that again.

As I understand it, Columbus always intended to reach the "Indies", believing the world was about 28,000 km in circumference. (People were sceptical about his voyage not because they believed the earth was flat but because they knew the Indies were much too far away.)

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[PopeRatzo]

I covered the roof of my garage with a white latex-type material a few years ago, and Google Earth still shows my old black garage, with a silver Honda next to it that I traded in a long time ago.

How can this tool "keep track" of anything in terms of the encroachment of miners (for example)?

I remember when Google Earth first came out, I kept insisting that my wife run out in the back yard and wave to me. Although she's a very smart mathematician, it's pretty easy to pull her leg, so she indeed went outside. She figured it out after a few minutes and smacked me, but not until my daughter and I were rolling in laughter.

BioRape.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Indians also chart the distribution of medicinal plants -- they use hundreds -- but for security reasons, some highly coveted medicinal plants are not published. In the past there have been problems with biopiracy where outsiders trespass on lands to illegally collect these plants for export. The Indians saw nothing in return. "

Something to keep in mind in the ongoing debate about drugs and the third-world.

you do know...

[Oo.et.oO]

that indians are FROM INDIA, right?

is this supposed to be like a queer calling a queer a queer?

Re:you do know...

[houghi]

Reminds me of a guy whas from Sierra Leone was called an African-American because of his colour, just as the guy who had three grand parents that came from Scandinavia.

Re:you do know...

[the_wishbone]

Shut up you queer. Wait a minute...

Re:Best Way: Firepower

[The Anarchist Avenge]

...or in Somalia?

I am aware that they were using RPGs in Somalia, not missiles, but they all operate on the same general principle, and RPG's are dumber than missles.
Also,
if(poacher != largestmilitaryinworld){you.stupid==true;}

Who in the feck writes this titles?

[/dev/trash]

Indians live in that subcontinent over near the Asia. Various Native and Indengious people live in South America.

And you wonder why Americans are called fat lazy and stupid.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and Americans live in North AND South America.

But I was able to figure out what you meant; and you were able to figure out what the title meant.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Frankie70]

Indians live in that subcontinent over near the Asia. Various Native and Indengious people live in South America.


And everyone knows Amazon is located in Seattle, though they do have Customer Service centers in
North Dakota, West Virginia, and India.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Smurf]

Although you are right, it so happens that in English (and in practically all European languages for that matter), Indian also refers to American Natives (American as in from any of the Americas). Yes, it's due to a mistake made over 500 years ago, but it's officially in the language, look it up in a dictionary.

Here you have one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indian

We may not like the misuse of terms like Indian and American, but unfortunately we will have to live with them.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[StikyPad]

As a US citizen living overseas, I had similar confusion when reading the title.

Nonetheless, the term "indians" is commonly used to refer to indigenous Americans in the US. Whether it's technically right or wrong has no bearing on the word's connotation. Fries do not at all resemble any form of something that has been chipped, yet the English still call them chips. It's not wrong, it just different.

Get over it.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[rm999]

One problem is that I actually thought Indian referred to the country at first in this headline - it is confusing. "Amazon natives" is almost as easy to say, and much clearer.

I don't have any PC reasons against the usage of "Indian" to refer to natives, but I do think it is antiquated and only creates confusion. Language should be clear and unambiguous when possible

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indian

adj.

      1. Of or relating to India or the East Indies or to their peoples, languages, or cultures.
      2. Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits.

n.

      1. A native or inhabitant of India or of the East Indies.
      2.
                  1. A member of any of the Native American peoples except the Eskimos, Aleuts, and Inuits.
                  2. Any of the languages of these peoples.
      3. See Indus2.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[MrNonchalant]

Indians live in that subcontinent over near the Asia. Various Native and Indengious people live in South America.

And you wonder why Americans are called fat lazy and stupid.

Yes, let's answer cultural insensitivity with more and worse cultural insensitivity. Surely that will solve the problem. And, no, I don't really care if you do live in the United States (America refers to two continents) that doesn't give you the right to call the whole populace anything.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[The Cydonian]

I'm sorry, but that's utter BS. Have to be blunt here, but the fact that you seem to be unable to differentiate between different dialectal usage for a certain food-item, and an incorrect term for a people only shows your cultural insensitivity. This isn't about discussing the different synonyms for a certain word in the lexicon, it is about calling someone by the name they identify with for historical and cultural reasons.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

No we don't.

