Slashdot Mirror


Help Find Steve Fossett

An anonymous reader invites us to join in the hunt for the missing Steve Fossett using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. DigitalGlobe, one of Google's imaging partners, has acquired new high-resolution satellite imagery of the area where Fossett disappeared on Monday. The public can now go through this imagery and quickly flag any images that might contain Fossett's plane. Flagged images will receive further review by search and rescue experts.

439 comments

  1. Re:I, for one... by Rorzabal · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is better than "Where's Waldo?"!

  2. what's he wearing? by datapharmer · · Score: 2, Informative

    What's he wearing red and white stripes? Seriously though, this is a pretty cool tool even if it is a bit ridiculous considering all the missing persons there are out there who get no attention...

    --
    Get a web developer
    1. Re:what's he wearing? by BungaDunga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, most missing persons aren't going to be visible from the air, are they?

    2. Re:what's he wearing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gag obviously went over some peoples heads.

    3. Re:what's he wearing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, most missing persons aren't going to be visible from the air, are they?

      That would depend on the size of the person. Oh, is it "too soon" for jokes?

    4. Re:what's he wearing? by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yo mammas so fat when she got lost and they found her on google earth.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  3. I couldn't find Steve by 10e6Steve · · Score: 5, Funny

    but I found Waldo!

    1. Re:I couldn't find Steve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes, Slashdot. This reminds me of when Jim Gray was lost, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk was put to similar use. People from all over the Internet helped, while Slashdot -- well, Slashdot made "blue screen of death" jokes.

      Amazing how some things never change.

  4. Google Earth by Rebelgecko · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You can also look at the imagery in Google Earth

    Viewing in Google Earth:
    If you wish to view images in additional detail, you can pull them up in Google Earth. To do that you must: Download and Install Google Earth. Open the following KML file: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geo-eye.kml Cut and paste the co-ordinates found next to the image tile below into the "Fly To" box in the top left corner of Google Earth. For the best experience, you will likely want to turn OFF terrain by unchecking the "Terrain" box under Layers in the lower left corner of Google Earth
    --
    CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
  5. Going by MTurk's past history.. by Channard · · Score: 1

    ... five cents. Though you do get twice that if you happen to find him and Madeline McCann the same day.

  6. Re:Google Earth by solevita · · Score: 3, Funny

    into the "Fly To" box in the top left corner of Google Earth.
    It sure is tempting to burn some karma now; could even mention the new flightsim in Google Earth...
  7. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For helping a fellow human being? A warm fuzzy feeling inside. And, if you believe in it, karma/brownie points with your deity of choice.

    For helping a millionaire in his hour of need? Who knows, maybe 15 minutes of fame, a few opportunities that you would otherwise not had and maybe a modest reward.

    For most, doing the former is enough.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  8. Sorry by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 0

    Spending all my spare time at Galaxy Zoo. Now if he were visible from the SDSS, maybe.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  9. Does this really improve the odds of finding him? by jesco · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suppose there are already trained people looking at the images. From the Police, Fire-Department, or whatever organization handles these kinds of emergencies in Nevada. I stress the word trained because the satellite data definetely needs experienced eyes to look out for the right stuff.

    The article starts by explaining what to look for on these images. This is good, but to substitute for experience in looking at such images.

  10. Not all missing persons can be seen from space by searchr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be fair, most missing persons are hiding in bus terminals and seedy motels. Even if it sadly takes someone of celebrity, even someone whose personal hobby is to put themselves into ridiculous danger, to develop a new form of distributed wetware computing, it's still for the better.

    Maybe if someone had thought of this earlier, that unlucky family in Oregon wouldn't have been stranded in their car for a week. Or maybe, now there's a new option for the next time that does happen.

    Forget SETI-at-Home. I'd much rather play "FindTheLostPeople-at-Home".

    1. Re:Not all missing persons can be seen from space by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Informative

      For a distributed human image recognition project I think classify-galaxies-at-home is more rewarding than "find-Fossett's-corpse" (A bit harsh perhaps, but let's not beat around the bush). At least classifying galaxies you get to see some beautiful galaxies that no-one may ever have seen before, and your time will help scientists look for patterns in galaxy types and test theories about galaxy formation.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    2. Re:Not all missing persons can be seen from space by Trona+Andy · · Score: 1

      Does DigitalGlobe have any images of the waiting rooms at bus terminals and inside all of the seedy motels in the area in question?

    3. Re:Not all missing persons can be seen from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "even someone whose personal hobby is to put themselves into ridiculous danger"

      I sure hope you aren't talking about flying, because if you are in my eyes you lose all credibility.

    4. Re:Not all missing persons can be seen from space by nospam007 · · Score: 1, Troll

      For a distributed human image recognition project I think classify-galaxies-at-home is more rewarding than "find-Fossett's-corpse"
      --
      It's the Fosset_NOT-at-home project.

    5. Re:Not all missing persons can be seen from space by poleydee · · Score: 1

      I think that Peggy Fossett - Steve's wife, would rather know what has happened to him, for better or for worse. So I prefer looking for Steve than looking for Galaxies that nobody else really cares about...

  11. what's he wearing?-A beacon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not absurd for that reason, but because finding him is literally like finding a needle in a very large haystack. Just ask anyone in search and rescue. Even in the middle of the ocean with a bright orange life raft it's hard to find someone.

  12. high-resolution satellite imagery by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cool, can i get some of my neighborhood? The stuff on google is a good 5 years old, if not older. The resolution is pretty poor too.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:high-resolution satellite imagery by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      Cool, can i get some of my neighborhood?

      Try Microsoft (booo! hisss!) Live Search. Google had only the usual low-res satellite image of my neighborhood, but MSFT had high res airplane photos... and from multiple perspectives!

    2. Re:high-resolution satellite imagery by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Tried that a while ago, and It looked like the same exact image for my area.

      Reason i know its at least 5 years old is due to the lack of any car in the driveway. No way for me to know how much older tho.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:high-resolution satellite imagery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that proves is that Microsoft is watching you.

    4. Re:high-resolution satellite imagery by jibjibjib · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's the point of having a car if it's spent the last 5 years in your driveway?

    5. Re:high-resolution satellite imagery by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I have more then one, and can only drive one at a time, ( heh ) so the others sit in the drive awaiting their turn.

      So at *any* point in time in the last 6 yeras there would be at least one car in the drive, if not more.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  13. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by tjr · · Score: 2

    Well, then, any novices who join in here may gain some experience!

  14. yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only we channel this energy into solving real problems, such as the disappearance of Natalee Holloway or the latest gossip concerning Paris Hilton.

  15. One half by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1/2

  16. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Skim123 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One day we'll be telling our children, "When I was your age, we actually had people comparing satellite imagery to find lost people!"

    Seriously, though, can't computers do this sort of thing more efficiently? I'm no expert on the state of image recognition research, but you think it would be good enough that a computer could pick out potential "hits" for further review by trained professionals, perhaps by searching for what looks like man-made objects in remote areas or comparing old imagery with the current, updated samples.

    --

    I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  17. If you find anything interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...put it on photobucket, and link it here.

    We'll tell you you're seeing things.

  18. Steve welcomes Amazon Overlords by davidwr · · Score: 1
    This just in: Ground searchers in the Nevada desert just found this note:

    I, for one, welcome our new Amazon/Digiglobe/Internet Overlords.

    -Steve
    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  19. Fuck Steve Fosset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talentless showoff. A Paris Hilton for the nerd demographic.

    1. Re:Fuck Steve Fosset by jcr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You know, jealousy is a repulsive personality trait.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Fuck Steve Fosset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jealous of being dead, eh? you blibbering idiot.

  20. Nevada by mysterious_mark · · Score: 3, Informative

    The area of Nevada where he is missing is actually rugged and mountainous ( I have some proerties in those parts myself ). Look on Google earth if you don't believe me, the name 'Nevada' means ',mountains. Also area 51 is now where nearby. There's a lot of rugged and inaccessible terrain he could've gone down, unfortunatley, and 5 days is a long time without water, its dry and hot out this time of year. I'd say the situation doesn't look good at this point, but we can always hope for a miracle, best of luck to the SAR and CAP people.

    1. Re:Nevada by Tofof · · Score: 4, Informative

      the name 'Nevada' means ',mountains. No, I think you've got your states confused. The word 'nevada' means 'snow-covered.' The word 'montana' means 'mountain.'

    2. Re:Nevada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, the word "Nevada" actually means "snow fall" or "snow storm", look http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nevada.

    3. Re:Nevada by Nzeanzo · · Score: 1

      One scenario this solution will not resolve, is if Steve had pitched his plane into a body of water - into one of the hundreds of small lakes in this area :/ What about infrared imaging? Perhaps this area is just too large to reliably search this way. And of course, it would pick up wild mammals too.

    4. Re:Nevada by doxology · · Score: 1

      Almost all of the area in the new imagery is actually in California (around Bridgeport). Though I guess it is close to Nevada and is Nevada-like terrain.

      --
      sigfault. core dumped.
    5. Re:Nevada by mysterious_mark · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected! There are a bunch of hills around there though, Carson Valley is on the East side of the Sierra, and there are a bunch of minor ranges up to 11,000 ft to the E ans SE. Hope they find him OK, but looks grim at this point. M

    6. Re:Nevada by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the one suggesting conspiracy's because it's not usually my sort of thing BUT, what if he WANTED to disappear... he's basically suceeded if thats what he wanted to do....
      of course he may be dying of starvation/thirst in the mountains but if a millionaire wanted to go missing, you can be sure he would do it so he wouldn't be found.
      as I said, total speculation... but i have a funny feeling that might be the case....

      --
      www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
    7. Re:Nevada by MBraynard · · Score: 0, Troll
      Why can't an AI do this?

      And if this is a serious attempt to find the guy, why not just fund a few hundred Indians at $2/hr or so to go through this.

    8. Re:Nevada by Ober · · Score: 0

      Nevada means "snowy" not mountany.

    9. Re:Nevada by Garabito · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the name 'Nevada' came from 'Sierra Nevada', which means 'snow-covered mountain range', so the OP wasn't so wrong after all.

    10. Re:Nevada by sweetooth · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the smaller lakes but supposedly they used some sonar imaging to look through walker lake so it's possible they have considered methods of searching the smaller lakes.

    11. Re:Nevada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in Spanish the word-order is different: noun-adjective rather than adjective-noun. So, "sierra nevada" = "mountain range (that is) snow-covered". "Nieve"="snow".

    12. Re:Nevada by K7DAN · · Score: 1

      Why did this project start us out in the mountains of California instead of Nevada? Why are some people bothering to look in the mountains of the Sierra Nevada when he was scouting for a spot for a land speed record...in other words, a dry lake bed, of which there are hundreds in Western Nevada?

  21. In desperate times like this.... by WwWonka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm surprised the search and rescue teams haven't called on the one man fit for this job...

    ...it's time to send in LEEEEEEEEERRRROOOOOOOOY JEEEEEEEENKINS!

  22. Steve Fosset? by j.a.mcguire · · Score: 0, Troll

    More like Steve Fossil! I thought the search for this man was a cover for the US Govt to search the desert their recent missing nuke from that B-52?

  23. Re:Google Earth by John3 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Google Earth images appear to be seriously outdated. I did a search for my business and the image shows our building as it was in 2005 prior to a second floor addition. Did Google Earth update the images for the region where Steve's plane may have crashed? If not, there isn't much point to viewing that area using Google Earth.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  24. Amazon's incompetence by deathtopaulw · · Score: 0, Troll

    they should take a page out of galaxyzoo's book and make this easier you have to like... sign in, then figure out what a HIT is then accept it, then click yes or no, then remember to click auto accept hit, then randomly it goes "hey wait aren't you a bot?" and you have to enter in letters thanks for impeding the search for this guy amazon

    1. Re:Amazon's incompetence by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I have a hankering to short Amazon stock after seeing how shitty their implementation of the Mechanical Turk concept is.

    2. Re:Amazon's incompetence by JacksBrokenCode · · Score: 4, Insightful

      thanks for impeding the search for this guy amazon

      So they have an infrastructure in place that can easily organize & manage a massive search like this and you want to bitch because you had to "like... sign in" and occasionally fill out a CAPTCHA? Jeez, dude. A man's life is likely at stake here and a company stepped up to try and help the cause and you're complaining because they didn't implement the solution exactly as you would've liked. Why don't you spend more time checking out HITs and less time posting stupid shit on /. if you care so much about the process being impeded?

    3. Re:Amazon's incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which wouldn't be much of a problem if I could READ THE F**KING LETTERS.

      Look folks, if OCR is getting so good now that you have to make the captchas illegible to humans, it's time for a new gimmick.

    4. Re:Amazon's incompetence by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      It's pretty ironic given that Amazon made their money by making online shopping so simple. Why isn't this a one-click interface?

    5. Re:Amazon's incompetence by soccer_Dude88888 · · Score: 0

      You might have difficulty performing that. I have quite hard time shorting Amazon because there are no stocks avaliable for my brokerage firm.

    6. Re:Amazon's incompetence by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      What's he's trying to say is the old maxim that if you want someone's help, make it as easy as possible for them to help you. Eliminate barriers to entry and you'll get more people willing to assist. What I'm surprised that you didn't say is that for something like this, some barriers to entry must be created to weed out the trolls and jerks that would cause problems. The login, and associated CAPTCHA, do that.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    7. Re:Amazon's incompetence by sonchat · · Score: 0

      maybe you're like those droids in blade runner. You don't even know you're a droid.

  25. I would like to help by MortenMW · · Score: 0

    I would like to help, but it does not work in FF on Linux...

    1. Re:I would like to help by realdodgeman · · Score: 1

      But you can use the Google Earth ad-on in your google earth for Linux...

    2. Re:I would like to help by Llamalarity · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. Mandriva 2007.1, Firefox 2.0.0.6. Did take clicking "Accept Hit" several times first.

  26. Missing Aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All Fossett had to do was install a locater beacon in his private aircraft and he would have been home the same night he disappeared.

    1. Re:Missing Aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could have also filed a flight plan. Oh well.

    2. Re:Missing Aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did have on installed.

      It is obviously not sounding.

      Could be in a deep canyon, could have been destroyed, could be the battery was weak and not detected during the last inspection, could be....

    3. Re:Missing Aircraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how exactly would that have helped? The search would have started six hours earlier? I don't think that would be a terrible difference at this point.

      Flight plans have to have specific fixes or points (VOR, Airports, or other waypoints). The fact was he was checking out random valleys with no names.

  27. Doesn't work over here. by Dakkus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm. I found something that was interesting that is of correct sizr and somewhat airplane shaped. Probably nothing, but there's still the possibility. However, the frigging site doesn't accept my clicks on either of the radio buttons under the sample image. The browsers I'm using are Safari, Camino and Firefox
    Am I doing it wrong or is the page really picky when it comes to peoples' browser choises?
    "No Windows, no helping"?

    Anyone got it working?

    1. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 1

      You'll need to "Accept HIT" and log in before you can select anything, I've found.

      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Puff+of+Logic · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'll shut up. It still doesn't work.

      --
      P.P.S. I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Doesn't work over here. by CNeb96 · · Score: 1

      I had the same problem at first in firefox and IE in windows. The FAQ below answers it. Short answer, click accept HIT at the top of the screen to log in with your amazon account first or it will not enable the forms. The "reward" discussed below is how much a site may pay you per recognition task, this particular task pays nothing.

      http://www.mturk.com/mturk/help?helpPage=gettingst arted#what_HIT

      How do I get started?

      You can get started right away exploring Amazon Mechanical Turk, and finding work you want to complete. When you accept your first HIT, you will be prompted to sign in with your Amazon.com account e-mail address and password. If you already have an Amazon.com account, you can simply sign in. If you don't yet have an Amazon.com account, you can easily create one on the spot.

      What is a HIT?

      A Human Intelligence Task, or HIT, is a question that needs an answer. A HIT represents a single, self-contained task that you can perform to completion and collect a reward. You may do as many HITs as you like, whenever you like, in any order.

    4. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      genius reply... NOT

      wtf are you supposed to do if you don't have an amazon account?

      and if you were thinking to reply to create one...i don't want to. One experience with their shitty service when i needed something at work was enough thank you.

      as usual, with that requirement to have an account, amazon has turned a charity event into an occasion to expand their subscriber/user base instead.

    5. Re:Doesn't work over here. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      So rather than complain about it, why don't you post the coordinates here?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    6. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Chysn · · Score: 1

      > Am I doing it wrong or is the page really picky when it comes to peoples' browser choises?

      My god, man, a fellow human being's life is at stake, and you won't fire up IE for one minute?

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    7. Re:Doesn't work over here. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      It's possible that he doesn't HAVE IE, you know.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    8. Re:Doesn't work over here. by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      My god, man, a fellow human being's life is at stake, and you won't fire up IE for one minute?

      My God man, a fellow human being's life is at stake and those-in-charge won't spend hire a pimply faced teenager for a day to make their site standards compliant?

    9. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf are you supposed to do if you don't have an amazon account?

      Create one.

      and if you were thinking to reply to create one...i don't want to. One experience with their shitty service when i needed something at work was enough thank you.

      If you want to use their service, then you need an account. That's how web services that need to identify you work.

      as usual, with that requirement to have an account, amazon has turned a charity event into an occasion to expand their subscriber/user base instead.

      Amazon already runs a service called Mechanical Turk. If you know of another way to do distributed wetware, you could have arranged to have satellite photos sent there, instead. If by "expand their subscriber/user base" you mean "register for a free account", I don't see what's so bad about that; you don't even get any automated emails, unless you ask for them. Anybody reviewing the results needs to be able to identify who worked a HIT (e.g., what if you started marking everything as "Yes"?); IPs are not a reliable way to do that.

    10. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll go download it ... oh! It seems it is "NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD".

      My god, Microsoft, a fellow human being's life is at stake, and you won't let us download IE?

    11. Re:Doesn't work over here. by Dakkus · · Score: 1

      Because I was stupid enough not to backup them first and tried hinting them using a way told to me elsewhere.

      However, this for sure did not kill Mr. Fossett, since if the thing was a plane, it would have had to land so that the pilot would have died for sure. It would have meant the plane being maybe 30 degrees tilted with the nose in the ground and wings detached next to it.

      Anyway, this was definitely not very well thought of Amazon. It's not very good publicity nor much help letting us do something "useful" with a program that is just completely broken for most of the users.

  28. Re:Google Earth by JackHoffman · · Score: 1

    KML files can be used to overlay external data. There are KML files for "live" cloud cover images, for example.

  29. Re:Google Earth by G+Fab · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, Google Earth has updated images of the region. You can tell because they are obviously satellite photos and not overflight. Notice that everything is shot from straight up instead of the normal angle and also note the lack of color.

    Read the article, and you'd see that they explain how authorities helped facilitate new images.

  30. Were's the road? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Seriously, though, can't computers do this sort of thing more efficiently? "

    Maybe we can use this image technology in cars and trucks, and hold a contest to see who can cross the desert first?

    "perhaps by searching for what looks like man-made objects in remote areas"

    Said by a member of the junkiest species ever.

  31. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by G+Fab · · Score: 1

    It's possible that thousands of eyes will work better.

    It's also possible it will just create a flood of false positives, but it's worth getting this stuff figured out.

  32. Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was just looking around the area myself with Google Earth, and saw this, which looks vaguely like a dirt-covered plane: 38.4198N, 119.2905W

    Probably nothing, but who knows. Unfortunately, there's no way to flag arbitrary coordinates for review, just the random pictures it spits out.

    1. Re:Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Speaking of coordinates, who knows the location of the strip he launched from?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, I found it: 383613N, 1190011W
      information available from the Steve Fossett Wikipedia entry.

      Looking at this however, the new strip we are searching comes about 15 miles NE (at its closest) from this airstrip.

      Anything is better than nothing but if he was on a round trip, there is every chance that we could not spot him from this dataset.

      This will not prevent me (and others) from at least looking.

      Thank you whoever managed to get this dataset together.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by PaddyM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you are right. I was just planning on looking thorough the whole area until I found something suspicious and sending the coordinates. The Amazon web page certainly doesn't let you do that, but you could always call the cops or something.

      But the way amazon divides the work, probably makes more sense if there are large group of people searching.

    4. Re:Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by martin_b1sh0p · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? If you find something you "flag" it with "yes" and then in the comment box mention the exact coordinates. That's what I did with something that wasn't in the picture but off a few "slides" over.

    5. Re:Reporting arbitrary coordinates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is in new .kml file and not in th old one. Looks like discolored ground and rainbow color? Maybe oil, fuel? Possible skid also shows directions to flipped over plane:
      GE 38.7842305556, -119.203688889
      38°47'3.23"N, 119°12'13.28"W

  33. Paging John Galt? by greggygate · · Score: 1

    That area looks strangely similar to what I always imagined the hidden capitalist's oasis would look like from Atlas Shrugged, where all the people who make the world go find refuge...

    1. Re:Paging John Galt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that looks more like this: http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

    2. Re:Paging John Galt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I was just about to post that. BTAF is inconsistent, but that was a good one.

    3. Re:Paging John Galt? by Unordained · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Ouray, Colorado?

  34. Re:thanks, but no by CharonX · · Score: 1

    Er, what?
    "Amazon did something horribly crappy, let's not try to find & rescue someone using their site"??? Sorry, but I think that is petty.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  35. Another Post 9-11 Screw-up by Timtimes · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tracking every call and email but STILL not properly tracking aircraft? Somebody remind Bush that we weren't attacked by email or phone on 9-11. Enjoy.

    --
    This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway This is the road to hell
    1. Re:Another Post 9-11 Screw-up by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Tracking every call and email but STILL not properly tracking aircraft? Somebody remind Bush that we weren't attacked by email or phone on 9-11.

      Actually I think you need to be reminded that Bush's plan is to catch folks while they are planning, i.e. when the are talking, emailing, etc, before they actually start the flying. That seems like a pretty good plan. I'm not saying this plan is being well implemented, just that the broad plan seems like a good one. And I'm not against a *backup* plan that does track aircraft well.

    2. Re:Another Post 9-11 Screw-up by Kuukai · · Score: 1

      This is hardly a troll. It's true, a missing airplane is far more of an immediate danger to the country than private conversations you somehow can't obtain a FISA warrant to tap. Steve Fossett's right to travel wherever he wants freely should have yielded far before everyone else's right to privacy.

      --
      Sendou Wave Kick!!
    3. Re:Another Post 9-11 Screw-up by chappel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd just like to point out a couple things:

      I consider my right to travel anywhere I want freely a part of my right to privacy.

      I frequently fly a small plane over rural (very flat) Minnesota, and there is no radar coverage at lower altitudes. I assume filing a flight plane for a local flight at low altitudes in mountanous terrain would be very similar and there would be little benefit over telling someone at the airport about where you are headed and about when you'll be back (which he did). If he was flying low there's a good chance he wasn't even able to make radio contact with any controllers.

      Unlike most missing persons searches, Steve vanished with a 20' x 20' plane as a marker, which hasn't been spotted in nearly a week of searching. Good luck finding the more common single person using satellite (well, any satellite that the public gets access to, anyway). I don't think he's really being treated that much differently than anyone else.

      I fly with the Civil Air Patrol, and think it's awesome that I can sit at my desk and help with the search without having to burn gas or worry about hitting a mountain.

      I think you guys are awesome for pitching in - keep up the good work!

      (back to searching...)

    4. Re:Another Post 9-11 Screw-up by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      Hmm, okay. So the masterplan is to put microphones in every location on earth where people might be talking, monitor that and all will be well? Sounds like a great idea!

      Hey Ali!

      Wassup, Mohammed.

      You know, the dinner we planned next Friday? It's gonna be postponed a week. Can you still come?

      Sure.

      Okay, Fatima will be pleased. Bye to you and your family.

      Will lead to JFK airport being shut down two Fridays from now.

  36. Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    38 29' 03.51" N
    119 24' 21.64" W

    1. Re:Found a plane... by Fullerene · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The scale make it a little bit small, but I think it is exactly the sort of thing that they are telling us to report to them. Contact the HIT requestor via Amazon perhaps?

      Looks like a plane to me too.

    2. Re:Found a plane... by Fullerene · · Score: 3, Informative

      Follow-up. I have contacted the person who put the satellite picture on Amazon and sent them AC's coordinates. No need for everyone to do it, I'm sure they're busy right now.

    3. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mod parent up. Looks very very much like a plane to me

    4. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Note that "At least 6 old aircraft wrecks - including 3 previously un-charted - have already been found, adding to the confidence of the teams that their efforts can identify aircraft forced down in the rugged high desert." -- but it's still essential to report any plane sightings. I think I found one at 38.088913,-119.515457.

    5. Re:Found a plane... by locster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Loosk like it may actually be flying. It may even be a search plane.

    6. Re:Found a plane... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't seem to be an old wreck as it doesn't show up in older maps. I looked before I downloaded the maps in the article and there was nothing there. Also, measuring the plane with the ruler tool shows 22 feet, exactly the length of Fossett's plane.

      Unfortunately, the lack of north-west facing shadows around the plane (see the trees) suggests that this is a plane in the air, not on the ground.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:Found a plane... by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Nice work!

      If it's a hit, I'm sure there'll be an article tomorrow about Google Earth and its rescue.

      ~Jarik

    8. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange marking/streak at 38 2'25.47"N 119 22'16.26"W It looks like a streak on the mountain - possibly caused by something hitting it, especially viewed with 3d terrain on as it appears to go along the mountain and not down it. hate to be a pessimist but...

    9. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about:

        38 8'49.38"N, 11926'22.25"W

    10. Re:Found a plane... by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      I found a plane near my house (us airways is visible on the side) but I dont think it is his, because im on the other coast. also, please don't slashdot the SAR people's site.

    11. Re:Found a plane... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Strange marking/streak at
      38 2'25.47"N
      119 22'16.26"W

      It looks like a streak on the mountain - possibly caused by something hitting it, especially viewed with 3d terrain on as it appears to go along the mountain and not down it.
      hate to be a pessimist but... It appears to be on the old maps as well though, switch off the new map and g up a bit (old maps don't seem to line up with new)

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    12. Re:Found a plane... by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a plane in the air measure somewhat "bigger" (being closer to the camera)? I'm not sure how that would scale....

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    13. Re:Found a plane... by Jon_E · · Score: 1

      38 6'43.95"N
      11920'33.19"W

      This one looks to be about 22' on the ground - was the first one i came to, but wasn't signed in and couldn't figure out how to get the specific location again .. most unclear and pretty random sort of search .. but i guess volume is good.

    14. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if that was something more than a blurry blob, it exists in the old images. The skew of the new satellite imagery seems to be about 150 feet to the east.

    15. Re:Found a plane... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      38 6'43.95"N
      11920'33.19"W

      This one looks to be about 22' on the ground - was the first one i came to, but wasn't signed in and couldn't figure out how to get the specific location again .. most unclear and pretty random sort of search .. but i guess volume is good. Although more blurry, same object seems to exist on the old maps.

      -Em
      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    16. Re:Found a plane... by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      At the altitudes that small planes fly, to something viewing from space the size difference would be negligible. Goes double if it's flying close to the tree tops, like a search and rescue plane would.

    17. Re:Found a plane... by daviddisco · · Score: 1

      I started cruising around in Google Earth and I found something interesting at 3815'31.05"N,11918'59.08"W . How do I report it? The Mechanical Turk interface has no method for reporting except to flag one of the random tiles.

    18. Re:Found a plane... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Say they're flying at 10,000 ft (~3 km) and the satellite is in LEO (~300 km). Then by similar triangles, the plane should appear to be 300/297 of the size (1% bigger).

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:Found a plane... by itismike · · Score: 1

      Date: Sep 9, 2007 1:26 AM
      Subject: two images from Amazon Mechanical Turk
      To: office@stevefossett.com

      These are submissions from readers of the Slashdot article who say
      they don't know how to contact you:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=291991&cid=205 25555
      38 3'24.02"N 119 14'56.55"W

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=291991&cid=205 23507
      38 29' 02.70" N, 119 24' 21.95" W

      [screenshots attached]

    20. Re:Found a plane... by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      If it's flying the dimensions are usually far bigger than would make sense...

      I suppose that's less true when they are using actual satellite pictures than with overflights. This plane does look relatively undamaged.

    21. Re:Found a plane... by stefanb · · Score: 1

      Please remember that accoring to various news sources, at least six previously unknown plane wrecks were found, but none of those were Fossett's. So this might well be one of them.

      So keep looking at the satellite images, maybe there is a hint there that noone else has spotted yet.

      Also, they updated the image overlay with new color images, so spotting hopefully get's a bit easier.

    22. Re:Found a plane... by cmacb · · Score: 1

      38.482137,-119.40502

      Using GE, looks like a plane to me.

    23. Re:Found a plane... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice landing if it's really there in one piece like that (turn terrain height on) and not a capture of a passing observer plane. Either that plane can almost float like a Piper Cub or he managed to do some kind of belly-flop stall kinda touchdown with a headwind.

      Less than 5 miles from Burcham Flat Rd by drawing a guesstimated traversable path. So hikers or ATVs following what appears to be dry river bed or trail should be able to get to that location pretty quick. Also less than 5 miles in a straight line from the nearest inhabited area along 395. No town town name on Google Earth though.

    24. Re:Found a plane... by royles · · Score: 1

      I have found a plane.
      3841'54.33"N
      119 2'14.44"W

      But who do I get in touch with, there is absolutly no information about what to do if or when you find a candidate.
      This is off the latest colour photo data and is located between the place he took off and the last location he was known to be.

  37. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If amateurs can find new meteor craters with google earth, why not airplanes? How trained do you really have to be to spot an oddly shaped bright feature in otherwise mundane terrain?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  38. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

    Agree on two points,
    The One-click Mechanical Turk is highly inefficient as it requires loads of clicks and scrolling for each of the impossible small search areas provided.

    While something is better than nothing - what's the point of a large community effort if not to advance the technology, and maintain the technology so that in future cases, it can be deployed more effectively.

    If this is the best google can do - i'd sell their stock.

    AIK

  39. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Dan+East · · Score: 2, Informative

    I press the "End" key to scroll all the way down. Look at the image. Click Yes or No. Click Submit Hit. Three interactions per image.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  40. Obligatory question in Mortuary America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How much do I get? :)"

    Depends on what body part you find.

  41. This is wrong on so many levels... by pongo000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of us aren't SAR experts, and wouldn't know a burn mark from a ridge shadow. The SARs that will be sifting through the public's mostly incorrect identification of accident artifacts would be better utilized in direct search efforts (either in the air or using imagery), rather than being distracted by what could best be considered a somewhat morbid game of "Where's Steve".

    The time to test this type of technology out isn't during a live SAR mission. Leave the search and rescue to the experts, and please don't tie up their time with your well-meaning, but ultimately time-wasting, suppositions.

    1. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by iksbob · · Score: 0

      Who's wasting who's time? This call for help will draw almost purely on the resources of people that would otherwise just sit and passively read the headlines.
      Sure, the general public could very well miss something that a trained professional would pick up on, but that just means you shouldn't use untrained public input to rule out an area, only to draw attention to it. If you leave the search up to just the professionals, they'll end up going through every single image. If they were to use an hour a day to check the top images sugested by the public, it would make little difference in their overall productivity, assuming they have some kind of checklist for areas that have already been examined. When their usual search routine brings up an image that has already been flagged by the public and checked, why check it again? They could just move on to the next image, resulting in very little net lost time.

    2. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave the search and rescue to the experts, and please don't tie up their time with your well-meaning, but ultimately time-wasting, suppositions.
      Your argument doesn't really make sense. Untrained people are looking through the images. The intention is that they will pick out 'suspicious' objects which will be flagged for later review. This means that the experts don't have to sift through as many images: they can focus on the suspicious ones.

      This means the expert's time is used more efficiently, allowing them to find the plane (if it exists in any image) more quickly. The only way this would be less efficient than having the experts look through all the images, unaided, is if people are worse than random at picking out images.

      Okay, fair enough, people might be worse than random. But, ultimately, the SAR experts are the ones who can and will make the judgment as to whether the volunteers are doing more harm or more good. By looking at a small sample of flagged and dismissed images, the experts can very easily decide whether people are, on average, helping.

      The reason I opened with "your argument doesn't make sense" is because it boils down to: "you lay-people can't tell the experts how to do their jobs!" ... which is basically you telling the experts how to do their jobs. You're basically saying: "you experts shouldn't be listening to those non-experts!"