A chip is made from a potato that has been chipped and fried. They tend to be fatter than fries, have a different texture, and curved ends from the curvature of the ends of the original potato. Sometimes they even have potato skin left on some edges!

A fry is made from mashed potato that has been reformed and fried. They tend to be thinner and softer than chips, and mostly served in fast-food joints.

The problem isn't that we use a different word for the same thing, it's that we make a distinction between two foods where you don't.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Johnny5000]

Various Native and indigenous people live in South America.

If you really want to get picky, "native" and "indigenous" people live in South America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Those words just mean: having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Vreejack]

The title had me confused as well. The use if the term "Indian" to describe the aboriginal peoples of the Americas is a practice that should have died out 400 years ago with Columbus. It managed to persist for so long because it was rarely confusing, but given that India is the most populous democracy in the world and has a dynamic, growing economy then I am beginning to consider recommending corporal punishment for repeat "India" offenders. I don't think there are even any aboriginal Americans who like being called "Indians," so it is insensitive as well as ignorant.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not American and I wouldn't call them fat, lazy nor stupid. Perhaps sometimes a little misinformed or unexposed.

Although the title at first caused me some confusion as I'm sure it did with a few others. First thought in my head as I'm reading the title is that Indians from the South Asia are using GPS and Google Earth to protect the Amazon? But the Amazon is in South America not India...no it can't be Amazon.com. Then it hits me that they mean the aborginal tribes in the Amazon are Indian. There is a very wide range of aborginal groups that span the entire North, Central and South Americas. To mix them up in a catch all "Indian" term, because of an anicient mariner's ethnographic confusion in this day and age is getting less acceptable. Especially when India represents over one billion people and is the world's largest democracy. I find it odd who we call the Inuit all the way to the Maya are all defined as Indian. I find it just as vague when someone in the United States uses the term Asian to mean a specific type of Asian. Asian could mean a very large group of people which includes the Indians of South Asia, Chinese of East Asia, the Filipino of South East Asia and so on. For those people who defend the position claiming that it is part of accepted language and to get over it. The lack of cultural sensitivity is obvious. South Asian Indians don't want to be confused with people on the other side of the globe, just as the indigenous tribes of North and South Americas don't want to be bundled together in a confusing and vague "Indian" description.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[StikyPad]

Better tell the Dictionary then.

It's only incorrect from two prespectives:

1) The Americas aren't, as believed by Columbus, east India. That doesn't change the fact that the term caught on, just like "chips" caught on in England, or any other regional dialectal examples you care to think of.
2) Its primary definition is different in non-American English. That doesn't change the fact that the original poster was, apparently, American, just like the poster who wrote about "Marks & Sparks" yesterday was apparently English.

It simply evolved to encompass a different group of people than it did originally.

Words are nothing more than verbal utterances agreed upon by a significant amount of people to represent and object or idea. They're inherently and involuntarily democratic, and they change over time. If a majority of people decide they mean one thing, then that's what they mean.

I agree that it's needlessly unspecific to use the term "Indian," but to say it's culturally insensitive is like saying that German is culturally insensitive because Germans call themselves Deutsch.

This hippy PC crap has got to stop.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[falconwolf]

Indians live in that subcontinent over near the Asia. Various Native and Indengious people live in South America.

Aboriginal, Indigenous, or Native people also live in India, such as the Hmar, Arunachal Pradesh, Boro, and many others.

Falcon

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[dvdeug]

I don't think there are even any aboriginal Americans who like being called "Indians," so it is insensitive as well as ignorant.

From what I've read, most aboriginal Americans, at least in the US, use the word Indians to describe themselves. Not to mention that they're a large enough group that it would be absurd to expect unanimity among them.

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

This hippy PC crap has got to stop.

Right on, cracker!

Re:Who in the feck writes this titles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you go find an American Indian and call him "Aboriginal" and see how he likes it. Oh what's that? Don't know any? Didn't think so.

Old images

[Dan East]

The Google Earth images of my town (population ~10,000 in Virginia, USA) are old - at least 5 years old. Not to mention really crappy low-res (I resort to terraserver's USGS black and white images for our area, because at least they are detailed).

So unless they only need to sample say twice a decade, I don't see how this could be useful for tracking really new encroachments.

Dan East

Re:Old images

[falconwolf]

So unless they only need to sample say twice a decade, I don't see how this could be useful for tracking really new encroachments.

TFA says Google was requested to update the photos of South American areas which they did with higher res photos early this year. I know this is /. but people may learn if they read articles.

Falcon

Legacy of an ignorant columbus

[cgskumar77]

500 years ago, Columbus was ignorant enough to call [the real] Americans as Indians. Even during the current knowledge era, [the phony] Americans don't want to correct that mistake. They don't want to become 'the immigrants', right?

Re:Legacy of an ignorant columbus

[stevenvi]

ignorant enough

You fail to realise that 500 years ago, the entire world was ignorant enough to not even be aware of the contintent they now call "America" standing in between Europe and Asia on the other side of the globe. The people weren't even called Americans at the time, either. That name came from Europe as well.

As a side, and mostly stupid comment, how else did you think that India had so many people in its country? Easy, they're located all around the globe! Har har har.... (that laugh should be read in monotone.)

Re:Legacy of an ignorant columbus

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't want to become 'the immigrants', right?

How long exactly does it take before a person loses the status 'immigrant?' I ask since we could effectively call *everyone* immigrants except for those living in Mesopotamia or Africa depending on when you choose to define the epoch of Man.

How long until those born in America are Americans?

!offtopic

[winomonkey]

Hey mods...the above post is not off topic, it is merely pointing out that articles, blurbs, and summaries should make the distinction that Indians (ala India) are not the same as Native Americans. Hundreds of years after the initial confusion and we are still getting this stuff wrong. Indians are not native to the Amazon.

Perhaps you meant some of these indigeneous peoples from Brazil:
* Ache
* Aconã
* Aimoré (Botocudo)
* Anacé
* Apinajé
* Aranã
* Asheninka
* Atikum-Umã
* Awá
* Baniwa
* Caingang (Kaingang)
* Caripuna
* Caxixó
* Fulni-o
* Guajajara
* Guaraní
* Jeripankó
* Juká
* Kaimbé
* Kalabaça-Jandaíra
* Kalankó
* Kamayurá (Kamaiurá)
* Kambiwá
* Kanindé
* Kantaruré
* Kapinawá
* Karajá
* Karapotó
* Kariri-Xokó
* Karuazu
* Kiriri
* Katuquina (Catökinn)
* Kaxinawa
* Kayapo
* Korubo
* Koiupanká
* Krahó
* Krenak
* Macuxi
* Matipu
* Maxakali
* Munduruku
* Ofayé
* Panará
* Pankaiuká
* Pankará
* Pankararé
* Pankararu
* Pankaru
* Pataxó
* Pataxó-Hã-Hã-Hãe
* Payaku
* Pipipã de Kambixuru
* Pirahã
* Pitaguary
* Potiguara
* Quilombolo
* Tapirape
* Tapeba
* Tapuia
* Tamoio
* Terena
* Ticuna
* Tremembé
* Truká
* Tsohom Djapa
* Tumbalalá
* Tupinambá
* Tupiniquim (Tupinikim)
* Waiapi
* Waorani
* Wassu-Cocal
* Xacriaba
* Xavante
* Xerente
* Xokó
* Xucuru
* Yanomami
* Yawalapiti
* Yawanawa

Re:!offtopic

[ericlondaits]

Yes, it struck me as well... why are indians concerned about the amazon? or is it the on-line bookstore they're trying to protect?

First thing I thought

[tonycheese]

when I read the title of this article was: how would GPS help Amazon.com? I spend too much time on the internet...