      Let people try to help if they feel so inclined. And let the experts decide if that help is worth their attention or not. They are the experts, after all.
    3. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of us aren't SAR experts, and wouldn't know a burn mark from a ridge shadow. The SARs that will be sifting through the public's mostly incorrect identification of accident artifacts would be better utilized in direct search efforts They don't re-send those images to other random users to filter out the results before passing them along to a pro?
      'you sure?

      Because, if they did that, then "x people think there's something here" might make a nice priority queue for those pros, rather than trying blind.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by DeepZenPill · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not an open source advocate because the success of both of both of these efforts are linked by the same principle; many eyes are better than fewer. Even though everyone contributing to open source projects may not be a professional or an "expert," they may have enough sense to see a vulnerability or a bug where someone else hasn't. Just like a normal person with a brain can see something that may seem out of place in its natural surroundings and can alert a true expert to the location.

      We have an enormous expanse of area that the plane could have gone down in and any help in narrowing down locations to search is exactly that.

    5. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by caffeine_high · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying but think you are missing the mark. I actually do a bit of SAR with the BWRS in Australia and when well meaning but untrained members of the public wander into the wilderness looking for someone they can really cause a lot of new problems. I think one imaging specialist could manage checking the 'hits' from the public. And if they think it is interesting, it does not take long to fly over it.

      --
      The smarter home exchange, http://switchhomes.net
    6. Re:This is wrong on so many levels... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Most of us aren't SAR experts, and wouldn't know a burn mark from a ridge shadow. The SARs that will be sifting through the public's mostly incorrect identification of accident artifacts would be better utilized in direct search efforts (either in the air or using imagery), rather than being distracted by what could best be considered a somewhat morbid game of "Where's Steve". You are seriously arrogant.

      Seriously. Imagine, that just for a second, these images can be transfered to a computer using some tubes TWICE! So, once the public's incorrect pile of hits gets produced, it can go to SARs that say... are not directly searching. Like those in France. The French like to help you know. Or the Kanucks, or the Mexicans even some who are retired, or off duty....

      Here you go chastising people for thinking a new tool used in a new way to help someone who might not be dead yet, distributed effort is hugely powerful. Some small group of wankass cock monkeys have control over the most powerful distributed supercomputer and are sending spam with it. Some other folks sift through proteins, or look for little green men.

      Your narrow world view can be excused, if you aren't a prick about it. So... FAIL.
  42. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by turtledawn · · Score: 1

    most OCRs for images other than text need to be trained on a sample image. This type of rough, broken terrain makes for really bad sample images- every photo is different. You'd spend more time teaching the computer what wasn't a plane than you'd save using the computer. We use an image recognition automated inspection tool at my workplace to inspect chips for defects and as regular as most of our chip features are, we still haven't gotten it down to a really usable level of false positives.

    --
    Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  43. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    If your PS3 is the one that finds this guy you'll get a discount on your PS4.

  44. And for other searches by bgspence · · Score: 2, Funny

    where is Bin Laden, or WMDs, or Waldo...

    1. Re:And for other searches by reboot246 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Easy. Bin Laden is in Pakistan, the WMDs are in Syria, and Waldo is in Alabama.

    2. Re:And for other searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the legendary graves of Srebrenica?

      Half of those missing have already voted in elections, so I presume the graves are really, really small.

  45. Another "I hate Bush" Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Tracking every call and email but STILL not properly tracking aircraft? Somebody remind Bush that we weren't attacked by email or phone on 9-11. Enjoy."

    We tracked them just fine, until they crashed into the two towers, and the ground. What's your point again?

    1. Re:Another "I hate Bush" Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, nobody would ever use a private plane as a weapon, right?

    2. Re:Another "I hate Bush" Post. by FurryOne · · Score: 1

      We tracked them just fine, until they crashed into the two towers, and the ground. What's your point again? Say what? The first thing the Terrorists did on 9/11 was to turn off the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) transponders, effectively blinding the FAA controllers. They don't rely on raw radar "paints" anymore for most Commercial stuff. AC&W (long range) radars are big, and expensive to operate, and they only cover a 400 mile diameter effectively. IFF is a radio, where the control center sends a challenge, and the airplane responds (squawks) with it's unique assigned code. Turn off the code, and the control center is blind. Just using IFF is a cheap way to go until something like 9/11 comes along.

    3. Re:Another "I hate Bush" Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As another point of information, these are not IFF transponders that were turned off. They are Mode C transponders to report altitude to controllers. The Mode C transponder does not report position. There is a new technology called Mode S that allows for position reporting by transponder.

  46. Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These pictures are lousy - to really get useable images would require a fly-over.
    Manned flyovers are expensive, slow, and often dangerous if a person is lost due to inclimate weather;
    However Unmanned flyovers can be conducted in poor weather, at very low cost, and without pilot fatigue or airspace crowding concerns.

    It is ironic that private pilots have been objecting to uav, and now their hero doesn't have the benefit of private UAV flights for search and rescue in his time of need.

    Not to gloat, but this would be a fitting time for the private pilots associations to change course on elbowing out UAV's and giving another nascent industry to europe.

    AIK

    1. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone in the pilot community has any object to UAVs provided they can follow the same see-and-be-seen rules that everyone else has to follow. How would you feel about unmanned trucks on the highways if they couldn't slow down and speed up to fit in with other traffic as manned trucks do? How would you feel about one lane of traffic just for them?

    2. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      UAV won't help. What they'll do is clog up the airspace, reducing the number of eyes looking. I'm fine with UAV's flying outside of restricted areas as soon as they're as good at seeing airplanes as people are. Right now they're a threat to aviation. They're small, intentionally hard to see, and if you get hit by one, you're dead. How convenient. Oh yeah, the UAV operator might loose his job, if it's his fault, not a software or hardware problem. That's real consolation to the widow. UAV's are fine, if you go with the assumption that American airspace belongs to the government, not the citizens. Fuck you; you're wrong on every assertion.


      UAV's aren't any faster then manned photo aircraft. UAV cameras don't see any better through rain or snow. They're more expensive then manned aircraft. UAV's cause significantly more airspace concerns, not fewer. Private pilot's aren't trying to elbow out UAV's. They're trying to avoid death. You are a fucktard. Stay in your mother's basement.

    3. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      Visual based avoidance doesn't work very well with human pilots.

      With very simple GPS, point-to-point radio systems - every thing in the air and more importantly on the ground could participate in active collision avoidance.

      UAV can be made small, light and from foam-based materials which would render them less harmful than birds even in the event of a collision,

      At some point the benefits outweigh the risks, full-on paranoia is unproductive.

      AIK

    4. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      Everytime a manned plane goes down - the potential exists to kill people on the ground, if that were a much smaller uav ie (www.cropcam.com) - the potential damage on the ground is minimal.

      I doubt that colliding with a cropcam, is any worse than colliding with a bird.

      UAV's are a half-order of magnitude less expensive than manned craft (7,000 for crop cam vs. 70,000), and two orders of magnitude less expensive to operate. (battery charge vs. fuel and maintenence)

      Air-based search is often called off due to bad weather, UAV's can/could be sacrificed.

      AIK

    5. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Swampy0007 · · Score: 1

      You just described the FAA's new ADS-B system that they've been working on implementing. Unfortunately it will still be quite some times before the FAA manages to get their NextGen systems set up and even after the systems are brought online there will still likely be plenty of kinks to be ironed out (if the recent Flight Service Station fiasco with Lockheed is anything to go by).

    6. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      Using an Ant colony optimization algorithm, it's trivial ( ~200 lines of code) to coordinate n agents, avoid collisions, prioritize distressed planes, optimize approach vectors - all /without/ ground control computers or people. that it takes so long is IMO, incompetence.

      Such systems could be implemented by equipment the size, weight and power of your cellphone.

      (yes I built and tested one myself)

      AIK

    7. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Visual based avoidance doesn't work very well with human pilots.
      Are you a pilot? I am, and I routinely and intentionally fly within one or two miles of other aircraft, frequently closer than that (my personal closest is probably about 100 feet) with their cooperation and with no radio contact. In fact I just did it several times today. Visual based avoidance works great. It's not perfect, of course, but nothing is. It fails sometimes and we still have mid-air collisions but we would have a lot more if nobody ever looked outside. Keeping your eyes out of the cockpit and scanning for other aircraft absolutely does work and works well.

      UAV can be made small, light and from foam-based materials which would render them less harmful than birds even in the event of a collision
      Irrelevant, because I don't collide with birds, because birds are smart enough to get out of the way when they see me coming, which is more than can be said for a UAV. If you're going that far for collision safety it says that you have no confidence in your collision avoidance. Furthermore you say that they can be made small, light, and soft but as far as I know current UAVs are not built this way and doing so would severely cripple their performance.

      Until this problem is solved I don't want my precious low-altitude airspace being crowded with unintelligent and effectively blind UAVs. One solution would be to give them sensory acuity equivalent to a human eyeball and have them scan for traffic just like a human does. Another solution would be to mandate collision avoidance equipment on all aircraft. I hope that if we choose the second solution then the UAV operators will be forced to pay to install the equipment in the aircraft I fly because I do not enjoy the idea of having to spend money just because some upstarts have decided that an effective and time-tested method of collision avoidance doesn't suit them, and I should change my ways just to accommodate them.
    8. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I would be all for a special lane for unmanned vehicles. I mean, if they're not even in the people lanes, you can't really complain about them being a hazard. I would prefer that the unmanned lane be for unmanned passenger vehicles, then I could take a nap while on long trips or have a car with safer backwards-facing seats.

      But even unmanned trucks would be a benefit, as they could be run closer together, clearing up more lane space. They could also be more fuel efficient: with no driver, the speed could be cut by 25%, and still travel twice the distance in a day as a human just from the continuous driving possibilities.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      1. Private Pilots don't contribute very much to the welfare of society in general. They don't reduce crime, they don't contribute in proportion to their costs to airports, they are largely ineffective at finding lost people - in no small part because of the high costs of operation. Small airplanes are simply too expensive for society to reap much benefit from their use. Sure, a few people get subsidized to live in high style, but that is a social cost - not a benefit.

      2. Small, soft uav's like cropcam, on the other hand, could reduce crime, provide auto-defibrillators to 911 callers in time, monitor pollution, reduce consumption of water resources in crops, target insects instead of prophylactic pesticides, etc...

      There are far more benefits which could be provided by low-cost air presence, than are being provided by high-cost private pilots.

      There are more people dead on the ground from collisions with planes, then there are dead pilots from collisions with uavs.

      People in homes have no collision avoidance opportunities when heavy aircraft come crashing down.

      Give small safe UAV's an altitude - say 200-400 feet to operate in, and there should be no collisions.

      AIK

    10. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private Pilots don't contribute very much to the welfare of society in general.
      Never said they did. Neither do horses, tennis courts, or a whole bunch of other things. The USA is based on the idea that individual liberty is the proper path to "the welfare of society", and reducing individual liberty for a specific goal is generally a poor idea in the end.

      Small, soft uav's like cropcam, on the other hand, could reduce crime, provide auto-defibrillators to 911 callers in time, monitor pollution, reduce consumption of water resources in crops, target insects instead of prophylactic pesticides, etc...
      Ah, such starry-eyed enthusiasm. Call me back when they actually do these things. The onus is on them to prove their usefulness, not on me to get the hell out of their way while they fumble around figuring out what they're really good at.

      There are more people dead on the ground from collisions with planes, then there are dead pilots from collisions with uavs.
      Did you actually manage to type this with a straight face? UAVs are not yet in common use outside of warzones. Of course there are few dead pilots from collisions with a device that basically does not yet exist in the skies.

      People in homes have no collision avoidance opportunities when heavy aircraft come crashing down.
      Utterly irrelevant to the question. We are discussing how effectively blind machines fit into the current national airspace system, not the dangers of piloted aircraft to people on the ground. I can only conclude that you are have ADD or are attempting to change the course of this discussion.

      Give small safe UAV's an altitude - say 200-400 feet to operate in, and there should be no collisions.
      Wonderful. So the next time I have to land in a place which is not a charted airport (something I do regularly) not only do I have to stress about unseen power lines and tree stumps and rough terrain but I also have to worry about passing through a cloud of blind machines.

      Tell you what. You want UAVs so badly, you can go through the same channels as everybody else. Talk to the FAA, discuss what areas you want to use them in and when you want to use them, and then these areas can be added to the charts in order to alert pilots that they'll be sharing the area with blind machines. Precedent is already there in the shape of things like military operations areas, which are charted and either have contact information to find out whether passage is permitted, or always allow passage but with the caveat that there will be high-speed aircraft with heads-down pilot, so anyone coming through should beware.

      There are plenty of good ways to do this. There is absolutely no reason to mandate that all UAVs be tiny and have bad performance just so that they have a lower chance of killing anyone they run into.
    11. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by JoelKatz · · Score: 1

      "Visual based avoidance doesn't work very well with human pilots."

      Umm, what? The vast majority of airplanes in the air right now are flying under visual flight rules, which means that avoidance of other planes is primarily visual. Why do you say it "doesn't work very well"?

      "With very simple GPS, point-to-point radio systems - every thing in the air and more importantly on the ground could participate in active collision avoidance."

      There are two problems with this. One is simply that such a system is not nearly as simple as you seem to think. Perhaps you are confusing simple in principle with simple to actually get working on such a large scale. (Our current air traffic control system is simple in principle.)

      The other problem is that there are a lot of things in the air that are unlikely to be able to participate in such a system. This includes everything from parachutists to hang gliders to old planes with no electrical system.

      "UAV can be made small, light and from foam-based materials which would render them less harmful than birds even in the event of a collision,
      At some point the benefits outweigh the risks, full-on paranoia is unproductive."

      Surely at some point the benefits will outweigh the risks, but we're not anywhere close to there yet. We have an airspace system that's primarily based on "see and be seen". We have the technology to do things different, but it will likely be at least two decades before we actually have an airspace system based on that new technology.

      And then, if we have a GPS outage, ...

    12. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      To your points,
      The summation of my argument is that the optimal cost to benefit ratio exists at some point in the continuum of permitting the liberal development of thus-far non dangerous technology - and that quite likely the optimal point includes more benefits from UAV than we currently permit.

      Model RC planes exist, and have existed, in large numbers and appear thus far to be far more safe than private pilots.

      Your argument about collision avoidance was countered by the point that people on the ground (who are subject to collisions with disabled planes) do not have see and avoid technology - but that hasn't shut down the private air program. Its about balancing interests, not monopolizing resources, and I feel that your position amounts to the monopolization of a potentially life-saving resource.

      AIK

    13. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter what the benefits, people will never accept blind automated vehicles on the roads. I don't really see the difference between that and this aside from scale.

      If UAVs get the visual acuity to avoid other traffic, whether by having really good cameras and human operators or by having good computer vision software, then they can inhabit the skies with the rest of us. If someone wants to operate them without those, then they can talk to the FAA and get the airspace modified to suit.

      You keep bringing up people on the ground. I have no idea why. Yes, shit happens, and sometimes uninvolved people die. It's unfortunate. It's also completely irrelevant to our discussion.

    14. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is the term "see and avoid"

      for example, very small devices could participate in "transmit GPS and avoid", or some machine-oriented form of collision avoidance.

      My point is that "seeing" doesn't work out so well.
      Bad weather, confused or drunk pilots etc...

      as to people on the ground, the point is that there is a non-zero risk to third parties under the current system, the risks of small light soft uav would LOWER the overall risk by providing much more of the benefits of flight without the risks to people on the ground - and that perhaps the risks to the rest of us should count at least as much as the risks to other pilots.

      Here the bottom line. Europe is developing this technology faster than we are - and that is a competitive problem. If the US doesn't participate in new technologies, and it sends its old economy jobs to 3rd worlds, how exactly are we going to earn a living?

      BTW Europe doesn't seem to be having a spat of in-air collisions, notwithstanding a more tolerant stance of "See and avoid".

      BTW - Thanks for the dialog - and best regards, differences notwithstanding.
      AIK

    15. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the problem is the term "see and avoid"

      for example, very small devices could participate in "transmit GPS and avoid", or some machine-oriented form of collision avoidance.
      That's fine with me, as long as the UAV guys pay to have the necessary equipment installed in my aircraft. And of course it needs to be something that will run reasonably well off a battery, because the stuff I fly doesn't have any good way to generate electricity.

      My point is that "seeing" doesn't work out so well.
      Bad weather, confused or drunk pilots etc...
      On what evidence do you base this statement? It works extremely well. I make my statement as a pilot who frequently sees and avoids other aircraft flying in close proximity. Bad weather is basically never the cause of a mid-air, because "see and avoid" only applies to good weather. When the weather turns bad pilots are only allowed to fly on instruments under positive control from ATC. Bad pilots are always a risk, but they are rare, not an accepted part of the environment.

      as to people on the ground, the point is that there is a non-zero risk to third parties under the current system, the risks of small light soft uav would LOWER the overall risk by providing much more of the benefits of flight without the risks to people on the ground - and that perhaps the risks to the rest of us should count at least as much as the risks to other pilots.
      The risks to people on the ground are already so close to zero as to be indistinguishable. Crashing airliners pose risks to people on the ground. Crashing light aircraft almost never kill anyone besides their occupants. I can't remember ever hearing about a light aircraft killing someone on the ground. Do you have a bunch of accidents which cause you to obsess over this particular mechanism so much?

      BTW Europe doesn't seem to be having a spat of in-air collisions, notwithstanding a more tolerant stance of "See and avoid".
      And what is the current density of UAVs in general-use VFR airspace in Europe right now?

      It's not the present day that worries me. UAVs are rare and will remain so for quite some time. But setting the precedent now means that once they become ubiquitous people like me will be edged out of the air. Current statistics are meaningless because the current population of UAVs is extremely low.

      As I've said, I'm not objecting to UAVs in general, I just think they should adapt to our airspace system like any other flying object. Make special-use airspace for areas which wish to use them, or give them the ability to see and avoid other aircraft just like us pilots do, and I have no particular quibble with them.

      BTW - Thanks for the dialog - and best regards, differences notwithstanding.
      Likewise, it's nice to be able to carry on a reasonable discussion with someone who doesn't agree with me on slashdot, usually conversations here either degenerate into endless choir preaching or flaming.
    16. Re:Too bad UAV are illegal by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

      I don't see gliders getting edged out,

      on the contrary - I suggest that a UAV-intensive airspace will introduce a gps-intensive solution to self-coordination - and that this will /increase/ the opportunities for pilots as weather ceases to be a factor, and instrument flight rules are as easy to purchase and use as a car navigator. At that point, densities can go up exponentially, and on that I have experience having simulated a self-coordinating network.

      I think we labor under an archaic system which is preventing the US from being competative in newly developing areas.

      My obsession with ground collisions matches yours inre uav collisions, both are substantially rare, but real risks. I think that the FAA sould be taxed with providing the greatest amount of benefit to cost ration, not in merely reducing in-air collisions.

      If, in reducing a low threat of collisions to an even lower level, while decreasing the availability of helivacs, or other life-saving services - including I might add, persistent video recording and shot triangulation over crime-laden neighborhoods, it seems we will not have /saved/ lives, but rather lost more than we would have with more liberal policies.

      Anti-collision isn't an end in itself. Risk-to-benefit is a better metric I suggest.

      Cheers.
      AIK

  47. Mod Parent Up by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd say that's a hit. The object matches the dimensions of a Super Decathlon, according to Google Earth.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
  48. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by ozric99 · · Score: 1

    I hit "End" and scroll all the way down. Look at the image. Attempt to click yes or no. It's grayed out. Hit Accept HIT. Hit "End" to scroll down. Now the radio buttons are working. I hit Yes or No and click Submit. I then scroll all the way down, look at the picture, don't see anything so go to click "No" - it's grayed out again. Close Browser.

  49. Great use of the technology, but... by sdo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a very good use of the technology. I hope this works if for no other reason than to bring closure to his family if he hasn't survived.

    My problem is the way they've got the web page set up. Every time I submit a new "HIT", I have to scroll all the way down the page again to see the next image. It's great that they have a "primer" a the top, but I've done a couple hundred now... I don't need to keep seeing that over and over again. Just cut to the chase and show me the next picture to examine.

    Also, looking at the Google Earth swath that this is covering, I can't help but think that he might be outside of that. Can anyone comment? Or do they know "if he's anywhere, he's in that area."?

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:Great use of the technology, but... by locster · · Score: 1

      This article has the following detail:

      "The state wing of the Civil Air Patrol resumed its search on Wednesday, focusing on a 600-square mile (1,554-sq-km) area south of the airstrip used by Fossett about 80 miles (128 km) southeast of Reno, Nevada."

      Hmm, Reno is way outside the area covered by the fresh satellite imagery.

    2. Re:Great use of the technology, but... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem is the simple fact that Amazon had to shoehorn this project to fit the Mechanical Turk model (no time to develop a custom solution).

      What I really feel is missing: why aren't they putting up an older set of pictures alongside the new pictures? If there's a borderline case, knowing that "this white shiny thing wasn't there nine months ago" could be very important. It would also provide important context.

      Ah well, back to searching.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Great use of the technology, but... by eyeye · · Score: 1

      As well as the usability issues you mention it amazed me that after giving them my name and address and agreeing to a license that said they would take money out of my bank account I still got a CAPTCHA after a few hits.

      It should be like hot or not where your choice takes you straight to the next image, then you could review images at a much faster rate.

      It's a shame because this idea is really good apart from that.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    4. Re:Great use of the technology, but... by megabyte405 · · Score: 1

      If you check the box at the top that says automatically accept next HIT, then use the button at the top to submit (or even enter, just not the button at the bottom), it actually is quite quick. Captcha only about every 20 or so

      --
      I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
  50. The Face on Mars by westlake · · Score: 1
    can't computers do this sort of thing more efficiently? you think a computer could pick out potential "hits" for further review by trained professionals, perhaps by searching for what looks like man-made objects in remote areas or comparing old imagery with the current, updated samples.

    But what exactly are you looking for?

    Remember the "Face on Mars?" It is very easy to find significance in patterns that are pure chance. The computer can be no more rational and objective than its programmer.

    In World War Two, instead of constructing elaborate wooden mock-ups, you could create a convincing illusion of a fighter base simply by painting abstract shadows of aircraft on the ground.

  51. he totally disappeared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    into a camoflouged mountain like john galt in Atlas Shrugged

  52. Oh yeah, totally. by ChePibe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're all screwed unless the government can track small aircraft flying over entirely unpopulated land in the middle of nowhere near absolutely no valuable targets. So remote, in fact, that no one has noticed a plane go down in the last week.

    You're right - this is obviously yet another demonstration of our inability to defend against terrorism. /sarcasm

    1. Re:Oh yeah, totally. by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You're right - this is obviously yet another demonstration of our inability to defend against terrorism. /sarcasm
      He is right. If millions of illegal aliens and drug smugglers can come into the country with tons of cargo every year, then the notion that we can physically prevent small groups of terrorists from coming in, is actually absurd. If Al-Qaeda had hundreds of suicide attackers lined up to attack us, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from launching a Virginia-Tech style massacre every day of the week. Nothing.

      What conclusions to draw from this, I am not sure.

    2. Re:Oh yeah, totally. by ChePibe · · Score: 1

      Yes, after all, Nevada is an all-important border state. We must prevent those Arizonans from sneaking into the U.S. with WMD...

      Oh, wait...

      (I disagree with you on this particular issue. On the larger matter, however, I must say that I do agree.)

  53. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what warm and fuzzy feeling Amazon.com gets from demanding personal information before you can participate. Call me cold and heartless, but no thanks.

  54. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by dapho · · Score: 1

    You're talking to a crowd who probably has no trouble differentiating between a size 34 C and a size 35 C.

  55. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Rorschach1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    It probably can't hurt, but you're right in that it can be difficult for even a trained observer to spot the wreckage of a small plane at that resolution - or even from 5,000 feet with your own eyeballs.

    I spent a few years on the local search and rescue team and fortunately only got to see one serious crash up close. From the air, it looked more or less like a bunch of trash strewn across a 100-foot stretch of hillside. Nothing you'd identify immediately as an aircraft, though in this case the huge burn mark helped it stand out.

  56. Re: Help Find Steve Fossett by ozbird · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Was he wearing a red and white striped shirt and beanie?

  57. This is wrong on so many levels...Tipping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The time to test this type of technology out isn't during a live SAR mission. Leave the search and rescue to the experts, and please don't tie up their time with your well-meaning, but ultimately time-wasting, suppositions."

    So those police tip-lines really bother you then?

  58. Perhaps.. by Ginger_Chris · · Score: 2, Funny

    I recently lost my mobile phone somewhere in Wadham College gardens, Oxford, and I was wondering if I could get this kind of help to find it. Any takers?

  59. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by EvanED · · Score: 1

    Check "automatically accept next HIT" or whatever it is, enter anti-bot CATCHPA, then it works sort of as you want.

    It still could be a lot better, but it's not horrible once you see that checkbox.

  60. Bin Laden next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get Amazon to upload hi-res pictures of Pakistan next.

    1. Re:Bin Laden next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need a grave-cam for that.

  61. Oblig Futurama: (was Re:Not all missing persons c) by siglercm · · Score: 1

    (In sincerity, my warmest thoughts and most heartfelt prayers are given for Mr. Fossett and his family. Steve is a true explorer-hero to many people. I, for one, admire him.)

    > To be fair, most missing persons are hiding in bus terminals and seedy motels.

    Oblig. Futurama -->

    "Bigfoot populations require vast amounts of land to remain elusive in. They typically dwell just behind rocks but are also sometimes playful... bounding into thick fogs and out-of-focus areas."

    (God bless Steve and his family, and return him home safely :)

    --
    sigfault (core dumped)
  62. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See an earlier application of similar technology here:
    "Inside the High Tech Hunt for a Missing Silicon Valley Legend"
    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-08 /ff_jimgray

  63. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by tftp · · Score: 1

    You need some feedback to learn what you detected right and wrong.

  64. Montana with ntilde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The correct Spanish word for mountain is montaña, not a plain n but n with ~ on top.

    1. Re:Montana with ntilde by ElMiguel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The correct Spanish word for mountain is montaña, not a plain n but n with ~ on top.

      That is correct.

      Going on an offtopic tangent, I find it funny how many Spanish-derived English words have seemingly been adapted from their Spanish spelling, rather than from their pronunciation, as you would perhaps expect. Montana is a good example; if it had been adapted from the pronunciation it would have been something like montanja. Also Texas or Mexico: they have kept the spelling from a time, a few centuries ago, when in Spanish the "x" represented the gutural sound usually written as "kh" in English. Of course, English speakers now pronounce the "x" in Texas or Mexico as "ks", which has precisely nothing to do with the original pronunciation. There are many more examples of this.

  65. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, though, can't computers do this sort of thing more efficiently?
    Nope. The govt. has spent millions or billions on this problem over the years, but they still employ analysts to do it manually for the most part.

    What, you thought there was no interesting CS research left to do?

  66. Re:Google Earth by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    I tried looking to see if the "Series of Tubes" Senator's house in Girdwood, AK had a small shadow or a long one, because it was jacked up two floors in 2000 as a favor from a local corrupt oil company. Unfortunately this is the best you can get from Google Maps- a fuzzy satellite view.

    The map is different in Google Earth- there, you can see that each one of those short stubby little roads ends in a nice stately circle.

  67. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by SEWilco · · Score: 3, Funny

    But can I get some /. karma if I find him?

  68. Turn off the "terrain" by Joao · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was about to post how distorted the image is, when on a hunch I decided to unclick the "terrain" box on GE. The image becomes a LOT clearer, but I still don't think it is nearly clear enough to identify something as small as a 22" plane.

    1. Re:Turn off the "terrain" by opusman · · Score: 1

      Well 22 inches IS pretty damn small!

    2. Re:Turn off the "terrain" by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I thought the same at first, but it does catch up.
      The image streams down and even though the usual terrain percentage view indicates 100% downloaded the KML for that section might not have finished and will continue to download.

      Its quite a high resolution image and cars and other small details are visible, so a plane should be feasible.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Turn off the "terrain" by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's what *she* said!

      Had a chance to meet her ex, but never took her up on it.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:Turn off the "terrain" by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - the plane wasn't 22". It was 22' :)

      22' = inches.
      22" = feet.

    5. Re:Turn off the "terrain" by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1

      Spot the 18" Stonehenge and you find the plane.

  69. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    No, the Turk is for situations which computers CAN'T do well.
    On the other hand, they're probably storing all the information to help train computers in the future.

  70. Fast Turk Interaction by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Informative

    I keep hearing people whine about the Mechanical Turk interface. Each image only requires one mouse click and two keyboard presses (no mouse movement at all required). Here's how:

    1 - When you manually accept the first hit, make sure you check "Automatically accept the next HIT".
    2 - Press the END key to scroll all the way down to see the image.
    3 - Click the mouse on Yes or No.
    4 - Press the ENTER key to accept the HIT.
    5 - Goto 2

    I've found two images that are really good candidates for a crash. One was at 38.020248,-119.368515. It looks like a line of tree damage, with a bright object at the edge of the tree line.

    Next, I keep hearing people saying that laypeople aren't useful for something like this. This is simply to flag interesting images so experts can spend their time looking only at the most likely candidates. Also, this is free for them. So they could use an algorithm something like this:
    Show each image to at least 5 people.
    Each time someone says "Yes" to a specific image, show it to two additional people, up to a max of 20 reviews.
    Sort the images by descending Yes vote count and show them to the experts in that order.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Fast Turk Interaction by locster · · Score: 1

      "I've found two images that are really good candidates for a crash. One was at 38.020248,-119.368515. It looks like a line of tree damage, with a bright object at the edge of the tree line."

      That's one hell of a small aircraft that can knock all of those trees over. If that was a crash site then it looks more like the result of a jumbo or B52 crash!

    2. Re:Fast Turk Interaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at this location in Google earth with and without the GeoEye overlay. The scar is there in the older version, so whatever it is, it isn't the new crash.

    3. Re:Fast Turk Interaction by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they have software that can spot unnatural shapes on a map (like a plane). Perhaps if planes all had their registration number in very large writing, they'd be able to read it from satellite.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    4. Re:Fast Turk Interaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also found some white parts which are not in the old version 38.4313,-119.0420

      Please check

  71. Why am I looking at Yosemite? by turtledawn · · Score: 1

    If he crashed in Nevada, why are all the pictures I'm getting located in Yosemite National Park?

    --
    Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
  72. I sorted 100 images while you posted your advice by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (no comment)

  73. Won't Work - Imagery not Real Time by CaryTheSane · · Score: 0

    I hate to rain on this parade, it would be nice if we could help, but the imagery on such sites isn't updated in real time. I'm not sure about Google earth, but Google maps uses satellite images that are several years old. Unless by some chance a new image was taken since Monday and already sent to whichever system they are using, the best that we might be able to do is identify some of the older wrecks that they are finding during this search.

    1. Re:Won't Work - Imagery not Real Time by peterxyz · · Score: 1

      the mechanical turk item pointed to has a pointer to the KML file
      http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geo-eye.kml
      which has updated data (B&W vs the usual google earth colour) and presumably the origin is the same as the other shots
      ie - they have new data

    2. Re:Won't Work - Imagery not Real Time by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      This set of images is up to date.

      Hint: If you're using GEarth, and not seeing a black and white photo, you're doing something wrong.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:Won't Work - Imagery not Real Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amazon Turk task says to open the KML file http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geo-eye.kml
      How do I open it?

    4. Re:Won't Work - Imagery not Real Time by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > the imagery on such sites isn't updated in real time.

      It doesn't need to be updated in real time. The fact that the pictures were taken a couple of days ago is enough.

      > Google maps uses satellite images that are several years old.

      Err, no. The images were taken a couple of days ago. Have you not read the article, ANY of this thread OR the Amazon site?
      Well they're hardly going to ask everyone to look at the original 5 year old picture are they!

  74. Airfield coords by locster · · Score: 1

    I think the airfield he used is at 3830'35.18"N 11913'0.68"W

    This is approx 80miles SE of Reno as detailed on http://www.stevefossett.com/index.html

  75. Like who? by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it is a bit ridiculous considering all the missing persons there are out there who get no attention...

    Did you just make this up because it makes you seem like a Sensitive and Thoughtful Person? Or can you actually name someone who went missing in the wilderness and "got no attention"?

    FYI, rangers and such take their jobs very seriously. So far as I know, everyone reported missing in the wilderness gets a full spare-no-expense search and rescue effort. They look for "nobodies" just as hard as they're looking for Fossett, and the dedicated folks who do those tough jobs would take great offense at your ignorant suggestion otherwise.