Google Earth isn't real-time

[KeelSpawn]

Google Earth wouldn't be of ANY help to what they're seeking for. The Google Earth map databases are updated every six months, so they could find the forest full and thriving one day and 6 months later check again - they might just find it a thriving new city. WHERE'S THE JUNGLE??? Too bad, we never said Google Earth is real-time. They're merely outdated images taken by satellites twice per year.

and these indians choose to use...

[technicalandsocial]

Duracell!

The power of marketing is amazing.

You misread the Tragedy of the Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

The prior poster asserted that keeping the land in private, empowered hands is good for conservation. You then say that 'The Tragedy of the Commons' (which applies to communally owned resources, not privately held ones) somehow 'defeats that argument'.

If I'm the private owner, why should I spend my money to preserve it when I could make money be selling the land to a clear-cutter? Yes, there's less rain-forest now, but that cost is paid by society, not by me. I personally get net ahead by abusing my piece of the commons.

Help me out here. Are you saying that property owners have no interest in preserving their land because they can sell it to someone else for some cash, knowing full well it'll be exploited?
I think you've got it backwards. Property owners have an interest in preserving the value of their assets. No such interest applies to communal resources; hence their fate.

Tragedy of the Commons

[silentbozo]

Governments are the collective will of the people? What the hell have you been smoking?

Dictatorships are the collective will of one person. But they're still a government.
Oligopolies, either through social or economic classism are the collective will of those in power. But they're still a government.
Democracies are the collective will of the majority (see tyranny of the majority). If you're in the minority, your will isn't represented. Tough luck.

And, even if the government is the collective will of the people in one area, unless you have world government, they can still take actions that benefit them at the cost of everyone else.

And finally, you gave the example of the Tragedy of the Commons for why private ownership fails to preserve land better than public ownership. I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand what the Tragedy of the Commons is supposed to illustrate at all.

From the link you provided to wikipedia:

"The paradigm example is the use by individuals of communally owned land for the grazing of animals owned privately by those individuals."

What you said:

"I personally get net ahead by abusing my piece of the commons."

If it's your piece, then it's no longer common, is it? Unless you subscribe to communism, in which case it was never your piece to begin with.

Going back to the original argument, the idea behind private ownership of land is that any party can own the land, and use it however they wish. If they want to stripmine it, that's within the boundaries of ownership. However, nothing stops organizations whose sole purpose is to conserve land (ie, Sierra Club and the like) from purchasing the land, and keeping it in its original state (or restoring it, if it's been altered.)

Contrast this to governmental control, where if enough wealthy (and suitably short-sighted) land developers gain influence over government, they can do things like allow logging, mining, oil extraction, as well as pipeline and road construction, since it's "public land".

As far as Tragedy of the Commons, If you're going to advocate communism/socialism/collectivism, you're going to want to use an argument that doesn't exist to shoot down the concept of collective ownership...

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[operagost]

Democracies are the collective will of the majority (see tyranny of the majority). If you're in the minority, your will isn't represented. Tough luck.

This is a fallacious argument against democracy. Assuming things such as racial or religious discrimination are kept in check, being in "the minority" is not a permanent condition. If you think that X function should change in your society, and instead of using your freedom of speech to persuade others you sit on your couch and bitch that "the man" is keeping you down, it's not exactly unfair.

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[silentbozo]

I never claimed that being a minority is permanent. That's the nice thing about mob rule, it's quite democratic.

However, that doesn't invalidate the idea that a pure democracy will act in the interests of the majority, because that's what the definition of a democracy is (although the definition of who the voting majority may vary.) If 51% of voters in a system designed around a simple majority decided that it was better to spend tax dollars on fudge ice-cream for everyone, than to build an intercontinental highway system, the government would spend tax dollars on fudge ice-cream, the 49% who wanted an intercontinental highway system be dammned.

The United States, for example, is not a pure democracy, given that we have a republican (as in we vote for representatives instead of directly voting on laws, for the most part) federation with constitutional limits. The system of checks and balances (the division of power into three branches of government, a constitution, requirement of supermajority to amend said constitiution, etc.) was designed so that abuses could be minimized.