    1. Re:Like who? by RedWizzard · · Score: 0, Troll

      FYI, rangers and such take their jobs very seriously. So far as I know, everyone reported missing in the wilderness gets a full spare-no-expense search and rescue effort. They look for "nobodies" just as hard as they're looking for Fossett, and the dedicated folks who do those tough jobs would take great offense at your ignorant suggestion otherwise. You are right, of course. However it is interesting that (AFAIK) no one has tried this sort of public search using satellite images before. And it will be interesting to see if is is used for other people missing in the wilderness.
    2. Re:Like who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how many of those kids were last known to be in a plane in an very sparsely populated area that would make a search like this even feasible?

    3. Re:Like who? by ejito · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They found SIX separate undocumented plane crash sites while searching for Fosset... why is it they can find these plane crashes while searching for Fosset, but couldn't find any of those before hand?

      It's also quite illogical to ask "who" didn't get attention -- if they got attention, then we'd know who they were.

    4. Re:Like who? by Raenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      However it is interesting that (AFAIK) no one has tried this sort of public search using satellite images before. The search for Jim Gray is a precursor to this. They used a U2 plane instead of satellite images. The Amazon Turk was also used.
    5. Re:Like who? by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't look for people if you don't even know they're missing. If they were flying below the radar (not hard to do in the mountains), filed no flight plans, and left behind no one who cared about them enough to notice they're missing, then how exactly were the rescue agencies supposed to find them?

      Further, if they were doing all those things, what're the odds the undocumented wreckage contains remains of undocumented would-be workers or non-medicinal pharmaceuticals?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Like who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I've read your post three times and still don't get it. What does your not knowing them have to do with anything?

    7. Re:Like who? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      The search for Jim Gray is a precursor to this. I stand corrected.
    8. Re:Like who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt undocumented workers could afford private flights through Nevada from Mexico. Non-medicinal pharmaceuticals seems more likely. But even those are more easily moved by motor vehicle.

    9. Re:Like who? by h2g2bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is a bit ridiculous considering all the missing persons there are out there who get no attention...
      Did you just make this up [...] Or can you actually name someone who went missing in the wilderness and "got no attention"?
      I can't name anyone who went missing and got no media attention. And I should know: I've been studying the newspapers for it every day.
    10. Re:Like who? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Very little. But if the person who made the claim that people who aren't famous don't get the kind of rescue effort Fossett is getting can't name even one such person, then either...

      (1) He's got a terrible memory, or

      (2) He's totally bullshitting because it "seems reasonable" to the politically-correct, non-independent-thinking mind, and not because he has any actual facts to back up his assertion.

    11. Re:Like who? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Dude, the important question isn't whether they get no attention from the media, it's whether they get no attention from search and rescue. Which would you rather have, if you were lost, huh? Or do you imagine that it's not possible to get attention from search and rescue unless you already have attention from the media? That would seem pretty silly -- most rescues happen without a speck of media attention. Folks just do their job without the TV cameras on them.

      As for the question of whether there would be plenty o' media attention to a case where some poor soul lost in the wilderness was abandoned merely because he wasn't a rich Republican donor -- ha ha. You'd have to have been living in a cave for the past twenty years not to understand how our modern media would love to jump on such a story.

      But they haven't. Because no such story exists.

    12. Re:Like who? by westlake · · Score: 1
      why is it they can find these plane crashes while searching for Fosset, but couldn't find any of those before?

      It is a difficult and dangerous environment to search:

      The registry has 129 entries for Nevada. But over the last 50 years, aviation officials estimate, more than 150 small planes have disappeared in Nevada, a state with more than 300 mountain ranges carved with steep ravines, covered with sagebrush and pinon pine trees and with peaks rising to 11,000 feet.

    13. Re:Like who? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      You can't look for people if you don't even know they're missing.

      However there are over 150 lost planes that they KNOW are missing in Nevada alone, many of which DID file flight plans. (Add in the California part of the Sierras and the number climbs much higher.)

      (One of them is the plane carrying the father of a Florida resident, who is asking the searchers whether one of these six found as a side effect of this search is the one his father was in when it went down in 1964.)

      You have to understand this terrain: Much of it is deep, eroded cuts through mountains, with roads that might see a car in a week, or a month - and these are the numbered state roads. There are roads with washouts on the side of nearly vertical slopes where a car that slips off might roll down hundreds of feet and end up invisible from any point on the road or from the air above (due to trees, desert foliage, or bringing down a rockslide on top of itself.

      There is no cellphone service in much of this area. Often you can't get a single AM or FM station on your car radio.

      Locals normally carry bottled water, emergency rations, more than one spare tire, a high-lift jack and/or a winch, and some carry an EPIRB, when traveling these roads. (For some of them it's the trip into town.) But in some places in these valleys even an EPIRB won't hit the satellite.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  76. Some people are apparently more important than... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
    ...others. Anyway that's what I surmise after hearing an official state that searchers have found several other crash sites and she said that's good news of a sort, because it means that several other families will at least now have closure.

    What it meant to ME is that some people apparently warrant searches that other people don't warrant. Government officials apparently chose to search for ONE jackass who didn't file a flight plan, but I guess the others weren't worth it. We don't know whether THEY filed flight plans or not.

    --
    This space available.
  77. Will work - imagery is new by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

    I hate to rain on this parade, it would be nice if we could help, but the imagery on such sites isn't updated in real time. I'm not sure about Google earth, but Google maps uses satellite images that are several years old. Unless by some chance a new image was taken since Monday and already sent to whichever system they are using, the best that we might be able to do is identify some of the older wrecks that they are finding during this search. You are missing the part where GeoEye re-scanned the area since Monday for this specific search, which is why it is B&W instead of color as other images around the area are.

    What I wonder though is how hard would it be to do some image processing and find the differences between images before and after monday - would not be perfect but may really cut down on amount of searching

    -Em
    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    1. Re:Will work - imagery is new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe I read he was scouting dry lakebeds in preparation for a land speed record attempt. Then his flight path should be over and around the large smooth dry lakes South of the airport, and on the way to them from the airport.
      I am getting color images in Google Earth in those areas. How can I check the Google Earth image dates?

      Amazon Turk was having me look in the mountains to the West, I do not see why he would have gone there.

      Also I see a smudge or shadow and a possible
      gray plane at 3757'24.52"N 11836'49.64"W

    2. Re:Will work - imagery is new by sdo1 · · Score: 1

      When in Google Earth, it's easy to shut off the new sat images and check. The old sat images aren't very clear at all, so sometimes it's hard to tell.

      That said, what about this object... a wing? It doesn't seem to be there in the old sat images.

      3817'31.59"N 11920'12.93"W

      I've been searching for hours and other than the best things other people have posted, that's the most interesting that I've seen.

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    3. Re:Will work - imagery is new by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      When in Google Earth, it's easy to shut off the new sat images and check. The old sat images aren't very clear at all, so sometimes it's hard to tell. Unfortunately the old and new maps are not aligned and I could not find an easy way to fix this. That said, I was thinking of a computer image procecssing way to compare the maps to see what has changed between. But probably different satelights and time of day/shadows would mess that up

      That said, what about this object... a wing? It doesn't seem to be there in the old sat images.

      3817'31.59"N 11920'12.93"W

      I've been searching for hours and other than the best things other people have posted, that's the most interesting that I've seen. Its something but it seems to be about 80' long according to the ruler tool. Alaso I think it is there on the old map, if you account for the shift in maps. (according to my measurement old maps are 340 feet NE of new ones)
      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    4. Re:Will work - imagery is new by CaryTheSane · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting me, I didn't know they published scans that quickly.

    5. Re:Will work - imagery is new by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      This was done specially for the search and is not even part of actual google maps/google earth - just special overlay donated by google and the satellite company. Pays to be rich, famous and well liked.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    6. Re:Will work - imagery is new by imagmast · · Score: 1

      Downloaded GeoEye-lkonos-1M & started looking at Google earth. The link is what I saw at 38.28.55.70 119.24.18.17. Sure looks like a plane on the ground. http://ispmaster.net/ccc/plane.jpg And NO, I did not put it there.

  78. what is this? by de+Selby · · Score: 1

    38°08'01.34"N 119°25'20.19"W

    There is a strange rectangular object to the left of this coordinate. It doesn't seem like it would be a rock. I imagine if a plane crashed the wings would be gone and such. I dunno, just wondering because I thought it seemed odd.

    1. Re:what is this? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Way to large - looks like its about 40' across and few hundred feet long. Submit it to be reviewed though - never know.

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:what is this? by sdo1 · · Score: 1

      Shut off the new satellite image overlay. The two sets of data don't line up perfectly, but that appears to be a feature that was there before the new data.

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
  79. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by AmericanInKiev · · Score: 1

    Anything that could be improved an order of magnitude by a teenager in the time it takes to chug a mountain dew is horrible.

    I submit that if reduced to a single keystroke - not carpel-inducing-mousing clicks, and enlarged 4 times,
    one could expose the average user to 10 times the number of pixels in the same time; moreover, the pixels searched would go up 100 times as people would stay with it longer if it we're so tedious.

    as is - it is embarrassingly horrid.
    Ben

  80. Too bad it's Amazon by DogDude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Too bad it's done by Amazon. It's an absolutely fantastic idea, and a really new technology application (getting the public to scan pictures). Unfortunately, I don't have, and won't have an Amazon ID due to their continued promotion of dog fighting

    Fuck you, Amazon.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot. While dog fighting is detestable, censorship is never the answer.

    2. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A private company choosing not to carry something is not censorship. Your government telling you you can't read something is censorship.

    3. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      So you're angry because they don't censor their books? Do you also think they're Nazis because they sell Mein Kampf? Oh and they must be communists too!

    4. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't like dog fighting, I'm afraid it's still important that people be aware of the issue.

      And to refuse to help a plane crash victim because you have to deal with a reseller for whom a dozen out of millions of their products upset you?

      I think that's as bad as dog-fighting. Worse, really. I love animals, but in the grand scheme, dogs are shit. People are so much more important. Do you get that mad about domestic violence or boxing? Or african diamond mining? So many things that are worse than dog fighting, but I'm sure you think you're a great person because you boycott amazon's charity work.

    5. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by ORBAT · · Score: 1

      Psst, Google also "promotes" dog fighting. And child pornography too! Go rant about them. And your local library supports TERRORISM and COMMUNISM! Report them to the DHS, citizen.

      (PS. If I didn't make it clear enough for you, here's the plaintext: you're an idiot)

    6. Re:Too bad it's Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you and every other wierdos with their pet peeves. Just stay in your fence.

  81. Jim Gray by tji · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The last time an effort like this was undertaken, it was for Jim Gray (Database researcher, Microsoft Fellow), who had disappeared sailing from San Francisco. I checked on that for a while, but never saw any more information.

    Was anything ever found in the search for Jim Gray? No remnants of his boat, or other signs of what happened?

    1. Re:Jim Gray by The+-e**(i*pi) · · Score: 1

      never found, sadly.

    2. Re:Jim Gray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Never found. Wired had a good article on the subject: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-08 /ff_jimgray?currentPage=all

      I suppose this makes some sort of high-tech trifecta: Jim Gray, James Kim (of CNET), and now Steve Fossett.

      Speaking with some degree of experience (having done ground SAR in some very remote areas of the United States), I suppose it's predictable: too much money, not enough brains. You won't see these kinds of resources- including retasking Ikonos in the case of Kim- used for finding lost kids and hunters.

      Gray: solo boating on a lightweight hull.

      Kim: solo self-rescue attempt in unfamiliar terrain instead of staying put.

      Fossett: solo flying without filing a flight plan.

      I feel sorrow for the families. Not so much for the victims.

    3. Re:Jim Gray by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your assessment on Fossett and Gray, I would disagree about Kim. From what I have read Kim waited with his family in a car until there seemed to be no hope that rescue was imminent, and only left the vehicle to retrieve help. Perhaps it was not the smartest thing to do, wandering into the wilderness alone, but he certainly didn't endanger himself unnecessarily in the first place, unlike the other two on the list.

    4. Re:Jim Gray by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Of course you won't. A lost kid would be what, one pixel? That's hardly enough resolution to be useful. You'll not that this thing isn't a search for Steve, either. But his plane is (or was once) big enough to be resolved.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Jim Gray by Tomthemage · · Score: 1

      He was scattering his mother's ashes, for christ's sake. What the hell is wrong with you?

    6. Re:Jim Gray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's pissed because he doesn't have one. When she realized what a loserboy nerd her son was, she disowned him, invited a pedophile rapist to buttfuck him for good and give him AIDS, burned his comics and Star Wars collectible collection and had 12 pigs shit on his face.

    7. Re:Jim Gray by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      Kim could have walked back down the logging road to the public road which had traffic on the first day, when he still had some food in his stomach. it was less than 10 miles.

    8. Re:Jim Gray by aug24 · · Score: 2, Informative

      From Wikipedia, because I can be arsed to hit Google for 5 seconds...

      "On February 1, 2007, the DigitalGlobe satellite did a scan of the area, generating thousands of images.[9] The images were posted to Amazon Mechanical Turk in order to distribute the work of searching through them, in hopes of spotting his boat.

      "On February 16, 2007, the Friends of Jim Gray Group suspended their search,[10] but continue to follow any important leads. The family ended its search May 31, 2007. The massive high-tech effort did not reveal any new clues.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  82. What do we do if we find a plane???? by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, so what do we do if we find a plane just browsing in Google Earth? (way more efficient than refreshing the webpage).

    38 7'34.00"N, 11929'4.81"W

    Much more fuzzy than the AC plane, so this is probably nothing, but the size and shape is about right (a bit shorter, but of the plane is angled, it could easily show up shorter).

    1. Re:What do we do if we find a plane???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so what do we do if we find a plane just browsing in Google Earth? (way more efficient than refreshing the webpage).

      38 7'34.00"N, 11929'4.81"W


      Are you sure you have the right coordinates?

      Assuming you really meant 38 7'34.00"N, 119 29'4.81"W, I get nothing worthwhile at 1500 feet.
  83. walking into the light by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    True, it could be a publicity stunt. But if it isn't intentional, then he's dead. He had enough experience to know to have an ELT/EPRIB on his plane. If he didn't activate it when he went down, it's because he was too injured to flip a switch to turn it on. Id the wreck was bad enough to break his ELT/EPRIB, then he didn't stand a chance.://www.nctackle.com/acraq406mhzg1.html http://www.avionix.com/store/elt.html

    --
    We are all just people.
    1. Re:walking into the light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up as informative. If it takes you 30 seconds to think up and type and entire post you don't deserve to live.

  84. Re:Google Earth by John3 · · Score: 1

    I didn't RTFA so I'm at fault for that. However, the first section I looked at via Google Earth was in color...at least the trees were green.

    In my defense, I was so anxious to start looking for Steve that I immediately jumped to Amazon to start looking rather than stopping to read the article. Who has time to read articles when there is a man out in the wilderness waiting for us to Amazon or Google him?

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  85. Quite ironic.... by thrill12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...as Steve Fossett originally set out to take this journey to find a flat and long enough place to do his world land-speed record. Now Google has high-resolution imagery of the whole place, which makes the whole undertaking a bit obsolete in retrospect ?

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
  86. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the insinuation that such a technology and effort would ONLY be made available to a rich white man is jaded and wrong.

    I am sure that this technology and effort would be made, also, for any pretty white girl. Especially if she's blond.

    And unless you're a white millionaire or a pretty white blond girl, who cares if you're missing? I've watched Fox News enough to know that nobody except pretty white blond girls ever go missing *anyway*.

    What I don't understand is . . . who does some rich wealthy adventurer not have some sort of backup plan or beacon or something? And besides that, what has he ever done for society other than be rich? Traveling around the globe in a hot air balloon hardly benefits mankind. *shrug*

    I'm not saying he shouldn't be found or that I wish any ill will on him. I just don't see what he's done to warrant such a high concern on an international level beyond any other missing person... except at least someone who was kidnapped is less responsible for their situation than some adventurer who puts himself in harms way for hobby.

  87. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. Because, God help us, if we aren't TRAINED into our incompetent boobery, our hundreds of thousands of eyes would be better wasted trying to find Waldo.

  88. It's ain't a rescue, it's a recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but someone had to say it. The chances of Fossett surviving a crash but not well enough to light up his ELT or Breitling 121.5 MHz distress beacon watch are pretty fucking slim. The guy's hard core but still.

  89. Comparison with old maps... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

    Note that the old maps are offset around 640feet to the North, compared to the new maps. Lakes and peaks show that pretty conclusively.

    All that said, I've found several plane-shaped bright images (of roughly the right size) that were not in the old map data, but where do I alert someone to the coordinates? This was not done through the Amazon thingie, but directly in Google Earth...

    1. Re:Comparison with old maps... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Note that the old maps are offset around 640feet to the North, compared to the new maps. Lakes and peaks show that pretty conclusively.

      All that said, I've found several plane-shaped bright images (of roughly the right size) that were not in the old map data, but where do I alert someone to the coordinates? This was not done through the Amazon thingie, but directly in Google Earth... If you figure it out (and maybe how to un-offset maps) post here. If I find something close to the area turk says, I just put it in comments, but that is certainly not the best solution.

      Meanwhile, there is something at 38 2'13.93"N, 11920'41.43"W - not very clear but seems to fit the dimensions perfectly.

      -Em
      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:Comparison with old maps... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 2, Informative

      The offset isn't constant, sadly. In some places it is the aforementioned 640feet North, in other places 640feet NE, in other places only a 100feet or so.

      Meanwhile, here are three candidates.

      38 19'12.87"N, 119 16'56.30"W
      38 7'51.26"N, 119 27'41.67"W
      38 7'34.00"N, 119 29'4.81"W

      All are a bit fuzzy, but "plane shaped" and the right size. #2 is by far the sharpest.

      I was unable to find either of these in the original google earth maps. (I did find a few others that WERE in the old maps, so they're discarded).

    3. Re:Comparison with old maps... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Dude, I don't see anything at all that looks like a plane or crashed plane in your images. I mean, nothing even close. Did you muck up the copy/paste of the right coords?

      Here's my candidate: 38.277054, -119.453659, and a quick look at maps.google.ca
      clearly shows that I'm looking at a two small dried up riverbed banks, not the broken off wings of an airplane minus the fusellage.

      The Mechanical Turk should also put in the old pre-crash google-earth and google-maps-satellite images on the same page. This would vastly reduce the false positives that the admins are going to have to go through. My false positive rate is currently 1 in 150 images. That's huge.

    4. Re:Comparison with old maps... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

      Dude, I don't see anything at all that looks like a plane or crashed plane in your images. I mean, nothing even close. Did you muck up the copy/paste of the right coords?

      Hey, I'm not an expert, but I do see plane-shaped bright areas of roughly the right dimensions (18-30 feet) at all three coordinates. The first is by far the fuzziest, but I uploaded images of the other two here:

      http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/fyodor_/p lane3.png

      http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/fyodor_/p lane2.png

      On the other hand, in yours, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that looks like a plane... I mean, nothing even close ;-). Check the image below:

      http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/fyodor_/w hatshere.png

      Maybe there's a problem with the coordinates in Google Earth? I'm using Google Earth 4.2 for Linux (64bit Ubuntu Feisty). I'd hate to think things are being missed because of a bug...

  90. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

    Steve is ridiculously wealthy, and I don't mean this in a bad way. All of the expenses of searching for him can be recovered from him (or his estate), so there is basically a blank check on all of these costs. And yes, he's famous, so people will care and do more about finding him compared to some other schmuck - this is human nature and isn't going to be changing any time soon.

  91. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Jeian · · Score: 1
  92. bearly literate, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My english is my first language and I'm barely literate. -- CmdrTaco"

    I thought it was BEARLY literate.

  93. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by pongo000 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, though, can't computers do this sort of thing more efficiently?

    I'll have to disagree with the poster that claims this can't be done.

    Yes, it can. It's known as "pattern recognition." The problem is that for the most effective recognition, you need either before/after images (which would be normalized and then overlaid at appropriate registration points), or a series of pics fed to the algorithm, one of which contains the artifact you're interested in (supervised learning). The former is often use to detect motion in astronomical image of the same area of sky. The latter is very accurate, but requires a prior training of the algorithm so that the algorithm can "learn" what it's looking for.

    It's possible that there are no before/after images (of suitable quality and/or coverage) that can be overlaid for feature anomaly detection. It's probably a bit late in the game for use of a supervised learning model.

    You do bring up a very good point.

  94. (1) Plan (2) Stick to plan by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Could have also filed a flight plan. Oh well.

    That's only half of it. The second half is sticking to the plan. Flying, hiking, scuba diving, etc, its the second half that makes the first half work.

  95. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    couldn't agree more...I hold no ill will for him either, but if he had bothered to at least file a flight plan they could narrow the search. I really can't sympathize with people who deliberately pu themselves in harm's way.

    There was a group who wanted to "kayak down Mount Everest" One guy dies & leaves a wife and kids in the lurch. I had more sympathy for them than the guy that died.

    Fossett lived and (apparently) died. So will I.

    De mortis nil nesi bonum (iirc) and all that.

  96. Not necessarily on land by skeftomai · · Score: 1

    His plane could have gone down in water.

  97. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, it does help to be good buds with Richard Branson.

    I assume that the authorities would spend some time looking for the crash site in any case. The only difference is, because Steve Fossett is Steve Fossett, some people outside the official investigation are pulling some strings to help make the search more efficient. If somebody came to a search and said, "We may have a faster way to search through your satellite data," it would be stupid to reject the help in the name of fairness.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  98. Re:Google Earth by Xiroth · · Score: 1

    Uh, if you RTFA, there's an overlay for Google Earth that you need to download to get the most recent satellite pics. Without that, you're not going to be finding any recently crashed planes.

  99. Re:Google Earth by JackHoffman · · Score: 1

    You're supposed to open the provided KML file with Google Earth. That will add a "layer" with new image data which isn't normally in Google Earth.

  100. Too bad color images weren't possible by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

    Color would be a huge help--a Citabria is typically painted with a very vivid red, white and blue star burst pattern on the wings that would be very easy to spot against a mountainside.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  101. Help Find the Top Stripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An anonymous coward invites us to join in the hunt for the missing upper stripe on the U.S. Flag using our own damn eyes.

  102. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

    I suppose there are already trained people looking at the images. From the Police, Fire-Department, or whatever organization handles these kinds of emergencies in Nevada. I stress the word trained because the satellite data definetely needs experienced eyes to look out for the right stuff. There are only so many trained people available and time is of the essence. Having untrained people looking as well probably won't improve the odds overall, but it will improve the odds of finding him quickly.
  103. Found Me? by waldoj · · Score: 1

    You most certainly did not.

  104. BS by happyhamster · · Score: 1

    Give me a break. Who are you trying to convince that some regular guy gets the "same" amount of attention and rescue effort as this "famous" fag?? What planet have you been living on? Get past your 12-year-old mentality and take a long hard look at the contemporary American society.

    1. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have evidence that Fossett is getting more of a rescue effort than a normal person? Some statistics on the number of hours, airplanes, people, etc. involved in this one versus the average for similar cases in the area would do the trick. Or are you just assuming that because he's getting a lot more news articles written about him that he's getting a lot more searching done for him?

    2. Re:BS by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Here in Oz the search for a run of the mill tourist (who is presumed to be in mortal danger) gets similar effort to a missing prime minister, however the length and publicity of the search for a presumed body would seem to relate to your social standing, most "lost in the bush" searches are scaled back after a couple of weeks depending on the chances of survival - none are forgotten by the authorities. Judging by the intensity of the search for the missing English girl in Portugal I would say Europeans behave in a similar manner and I think many US citizens at least expect similar treatment in their own country.

      Note: Because of the circumsatnces of his dissapearence Holt was presumed dead after two days and despite a long and expensive search for the body, it was never found (people get suspicious when a politician or a billionare dies and there is no body to burry). I live not far from where Holt went missing, but hundreds (if not thousands) of seals and the two ton white pointers that prey on them live closer.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  105. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by fat_mike · · Score: 1

    And your children will roll their eyes and tell their friends how big of a dork you are.

  106. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Trained enough to realize that Google Earth images are old and not up to date, for starters, and are henceforth generally useless.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  107. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by ashooner · · Score: 1

    Yes, I think much more efficiently. One of my collegues in grad school is using this technology to recognize archaeological sites. One big reason that even a rudimentary algorithm has an advantage on a mechanical turk is that most remote sensing data is dealing with a pretty thick matrix of wavelength bands. This Fossett data seems to only be one band, or maybe a composite. If you are working with even high-end multispectral data, software can much more easily differentiate types of material before recognizing a shape, however. In reality, I think this type of detection would be more useful in this circumstance, seeing as how the plane may not really look like a plane anymore. Change detection can be tricky; you can see by the data that there are some pretty serious shadows, which can confound change detection unless, like I say, you have a broader spectrum of data. I have to agree that anything a casual /.er is going to be able to pick out, a shape detection algorithm would probably be on top of.

    --
    They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
  108. Re:I sorted 100 images while you posted your advic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gonna lose a shitton of mod points from replying to this thread, but is there an IRC channel up for people working on the Turk searches?

  109. Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by borschski · · Score: 1

    I'm reluctant to do this, but I've sort of gone all out tonight to alert people searching for Fossett because of a white plane I found. I know people will say, "Well give us the coordinates so we can verify" but I'm not going to do that until the Mono County Sheriff and whomever else has a chance to go out there in the morning when it's light and see what it is.

    I did a post about it leaving out the coordinates but you can see the screengrab I did from Google Earth: http://www.iconnectdots.com/ctd/2007/09/is-this-st eve-f.html/

    If anyone knows how to contact the Mechanical Turk folks at Amazon, email me please.

    1. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      This plane's coordinates was already posted on slashdot and the information was forwarded to Amazon people. (see here)

      But from the fact that it is over the trees and yet in one piece, this plane is most likely in the air, probably part of the search party. Although I am surprised we have not found more of search planes

      -Em

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by Wizy · · Score: 1

      A post way up above yours by an AC already posted the coordinates of that plane.
        38 29' 2.59" N
        119 24' 22.00" W

    3. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by Fullerene · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is clearly a plane, however it is also clearly as aircraft involved in the search that is at altitude above the terrain.

      I think you should release the coordinates because we have already seen others like this. For an example the exact same as yours, see the following...

      38 29'03.51"N 119 24'21.64"W

      Look just to the west and you'll see a plane just like your own. Release the damn coordinates will you?

      -F

    4. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by borschski · · Score: 1

      Done. lat=38.4841361111, lon=-119.406058333

    5. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by Fullerene · · Score: 1

      Yep. Looks like a search plane to me. From memory, the search team have about 9 fixed wing and 3 helicopters involved full-time in the hunt. I think we've found three of them in googleearth so far - which means that the system is working folks!

      Whatever you do, don't call the emergency services to report one of these planes. Only report them to the Mechanical Turk team at Amazon or at the very least post it AC to /. and someone will could forward it on for you.

      -F

    6. Re:Is this Steve Fossett's plane? by borschski · · Score: 1

      I'm going to get a t-shirt made that says "Yep...I'm a noob" on it.

      In hindsight, I should've waded through every single comment before going off half-cocked. Someone emailed me a short time ago with an MTurk guy's email and he just reached out to me. It gave me an opportunity to let him know that the directions on the MTurk page were confusing at best and consequently this is NOT a coordinated and orchestrated effort.

      With all due respect to other /.'ers, this forum is NOT the place to publish coordinates or try to orchestrate an effort. Especially when it comes to a "free" MTurk effort like this one. What would be super-helpful would be to have a place to check hits to see if others had found it already AND to have a central place to contact someone so they don't have some loose cannon (ahh...that would be me) going off and calling SAR people in CA and NV.

      This process of coordinated effort is awesome...getting people like me to invest free hours in performing work like this to help. I'm not sure I'll do it again since now I feel like some doorknob...but who knows.

  110. Re:Google Earth by John3 · · Score: 1

    Doh...thanks!

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  111. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Fullerene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have just completed my 729th image looking for Steve Fossett on the Mechanical Turk. I guess thats a lot more than I originally intended to do, but my reasons for keeping going are:-

    • If Steve isn't found immediately, there probably won't be much point in looking anymore. We have to help today.
    • I admire his approach to life. We just passed Steve Irwin's anniversary here in Oz and this sort of guy is all too rare.
    • This isn't a lottery - you help almost as much by your work in eliminating the useless images as you do by escalating the significant ones so you can always feel a sense of satisfaction even when you don't see a plane.
    • I've got nothing else better to do with a lazy Sunday.

    In the 729 views, I've reported one image that contained a feature that looked like a rock formation impersonating an aircraft. The instructions tell us to be conservative so I reported the hit.

    Plenty more to go around folks! How often are you given the chance to personally save the life of a billionare? Sounds worthwhile even in capitalist America to me.

    -F

  112. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuckers like you would be happy if a mediocre and inadequate search effort were made for everybody, but as soon as one guy gets something a little better than average you hear howls of injustice. Inequality is not a disease, and mediocrity is not a cure.

  113. Re:Google Earth by Yooden_Vranx · · Score: 1

    Most of the regular satellite imagery in Google Earth is resampled to look like it's from straight up. In areas with buildings, you can sometimes see the buildings "lean" because the original shot was actually at an angle and so saw the sides. And Ikonos and Quickbird imagery is usually in color. But panchromatic imagery has higher resolution, so I'm guessing that's what this is.

  114. Will six of them suffice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3576072& page=1

    No, unfortunately they don't look for them just as hard.

    1. Re:Will six of them suffice? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't understand your point. You have no idea who was in those six wrecks and what happened to them. For all you know, all six wrecks involved hard landings after which everyone was rescued immediately.

  115. I think I found something... by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    38 3'24.02"N 11914'56.55"W It looks like a plane, it's about 20 ft in length and has a 23-24 ft wingspan. I don't know how to contact them but if anyone here can communicate with them, please do. Don't forget to credit me if it turns out to be his plane.

    1. Re:I think I found something... by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      That actually looks good. It is clearly a plane and it looks like it might be on the ground

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    2. Re:I think I found something... by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

      I think I found the ranch from where he took off (if it's exactly 80 miles SE of Reno, NV. 3837'8.93"N 11859'58.18"W it's only 40 miles from the "crashed" plane I found.

    3. Re:I think I found something... by Wizy · · Score: 1

      That looks really good. Have you submitted it to everyone you can yet?

    4. Re:I think I found something... by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

      I have no idea where to send it to, if you have suggestions let me know.

    5. Re:I think I found something... by LuminaireX · · Score: 1

      There are houses 500 feet from there. Assuming they aren't all summer homes, I think someone would have said something.

      Then again, maybe Steve's just drinking their beer.

    6. Re:I think I found something... by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

      For those of you using the newer color version the coordinates have changed apparently... 38 3'25.61"N 11914'49.03"W I still think it's a plane and it's not showing up on older satellite images...

    7. Re:I think I found something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone post a screenshot? I do not see anything resembling a plane so I think I'm not getting the latest imagery (yes, i've loaded http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geoeye-color.kml)

    8. Re:I think I found something... by iknowcss · · Score: 1

      That assumes that he was coherent enough to realize "Hey, there are houses 500 feet over there."

      --
      Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
    9. Re:I think I found something... by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

      Ok I posted some screenshots on my site at http://www.blinx.net/stevefossett/ For some reasons the coordinates change from one image to an other, I posted the coordinate to the plane on each version, pre-crash one, the post-crash black and white and post-crash color one. I don't think it's a rock formation, what is it doing in the middle of nowhere and how come it's not showing up on the pre-crash pictures ? Interesting to note, that object is almost exactly 38 miles away from where he took off and some eye witnesses have confirmed seeing the plane 25-30 miles away so ...

  116. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Ardeaem · · Score: 1

    Trained enough to realize that Google Earth images are old and not up to date, for starters, and are henceforth generally useless. That's why the article gives explicit instructions on how to download the new imagery.
  117. Could be completely automated by laing · · Score: 1

    If you've got imagery from before and after the crash (if there was one), why not let the computer do the searching? It would make for an interesting software project.

    1. Re:Could be completely automated by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      Seasonal changes would make that really quite tricky, not to mention the effect of the time of day on shadows...

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  118. Automated Photo Search Application? by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    This is the second or third time I've seen where people (geeks) can view satellite photos and help locate a person. Each time I thought there must be some sort of automated search application that spots a straight edge or a debris pattern, wouldn't it be obvious to detect a non-natural shape in a wide open area without any man made structures around?

      I was thinking of some sort of diff application for photos but you'd need a before and after, and the app itself needs to be written.