Mind you, I'm not against self-determination. But there's a reason that few governments in history larger than say, a city-state, have used pure democracies (although, most of them have to do with being more efficient time and money-wise.) It would be an interesting experiment to implement a true democracy, now that we have the technical capability for people to actually cast their own votes on every single piece of legislation. Would we get mob rule? Or would we get more thoughtful voters?

Re:Tragedy of the Commons

[Anonymous Coward]

stephen eickhoff u are an hero ...

but niggras should stay a minority

I think the writer is lost....

[shakeedoo]

"Tribes in Suriname, Brazil, and Colombia are combining their traditional knowledge of the rainforest with Western technology" Wait a minute.... where is South America now? The Far East? Last I checked Sutiname, Brazil, and Colombia are all in the Western Hemisphere, and if technology is divided only by hemisphere, Google maps and other Western technologies represent their technology. Just because you call them Indians, that doesn't mean that they aren't in the Western Hemisphere.

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[The_Wilschon]

They have satellites up there which are dedicated to monitoring the amazon, as well as radar stations on the ground. So they're using google earth for mapping, not for imaging, I would infer. I know that they have active satellites in orbit currently because my father worked on the project that put them there. I'm rather puzzled though by this story which does not mention either the company my father works for nor the name of the project.

Western technology?

[Riktov]

"Tribes in Suriname, Brazil, and Colombia are combining their traditional knowledge of the rainforest with Western technology..."

Since they're in the Americas, does that mean they're using GPS units made in Asia?

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I pull up my house on Google Earth, it shows an empty lot where my house has been for at least three years."

Well, I'm not quite sure how to tell you this, but it's because they actively ignore idiots.

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[Anonymous Coward]

Satellites ... radar ... all the need now is a few of these and they'll be set!

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[johansalk]

Mining is something that takes time. You don't just move in overnight, mine, and leave in the morning. I guess they're monitoring a vast expanse of land, so even a months old picture is useful.

Re:Indians? Do you mean Aboriginals?

[lowid (24) _________]

I spent about 10 seconds figuring out why people from India were saving the Amazon in South America with google maps.

And those are 10 seconds that you can never have back. Damn story titlers.

Edible IT

[Doc Ruby]

If we could make solar collection (for DC) and WiFi APs biodegradable, tribes might have even better security. Maybe their ancestors left the seeds for them growing somewhere in that cornucopia...

Nice Headline

[jagdish]

Indians Use Google Earth and GPS to Protect Amazon

One of the most weirdly surreal headline ever.

Shouldn't it be "The Amazon"? Much less confusing that way.

Re:Nice Headline

[tHeSiD]

and one of the most confusing one too

*I* do

[Rix]

The /. editors don't seem to. They're talking about Native Brazilians, from what I gather.

private property

[falconwolf]

This article is de facto proof that private ownership of the forest by those with a vested interest in the forest (the native indians) will work.

Ah but the areas of forests this article mentions aren't private property, they are communally owned. The Amerindian tribes as a whole get title any land they gain rights to, itn't not sliced and diced into parcels to be handed to individuals. Now I'm not saying private property ownership interests won't encourage conservation, it can help, but it doesn't apply in this case.

Falcon

Re:Too bad they can only stop what happened years

[DerekLyons]

Those maps are out of date, it'll be useless to find new operations.

They have satellites up there which are dedicated to monitoring the amazon, as well as radar stations on the ground. So they're using google earth for mapping, not for imaging, I would infer.

TFA directly states that they are obtaining evidence from Google Earth of the existence of the mines and other incursions - I.E. for imaging, not mapping.
 

I know that they have active satellites in orbit currently because my father worked on the project that put them there. I'm rather puzzled though by this story which does not mention either the company my father works for nor the name of the project.

Your reference is a puff piece from eight years ago, it's entirely possible that the birds/system is not present, or entirely operational. Or it may not produce imagery of high enough quality, (land use images can be fairly coarse and still usefull). The lack of mention of them in TFA may indicate (if it is operational) that they are not available to the activists.
 
OTOH - TFA is a fuzzy headed puff piece, so their ignorance of sources of information other than populist ones can easily be explained by their naivete.

soya farming in Brazil

[falconwolf]

Brazilian government is actually proud to be in the head at a time when Brazil is exporting soy (and others commodities) as hell. Brazil is not the only guilt though. The buyers (mainly from Europe) should reject soy that was planted on former forest's territory, cattle (meat) created on former forest's territory, etc.