      An intact airplane should be easy to find compared to a boat since an airplane has a distinct shape when looking down on it from above, a boat wouldn't stand out as much.

      Anyway Slashdot being technology oriented website I just thought it would make more sense to use computers and applications rather than eyeballs, if it worked better that is and not just for the sake of using a computer.

    1. Re: Automated Photo Search Application? by G+Fab · · Score: 1

      If you ever sit at a satellite uplin, you'll see that it usually can highlight changes in the data. In other words, you can see what's there that wasn't last time in a different color. As far as straigh lines go, I'm pretty sure that that would just result in a ton of junk data, and the plane is probably damaged so we don't know the exact dimensions.

      Looking for changes is a better idea. But the fact is that the plane could be very far from these images and the pilot didn't activate emergency transpoders, so this is not likely to yield a healthy pilot (or anything at all).

      But they do have great people who handle software for processing this stuff.

  119. Faster turk interaction without the mouse by crindt · · Score: 1

    If you're using firefox you can do this using only the keyboard...

    1 - When you manually accept the first hit, make sure you check "Automatically accept the next HIT".
    2 - Press the '/' to search then type 'no,'. This highlights the "no" text adjacent to the radio buttons.
    3 - <shift>-<tab> takes you to the radio buttons
    4 - up/down arrow to select yes or no
    5 - Press the ENTER key to accept the HIT.
    6 - Goto 2

    1. Re:Faster turk interaction without the mouse by daenris · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I don't know about you, but that series of instructions takes me about twice as long as just clicking on Yes/No and submitting.

  120. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1

    Gosh, you have me pegged all right. Smart guy, you are.

    --
    This space available.
  121. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    Well, if you've got good before and after images you can do a pretty good "stenographic" diff on them with a computer, then put them in the "should get looked at with eyeballs" pile.

    Not that we officially have that frequent satellite image coverage yet or anything, but I bet you'd find most images don't change all that much from week to week, and the ones that do have something interesting in them.

  122. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by spyowl · · Score: 1

    At the resolutions they are making available on Google Earth and Google Maps it may be impossible to find anything important in this case and in this manner.

    The article explains that the complete plane would be approximately 21 pixels in length in the image given. If the plane crashed and broke up in pieces, each piece would be so small that it would be extremely hard to locate it on these images. A white spot is probably a reflection of light in that area of the terrain. But it would be a little hard to distinguish it from a small piece of a plane.

  123. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by raehl · · Score: 1

    What, you thought there was no interesting CS research left to do?

    Well, I can already turn on my computer, do some typing and clicking, and get any variety of pornography ever created instantly delivered to my home... ...so it does look like all the interesting CS research has been done.

  124. Not what we're looking for by njriley · · Score: 1

    Well, we aren't looking for burn marks - given that we're still hoping to recover him alive, it's likely the aircraft will be at least largely intact. Hopefully, this is still rescue, not recovery.

  125. Photo of the plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be very useful to see any photo with the exact plane - painting, layout, different angles.

    IMO, the map should be rotated in several directions to be sure nothing is missed.

    p.s. Excuses about my English.

  126. Found something. by daviddisco · · Score: 2, Informative

    I started cruising around in Google Earth and I found something interesting at 3815'31.05"N,11918'59.08"W . It's about the right size and is not on older maps. How do I report it? The Mechanical Turk interface has no method for reporting except to flag one of the random tiles.

    1. Re:Found something. by daviddisco · · Score: 1

      Here are the coords again with the formatting fixed...
      38 15'31.05"N,119 18'59.08"W

    2. Re:Found something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flag a random tile, but give your new coords. Be sure to mention that it's not actually on the tile you're flaggigng.

    3. Re:Found something. by Punchinello · · Score: 1

      This feature of interest is much too small to be the plane. Examine it closely you will see it is just the top of a rock formation.

      --

      Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

    4. Re:Found something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      38.411636,-119.405594 a plane

      Jarett www.ducklingphoto.com

    5. Re:Found something. by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Its about 22' long according to google earth ruler tool and looks very different than anything else around the area - it also does not seem to be on old pictures - but that may be a trick of light. What makes you think its a rock formation?

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    6. Re:Found something. by ckedge · · Score: 1

      I don't see a single thing anywhere near there.

      This is the other possible downside of a search like this. This is the internet. There are TONS of assholes who will make trouble just for the sake of making trouble. Flagging every single one of hundreds of images as "a match". That and tons of people who can't copy and paste or who can't remember to re-click the "url to this page" and re-read the coords. Of the 6-8 coords reported by slashdotters that I've looked at, only two had anything remotely plane like. 4-6 were like "wtf, I see nothing but grass and trees".

    7. Re:Found something. by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

      If you even take time to read, I said the coords changed from one version (the black and white version) shows the plane at a different cord than the newer color one that came out today. Never would I play games on such a serious subject. I feel it's my duty to report what looks like a crashed airplane and I did contact the CAP. I wrote the coords on every version of the pictures, if you have the latest color KML file then you can use the coordinates on the post-crash color pics. If it's the black and white one, use the coords on the post-crash black and white pic.

    8. Re:Found something. by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      I don't know which overlay you're using, but on my system, I see absolutely nothing at that location - just grass.
      What is everyone else seeing that I'm not seeing? I've definitely got the new Geoeye 1M Color overlay turned on and yet I can only see things which look like planes in about 10% of the previously posted coords. Is it that most people haven't read TFA and are looking for objects on the OLD map, or is it that the new colour map doesn't line up properly with the original B&W Geoeye map?

      I'm mystified.

  127. Question by truesaer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I've seen on the news that they've checked out like 6 or 7 plane crash sites that turned out not to be Fossett. What that left me wondering was, are those sites where they just left wreckage because it was remote or are they previously unknown crashes where a plane went missing and was never found?


    How often does that happen with light aircraft? Do they vanish entirely very often?

    1. Re:Question by borschski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The woman who is running the SAR for the Nevada Civil Air Patrol husband called me tonight after my message. Seems that they've now located several planes during the SAR for Steve Fossett...including one from a crash back in 1964!

      There have been times when I've been in Nevada and there is a whole lotta nothing for thousands of square miles. Pretty easy to lose a small plane.

    2. Re:Question by Big+Bob+the+Finder · · Score: 1
      There's a lot out there. A list maintained by the Air Force can be found here:

      "Air Combat Command"

      Click on "CONUS Crash Locator." It's not complete, but it's pretty good.

    3. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      light aircrafts crash often compared to normal passenger airplanes...
      that's because of not trained enough guys, because light aircrafts suffer more the weather conditions ecc...ecc...

      anyway, usually you shouldn't buy/hire some spanish-aircraft check, thy're known to do really bad inspections on those light aircrafts.

  128. DOTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a small arc of white dots just south of 3811'36.37"N, 11922'54.31"W

  129. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by westlake · · Score: 1
    If amateurs can find new meteor craters with google earth, why not airplanes? How trained do you really have to be to spot an oddly shaped bright feature in otherwise mundane terrain?

    never spent much time in the southwest, have you?

    the terrain ia not that simple. light and shadow give objects odd, illusionary, shapes and colors.

    it is a much tougher problem then spotting a road, a riverbed, a townside. something that may have shaped or re-shaped terrain, ecologies, for hundreds or thousands of years.

  130. Solution by Tribbin · · Score: 2

    This might have been said already but I'm too drunk and tired to check the posts.

    Take several detailed pictures and look for the diffs; there he is; if he's alive.

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    1. Re:Solution by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Why would there be detailed pictures of the search area BEFORE he got lost there? No 'before' picture exists to diff with.
      Even if it did, it would be a nightmare to correctly align the images with single pixel accuracy so that this could work with any level of accuracy. Even with a satellite, you can never take the picture from the exact same place and time and the terrain is very rugged. The pictures wouldn't even vaguely line up unless the satellite and the earth, were permanently stationary.

    2. Re:Solution by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      You don't need pictures from before.

      You need a picture from now, and a day later.

      You see two diffs. Where he was and where he is.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:Solution by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      yeah, because the sun doesn't move (and shift shadows), camera position isn't
      utterly impossible to perfectly duplicate, nature doesn't shift water levels
      and cause trees or dirt or rocks to move significantly (admittedly, minor
      impact), and there aren't a few thousand animals and a few dozen humans
      hanging out in this area. ... that list is pretty much in order of their impact on image-matching.
      What you suggest might work for astronomical anomaly detection. But
      matching two aerial photos taken more than a few seconds apart generates
      so damn much shift that I doubt eyes would see the 2-pixel difference
      of a man standing in one frame but not the other (presuming a pixel per
      square foot).

      It does, however, speak volumes for the *increased* value of just
      sitting tight and making an SOS on the ground, if you're stranded. Given
      that, ten minutes after we learned that lesson as boy scouts, we started
      making bogus SOS markers every time we went hiking, the SOS idea always
      seemed like a colossal waste of time. No more...

      (PS: I live a few hrs north of the area where Fossett is lost, so if you
      see an SOS... oops, my bad).

  131. shorting by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    I suspect that comment meant nothing to your average pimple-face. But it made me laugh.

  132. Re:Question... by G+Fab · · Score: 1

    because it was inclement weather and people are tiny. Have you looked at how grainy the aircraft images are? Obviously if everything were white and you were looking for something with 1% of the area, it wouldn't show up on these images.

  133. Another "I hate Radar" Post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We tracked them just fine, until they crashed into the two towers, and the ground. What's your point again? Say what? The first thing the Terrorists did on 9/11 was to turn off the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) transponders, effectively blinding the FAA controllers. They don't rely on raw radar "paints" anymore for most Commercial stuff."

    They don't seem particularly blind. Your claim is also addressed here as well. So at best you're telling half-truths. The FAA air traffic controllers were blind to attitude, but not location. The primary radar return is your "raw radar paints", although you are correct in implying that it's not solely depended upon in modern aviation.

  134. At the bottom of the ocean? by xkr · · Score: 1

    Steve Fossett passed out at high altitude (as he did once before). His plane has a 563 mile range, which from his take-off point in Nevada includes seven states, Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean. He ran out of gas without waking up, which is why nobody had any radio contact and there are no rescue beacons. It's a loss.

    --
    I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
    1. Re:At the bottom of the ocean? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Yours would only be a possible theory if he were actually flying in an aircraft capable of flight at altitude high enough to bring on hypoxia. He isn't, at least not very easily, so passing out is pretty low on the list. Having flown this type of aircraft myself, they are not exactly equipped with much in the way of instrumentation. Autopilot, very unlikely. It's an aerobatic machine. You lose consciousness in one of these, you very likely make a crater shortly thereafter.

    2. Re:At the bottom of the ocean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His plane has a ceiling of 15,000 feet.

  135. Re:Google Earth by G+Fab · · Score: 1

    Often, that imagery is shot from an airplane, which is why the angles are much more severe. You can tilt to the angle the plane was from and it becomes obvious.

  136. No control pictures by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    I have a small problem: there are no control pictures. Every so many pictures they should put a control picture with a known but unrelated crash site. The example they give in the instructions is not a crashed plane, it's a MSPAINTED plane.

  137. Please digg this story to raise awareness by TimeTrack · · Score: 1

    Please use digg.com to raise awareness of this story - thanks!

    http://digg.com/world_news/Help_find_Steve_Fossett _by_searching_NEW_satellite_imagery

  138. He's hovis. Move on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever he was, he's hovis. Forget about him.

  139. Silly Question by thaWhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've had a quick skim through the replies.... How recent are these images? C:\>

    --
    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
  140. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by Fullerene · · Score: 1

    Seriously, are you are jealous because a bunch of clever people decided to help with this search? You think that the SAR people should have said, "Sorry, no. It wouldn't be fair to other missing people if we let 20,000 geeks help one of their own on this search."

    Jeebus. Even the Marines are allowed to go back and make a special effort at recovery that would not be normally attempted; why not nerds?

    --GMS

  141. Re:Google Earth by eMartin · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing that the flight sim doesn't actually show the planes of all the people using it, otherwise we'd be trying to find a real plane amongst the crashes of all the mouse and keyboard pilots.

  142. Update - Colour sat images for googleearth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    People who are searching for Steve Fossett should update to the latest colo(u)r images for google earth from the latest data refresh.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geoeye-color.kml

    (Please mod up. Posted as AC to prevent karma-whoring. Editors please consider for article update.)

    1. Re:Update - Colour sat images for googleearth by locster · · Score: 1

      Were these images taken at the same time as the b/w ones? If not then the plane at 38 15'31.05"N,119 18'59.08"W must be stationary.

      Also the color images seem a lot darker, they actually make it harder to pick out details, that plane being a good example.

    2. Re:Update - Colour sat images for googleearth by Fullerene · · Score: 1

      I think they are the same source, but maybe they are the result of many hours of processing. These imaging guys can do wonders with a bunch of lucky math and many other tricks of their trade.

      -F

  143. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jep, the images are far too low-quality to find a plane broken into small pieces. however, if it's broken into pieces there's hardly any chance Fosset's still alive. If there's a severed wing or the body of the plane lying somewhere, we might recognize it.

    Ideally, he made a crash landing out there due to lack of fuel or whatever and all means of communications are also broken down, and he's sitting next to his almost-complete aircraft waiting for rescue... but that's not very probable.

  144. Here iare pictures of something like the plane by bgspence · · Score: 1
  145. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

    Friended.

    And I'll give it a go.

    Good on you mate.

    --
    "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
  146. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Fullerene · · Score: 1

    Cheers.

  147. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just waiting for Fosset@home so I can look for him in my spare time

  148. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    I was just thinking the same thing. Missing rich white men has become the online equivalent of missing white blond girls. Sadly people go missing every day. It would be nice if everyone who went missing would get the same attention.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  149. Relatively small area included in search by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    I read in the news that anywhere from 10,000 to 17,000sq. miles is being searched for Fosset's plane. This Google Earth tool only has updated images covering an area of about 500 square miles. I wonder if they plan to expand the area with new images.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

    1. Re:Relatively small area included in search by Punchinello · · Score: 1

      I'm actually now being given locations that cover a much larger area then when I first tried this. It is no longer confined to the 500 sq. miles.

      --

      Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  150. Another simple question by KingofSpades · · Score: 1

    Anyone knows how to turn off the "before" layer ? Viewing both layers at once makes the picture very dark and features are hard to figure out. Thanks.

  151. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by stdarg · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can't believe your post is +5. It's disgusting and racist.

    According to this article, Steve Fossett is "a skilled survivalist who has scaled some of the world's highest peaks and survived several failed attempts to circle the globe in a balloon." So he's been in similar situations before and come out okay. I think that's why there's so much activity -- there's actually a chance he survived. Then there's the fact that he knew a lot of people who were also aviators. In that same article it says a lot of the planes involved in the search are privately owned -- it's the aviation community coming together. So what you're insinuating in your post is that if he were black, still widely known in aviation circles, still a famous survivalist, that there wouldn't be any attention given to him? That's just stupid.

    As for your point about pretty white girls, it's even more ridiculous. Use your common sense... what makes a more interesting story, a young child kidnapped by a stranger or a teenager "kidnapped" by her divorced dad when they cross state lines on the way to Disneyworld without permission? I hope you said the stranger. Now who is more likely to be kidnapped by strangers, a pretty young girl or an ugly young girl? Probably the pretty one, so statistically the stories that do make it to the news are going to be about pretty people. Okay now if the parents are poor or middle class, is that more interesting than millionaire parents who are publicly offering a huge reward? Hmmmmmmm I wonder which one makes a better national news story. Okay now statistically are most rich families white or non-white? So put those pieces together and you can explain 90% of the "racism" you see in the situation.

    You are actually implying that if the pretty 5 year old daughter of a respected and well-known black millionaire was kidnapped by a group of white Satanic cult members, then the story would be brushed aside because nobody cares about black girls. That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but you seem to mean it because you purposely put "white" in front of every description.

    I think you're blinded by anger over racism so strongly that you can't see the obvious facts and causes for any situation that involves race.

  152. And it wasn't so hard by wirefarm · · Score: 1

    3828'55.68"N 11924'18.17"W

    If that's him, it only took me an hour or so to find.

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  153. However by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    You realize that those six crashes would not have to be reported missing, right?

    If they had searched for anyone with the same intensity as now, they would likely have found some of them. Since none of those crashes were found until now, grandparent is wondering if this means that other people have been missing in the area, but search efforts to find them did not only not find the person, but also fail to find the crash sites that were found when searching for Steve fosset.