I thought Lula was going to stop stuff like this, clear cutting and burning the forest to grow crops on. I wonder why farmers haven't learned by now that most of the nutrients are in the trees not on the ground. Instead of working against nature they should work with nature, grow crops in the forest. Of course farming like this isn't conducive to massive mechanized agriculture.

Falcon

Re:soya farming in Brazil

[Anonymous Coward]

Okz. Let me tell. I may know it a little because I'm a brazilian. Lula is not what everyone thinks he is. He is worst them Bush. Lula is dumb and just care about himself. Look his airplane, the most expansive of all -.-

And the farmers here, dont care about trees and soil. All they want is fast money. They put all tree down, and sell... ;/ really sad...

DEATH TO LULA!

SIVAM, built by Raytheon

[Kadin2048]

Wikipedia article on the system (SIVAM): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_de_Vigil%C3%A 2ncia_da_Amaz%C3%B4nia

The system utilizes a mixture of fixed and mobile ground radar, as well as airborne surveillance using the Embraer ERJ 145. The combined platform is called the R-99. The U.S. military contractor Raytheon, the Brazilian firm ATECH, and Embraer won the tender to build the SIVAM system. Today, the project has delivered its equipment to the government, creating the SIPAM (Amazonian Protection System) and enhancing the Brazilian Airspace Control System. SIPAM headquarters are located in Brasília, Brazil.

traditional knowledge?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF does traditional knowledge mean?

Google Earth

[falconwolf]

I doubt scanning GE provides much more than warm fuzzy feeling to the scanners - as the data is routinely anwhere from 1-5 years (or more) out of date. The article itself is little more than a fuzzy headed puff piece.

It seems you haven't read the article, otherwise you would of read where it says "When Google Earth updated these images earlier this year with higher resolution versions, we could find nearly all the disturbances in the forest. Our guys have been finding gold mines we didn't know about at all." Admittedly to be more useful Google Earth needs to be updated frequently.

Falcon

Re:Google Earth

[DerekLyons]

I doubt scanning GE provides much more than warm fuzzy feeling to the scanners - as the data is routinely anwhere from 1-5 years (or more) out of date. The article itself is little more than a fuzzy headed puff piece.

It seems you haven't read the article, otherwise you would of read where it says "When Google Earth updated these images earlier this year with higher resolution versions, we could find nearly all the disturbances in the forest. Our guys have been finding gold mines we didn't know about at all."

Actually, I did read the article - and dismissed the above statement as PR, as even Googles recently updated high res data is... you guessed it, 1-5 years out of date. (The update was recent - the data varies greatly in age.) The article implies, nay states outright, that they use Google Earth for searching for incursions - which is fine for those that a) existed at the unknown date in the past then the photo was taken and, b) exists currently. I suspect that's a bare fraction of the incursions, so they found a few new ones they didn't know about - bully for them! Google Earth won't show the ones established last week.

Re:Google Earth

[falconwolf]

Actually, I did read the article - and dismissed the above statement as PR, as even Googles recently updated high res data is... you guessed it, 1-5 years out of date. (The update was recent - the data varies greatly in age.) The article implies, nay states outright, that they use Google Earth for searching for incursions - which is fine for those that a) existed at the unknown date in the past then the photo was taken and, b) exists currently. I suspect that's a bare fraction of the incursions, so they found a few new ones they didn't know about - bully for them! Google Earth won't show the ones established last week.

My apology then. I agree regularly updated photos are needed to really protect the Amazon, and I seem to recall reading that Brazil planned on launching satellites just for this, well and for communications, a year or two ago. If Brazil did and Google uses them then the Amazon could be regularly updated.

Falcon

what to call American Indians?

[falconwolf]

Have to be blunt here, but the fact that you seem to be unable to differentiate between different dialectal usage for a certain food-item, and an incorrect term for a people only shows your cultural insensitivity.

Actually it depends on who you talk to as to what the indigenous peoples of the Americas like to be called. Me, I'm part Native American Indian, which is what I usually use though I also use Human Being. However some use the tribal name such as "Cherokee", some "Indian", and some "NDN".

Falcon

aboriginal Americans

[falconwolf]

I don't think there are even any aboriginal Americans who like being called "Indians," so it is insensitive as well as ignorant.

I'm one that prefers "Native American Indian", or Human Being. Some I know like to use the name of their tribe, like "Cherokee", or "Sioux" where I live now, but some use "Indian". Some even use "NDN".

Falcon

Re:aboriginal Americans

[slothman32]

NDN?
Non-denominational nationalist?
They are patriotic to no country in particular.

Do you think of native South Americans as Indians as well?
For some reason it just seems weird to me.

Re:aboriginal Americans

[falconwolf]

Do you think of native South Americans as Indians as well?
For some reason it just seems weird to me.

Yes I do, I also think of them as U'wa, Yanomamo (both in Colombia), and other tribes.

Falcon

non-aboriginal nation in Americas before 1776

[falconwolf]

Can you name a non-aboriginal nation that was founded in North or South America before the United States in 1776? Didn't think so.

Yes I can, Vineland which is now called Nova Scotia.

Falcon

Re:non-aboriginal nation in Americas before 1776

[operagost]

Evidence for this is in debate, and in any case Nova Scotia was a possession of the British Empire until it confederated with Canada.

Brazilian tribes

[falconwolf]

Perhaps you meant some of these indigeneous peoples from Brazil:

That wiki page left out the Zoe Tribe, or Marrying tribe.

Falcon

Never played as a kid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowboys and Indians.

would be bloody boring your way:

Cowboys: Let's get those varmints. Anyone got a passport?
Indians: Let's raid white mans house. Anyone got a steamer cabin?

Stage 1, get underpants

[Joebert]

Shouldn't be long before thoose Indians realize they could watch their land alot easier with their own Google datacenter on the premises...

Protecting an online bookseller confused me

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck they'd band together to do that wasn't nearly as mind-boggling as trying to figure out how they'd use GPS and Google to do it.

This is silly!

[Daetrin]

They don't need computers! They need clean water and food and medical care! We shouldn't be wasting money on something like this!!

... wait, this isn't a OLPC debate? And it clearly shows an example of how "poor" people from a third world country can use computers to their benefit and voluntarily choose to do so? I'm going to withdraw from this debate before i damage the credibility of my claims any further.

Steve and Terri Irwin's contribution

[0jjjjjjjjjj0]

This is exactly where Steve and Terri Irwin's "profits" have gone. An extract from Steve's interview with Australian journalist Andrew Denton:

ANDREW DENTON: A lot of people see you as this... this larger than life STEVE IRWIN, in some ways a one-dimensional, almost cartoon character. But what they, perhaps, don't know is you've bought huge tracts of land in Australia, Vanuatu, Fiji, US. Why have you done that?

STEVE IRWIN: I'm a conservationist through and through, Andrew. That's, er...that's why I was put on this planet, um, for the benefit of wildlife and wilderness areas. That's what I'm into. That's what makes me pumped, mate. That's what myself and Terry (sic.) and our families have been all about.

A fantastic idea, and as the previous poster stated, a great way to protect the land, when it's managed appropriately.

WHY IS THIS TAGGED SCIENCE

[zen-theorist]

i hate to see every article being tag-whored as science just to lend authenticity to it and compel geeks to read it. this article and the ongoing discussion can atmost be classified as an application of new-fangled technology. is anyone else frustrated with seeing 10 articles in science and 3 articles each in YRO, politics, etc everyday?

if a separate whats-NASA-doing-today category were to be created, that alone would cut the number of science articles by half. hope the editors take note.

It doesn't?

[/dev/trash]

I'll have you know I am American, and I fat lazy and stupid.

Re:It doesn't?

[MrNonchalant]

You can't possibly speak for everybody. To do so is arrogance.

Re:It doesn't?

[/dev/trash]

No you arrogant!

battery ad?

[gramji]

isn't this an ad for the energizer battery, or at least some battery ad?!