    --
    I lost my sig.
    1. Re:However by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the question is, has anyone been reported missing in the area before to warrant a search, and the slightly lesser followup question, did they find them right away and call off the searches?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:However by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      I agree that any further discussion hinges on exactly those two points. Would've been interesting to find out.

      --
      I lost my sig.
  154. Re:I, for one... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

    From a state jurisdiction point of view, Nevada is as large as New Jersey. About 84 percent of the land area is some kind of Federal land, whether it be forest, Native reservation, miltary installation, or (yes I gotta say it ) Boom&Shroom (TM) test facility. The dour fact is that the USA is at war and people who fly planes in the wrong places have bad things happen to them. Did he recently or ever express opinions critical of this or any other administration?

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
  155. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

    What's the saying you have? "Perfect is the adversary of good"?

    Those trained people would probably have to skim thousands of images each, or spend so much time that any hope of finding him alive would have been gone.

    While the individual skill of untrained people is lower, they would probably make it up with the amount of time they take per picture. Especially if you have enough to set 5 people on each picture and combine the results.

    --
    I lost my sig.
  156. Search Tips by XenonOfArcticus · · Score: 1

    The imagery is quite dark in many places. I found it useful to copy & paste the image into Photoshop (or GIMP or whatever) and apply an auto levels to it. This often blows it out too light, so if you can blend that 50% with the original, it looks about right. In Photoshop I do this by creating an Adjustment Layer of type Levels (above the original image in the Layers list), setting it to Auto, then setting the layer opacity to 50%. This allows me to paste in a new image right below it in the layer stack and have it take effect immediately.

    Too bad the image quality is compromised by JPEG compression.

    Somewhere I thought you could load a KML (with Overlays) into Google Maps for viewing (http://googlemapsapi.blogspot.com/2006/11/kml-on- google-maps.html) but I can't seem to get this to work with this KML. It is sometimes nice to see a little context to see if the white blob you're looking at is Steve, or just a typical white landscape feature.

    --
    -- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
  157. Someone look here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3816'50.20"N
    11927'8.74"W

    WTF is that?

    1. Re:Someone look here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clarification:

        38 16'50.20"N
      119 27'8.74"W

  158. RADAR Data???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Does anyone know what happened with the radar data they were supposedly looking at?

    Did it turn out they didn't spot him at all? Did they not have any data?

    Just curious....

  159. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by badasscat · · Score: 1

    I submit that if reduced to a single keystroke - not carpel-inducing-mousing clicks, and enlarged 4 times,
    one could expose the average user to 10 times the number of pixels in the same time; moreover, the pixels searched would go up 100 times as people would stay with it longer if it we're so tedious.


    It is a single keystroke. You check the "automatically accept" box and it is one yes or no click on every page.

    As for enlarging the images, the whole point is that the larger the image, the more likely something important is to be missed. Researchers have known about this forever, and it's a pretty common and accepted practice to break down "QA" (for lack of a better term) processes into manageable chunks. An untrained layperson is not going to take the time and care required to properly check an 800x600 image for tiny chunks of airplane. Even a trained person can miss things if the sample is too large.

    In other words, stop your whining.

  160. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    For the crater thing, you'd be wrong: The data is old, yes, but not out-of-date.

    For the Steve Fossett (as distinct from other craters) thing: They provide data from after Steve's disappearance, specifically for the reason you cite. Being able to compare old vs new is handy there.

  161. Display of HITs by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

    Anyone know of an easy way to turn the background color of the page to black? The images aren't too bright, and a bright white background doesn't help.

    1. Re:Display of HITs by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      Following up on myself: In Firefox, set text to white, background to black, and go to View->Style->None.

  162. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have submitted a bit over 1000 now. It's a large haystack and I didn't spot the needle. I flagged two or three pics from the B/W set but after saving the coordinates and looking at them again in the new colour versions, they seemed to be just rocks or such. Nothing interesting appeared in today's colour sessions. Nevertheless, I can say for sure that in the seven million sqm I browsed through there was no clear sign of a crashed plane. Maybe that information helps someone out there. I could have wasted that time in something entirely pointless as is usually the case with my typical weekends.

    Funnily enough, I got "fairness" and "collaboration" among the last Turk captchas...

  163. I'll by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    I'll find it for you, and then keep it. Happy? :)

  164. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather than being an apologist, why don't you actually consume some news?

    When was the last time you saw a news network (or news outlets in general) spend copious amounts of time and energy investigating a missing child or woman who was not white? Remember a couple years ago when there was a rash of young white girls going missing over the summer and the news was nonstop about one girl after another? There was a young black girl (about eight years old) who went missing at the same time. She got a thirty second blurb about her. The white girls had non-stop coverage.

    More than two years later, that Natalie Holloway chick still has hour long shows about her on Fox News.

    Are you telling me that ONLY white girls are ever kidnapped or go missing? Really?

    Or are you honestly agreeing with me that any missing white girl who is relatively well-off will be reported on, but for a black girl to get news attention, she'd have to be kidnapped by white satanists? Because anything less absurd would not be as interesting as any other bland "where'd the white girl go?!" story?

    The facts are on his side, my friend. If you were to watch the news in America, you would be lead to believe that ONLY white girls ever go missing. And that most of those are wealthy blond girls. Christ, our news has even sunk to having to find a pretty little blond four year old girl from a wealthy family OVERSEAS (Madalin Mccaan) in the last six months, rather than report on any number of less affluent and/or less white kids in America.

  165. The US is not at war. Stop spreading that lie. It is engaged in military activity, but not at war with anyone.

    Granted, though, people who fly planes in the wrong places have bad things happen to them. I do believe that those events are significantly logged, and someone would make the connection to a missing airman in their neck of the woods. If it was legitimate, it is regrettable and no more.

    1. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I dunno; I think the US government has been at war with the American people for some time now; most people just don't realize it (yet).

  166. Re:Does this really improve the odds of finding hi by nmg196 · · Score: 1

    So why don't you actually READ the page in question and follow the instructions? Then you'd realise the silly mistake you're making. The original poster is correct - 3 interactions per page.

  167. Google maps/earth ain't gonna cut it!! by sbaker · · Score: 1

    Googles images arent realtime. Their photos may have been taken YEARS ago. The ones on Mechanical Turk have been taken since the crash. Forget what you find on Google - it's a waste of effort.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Google maps/earth ain't gonna cut it!! by catprog · · Score: 1

      Which is why you need to download new data from the kvl file

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  168. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by egorF · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more with you. It's sad to see all this over-cynical comments. ;(

  169. amazon work units increasing, area, false pos by ckedge · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I started to help this morning there were 32,000 work units (called hits, images to be reviewed) available. They were disappearing at a rate of 5-10,000 per hour, meaning that all things being equal there were 50-100 people looking at them.

    However over the past half hour the work units available have been *increasing*. Currently 12,000 and increasing. Clearly they are adding more to be done faster than we're doing them. So anyone who helped out at the beginning - don't assume the hits are "all done". There could be more at any time.

    In my old version of IE I couldn't see the scale bars or the example image, looking at the same coords of a unique scene in google maps I estimated the image was 125m x 125m - which would be half meter resolution. Now I see they claim the images are actually 85x85m, which would be 1.08ft resolution.

    Based on that and that I've done 400 units, that mean's I've searched one full square mile.

    It also means the 32,000 units I saw when I started is only 10 miles x 10 miles, 100 square miles. I heard someone else say that they only have 500 square miles of imagery. Looking at Google Earth, assuming the new imagery is the kinda-rectangular patch that is all the same color/brightness - they have approx 1700 square miles. That means there is approximately 600,000 work units in total that need done. If everone does a square mile (shouldn't take more than an hour) then we need 1700 people helping.

    But as someone else noted - they're really artificially limiting the search area, considering the range on his plane. Assuming he went certain places or crashed on his way back to the ranch. That doesn't bode well.

    PS: It'd be way way more effective if they showed a "image before crash" so that people could self-discover their false positives, without forcing people to download google earth and figure it's before/after out, and/or be smart enough to copy/paste the coords into google-maps satellite view.

    PPS: If they were really smart, they'd have a second private pool of the public's false positives being reviewed by amateurs or employees whom they know have much much smaller false positive rates, whom they know are comparing the two available before images (google maps and google earth) against the current images.

    BTW: Here are images of the actual specific plane he was flying. http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N240R.html (Aviation buffs take pictures and index online everything that flies, apparently :) I'm guessing that although from the side it's mostly blue, that the top of the wings are white.

    1. Re:amazon work units increasing, area, false pos by Synonymous+Dastard · · Score: 1


      However over the past half hour the work units available have been *increasing*. Currently 12,000 and increasing. Clearly they are adding more to be done faster than we're doing them.


      Or, more probably, it's due to a bug and the program cannot handle negative numbers properly. So they are displayed as if they were positive but are still actually "decreasing", and they are (-24000) HITs left.
  170. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bah...replying to my own message.

    Now I'm slightly annoyed. "F*ck it all" would be slightly too harsh but close to my current feelings. Looks like they're pouring more and more pics to that system. Most likely there's a reasonable and even obvious explanation for that. No need to point them out, but...

    This implementation is depressing. Seeing the counter go down kept me motivated. There was a feeling of progress. I thought we'd be ready soon and I could go and do my own stuff. Suddenly thousands of new pics appear. Are we getting anywhere? Have they found anything? Are they making us browse through the very same images over and over again, just because it's free? The last scenario is unlikely but it still disturbs me. Look, they have money to spend. They decided to make this a $0.00 task. It's OK to me but how about SOME KIND OF STATUS REPORT, goddammit? Or even a tiny thankyou message? Or any feedback at all?

    Now I feel like THIS is the most pointless thing I've ever done in my free time. I'd like to be proven wrong. Oh well, keep those 1360 units. I did it voluntarily and that's fine. Anyway, I won't spend any more time on a seemingly infinite task.

    If I sound grumpy, it's because the caffeine is wearing out and I've got nothing else done today.

  171. ANOTHER MISSING PERSON - PLEASE LOOK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please look for Peter J. Winston while you are at it.

  172. Where to report coordinates? by juliannoble · · Score: 1

    For about an hour, I was using mechanical turk, as well as just flying around using google earth - and found what appear to be a couple of planes already. One of them I flagged using mturk, but the other I just stumbled upon - so I reported it against an mturk image that had nothing interesting in it, but gave the coordinates in the comment box.. Now apparently there are a few plane wrecks in the area.. but is there a list somewhere of coordinates that have already been flagged? The ones I found are at: Lat 3828'55.83"N Lon 11924'18.20"W and Lat 3827'2.65"N Lon 11925'25.48"W

    1. Re:Where to report coordinates? by juliannoble · · Score: 1

      Well.. the one at 38 28'55.83 N 119 24 19.10 W Show up on the new hi-res photos.. but when I look at this point on maps.google.com - it's not there. So.. could be a recent crash.

    2. Re:Where to report coordinates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is about 25 miles from the airfield with wingspan of 28-32 feet. Would be good to get confirmation if this was a known site.

    3. Re:Where to report coordinates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That plane looks like it is in the air to me. Probably a search plane but certainly something to report.

  173. Is color imagery different from B&W or not? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

    Downloaded GeoEye-lkonos-1M & started looking at Google earth. The link is what I saw at 38.28.55.70 119.24.18.17. Sure looks like a plane on the ground.
    http://ispmaster.net/ccc/plane.jpg This plane has been reported on B&W maps, but here is what I want to know- are the new color overlay just color version of same pictures as B&W - or is this a new set of pictures? Because if it is not same pictures, that completely changes the going theory that its a plane in the air.

    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
  174. is that a plane? by egorF · · Score: 1

    3822'30.29"N 11920'44.72"W - very bright spot.

    1. Re:is that a plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like something you should report.

    2. Re:is that a plane? by ckedge · · Score: 1

      No.

      Punch it into google maps, switch to satellite view, and zoom in. It becomes clear that the green thing right below the bright object is a house, and right where the bright object is, that's all the things in that person's back yard.

      A reflection from a car windshield or something. Bright reflections will often create pixel bleed, thus instead of a single bright point, there's the bright point plus a streak downwards.

      Definitely NOT a plane.

    3. Re:is that a plane? by egorF · · Score: 1

      they say you have to download current (as it: taken couple of days ago) coverage to Google Earth software (not a web version). Then you will see something very bright and possibly a plane.

  175. I maybe found some older wreckage by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What do you think about

      38 27'2.88"N 119 25'25.17"W

    as possible wreckage of another plane, from some time ago?

    I think this is a great chance to go back and bring closure to those families of people missing in unrecovered crashes in the past, in the area. I hope they go ahead and let the survey complete, even if they find Fossett soon.

    1. Re:I maybe found some older wreckage by ckedge · · Score: 1

      In google-maps satellite view it looks more like a couple rocks.

    2. Re:I maybe found some older wreckage by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

      I looked in Google Earth, zoomed down to 1K feet or so, and couldn't be sure it wasn't an overgrown old site. That's why multiple people will be looking, I'm sure :)

  176. Re:Found a plane... - coordinates off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually see the plane at these coordinates:

      38 28'55.76"N
    119 24'18.15"W

    That is about 900 feet southeast of where your mark is. I'm using the Linux version of Google Earth. Just wondering if your coordinates are a little off or if there is a difference between versions of the app.

  177. Sample Imagery is all black? by dukw_butter · · Score: 1

    Example of the size of object to look for. The white plane shown above (30 pixel wingspan by 21 pixels by length) is approximately the size of Steve's plane.

    Why is the sample image that's supposed to show Steve's plane all black? Does anyone else see this?

    "Hint: If you're using GEarth, and not seeing a black and white photo, you're doing something wrong."-An Onerous Coward

    Um, no. The images are not black and white in Google Earth. I opened the http://s3.amazonaws.com/fossett/geoeye-color.kml file, and turned off all of the layers as described, including "terrain". My images are definitely not black and white. They're not day-glo green and red, but they're defintely not just black and white and shades of gray.

  178. How about this object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    38 26'51.07"N
    119 16'51.55"W

    Should be directly under the cursor (uncheck the coordinate so the cursor doesn't cover the object). I counted it as a positive hit.

    1. Re:How about this object? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its on the old image as well.

  179. Re:Some people are apparently more important than. by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
    What this means to ME, is that it takes a high-profile case such as this to mobilize enough people to use technology to help out. After this case, maybe some people will make a habit out of checking out some search&rescue operation and try to lend a hand in order to find some nobody.

    Remember, in this case, it is the PUBLIC that is helping out, not the government in particular. They're helping out simply because the guy is well known, and the technology is there. The government didn't create the technology, the people did. After this case, the technology will still be there, and there will still be people helping out. Remember, the glass is half-full, and maybe Fosset's (possible) death will help some unfortunates in coming years.

  180. Rechecked with the new color maps by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 1

    Ok, I noticed that the amazon link now has some updated (color) maps. NOTE: These are offset from the old (b/w) maps, so you need to look around for identifying landmarks to pinpoint the same location.

    For example, my best bet a hit was:

    38.1309, -119.462

    The plane-shape is still there in the new color maps, but the contrast is lower (so it's probably a plane-shaped clearing or rock). The new coordinates, however, are:

    38.127, -119.461

    or about 1450 feet offset.

    This offset fits perfectly with the landmarks in the area (which are also offset by that amount).

  181. My experience by DanielLee50 · · Score: 1

    I know this is a new system and that the operators will learn a lot this time around. I would like to make a couple of suggestions from a completely uneducated position.

    For me it would be easier if you started with a big image of where the updated photos were taken.

    If the big image was divied into sections (indicated by dotted lines) which fit my screen at the colsest possible altitude then I could search vertically or horizontally in a straight line starting at the location of my choice.

    Have a main page with each and every image listed. Each time someone searches an image it is marked. There is also an indication of how many times that area has been searched.

    Show me where Steve took off from and let me choose an image which either has not been searched yet or has a low number of searches completed on it. I can then go over that area (at the closest resolution) in a vertical and or horizontal line to cover that area.

    A color on the main map could also indicate areas searched and the number of times they have been searched.

    If possible use colored lines to show where search aircraft have passed over.

    If possible use different filters to take the image which would show things like heat, metal, etc.

    Onward through the fog.

    --
    Five minutes at a time
  182. Coordinates of other discovered crash sites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know if they published the coordinates of the other half dozen old crash sites that were found while searching for Fossett? It would be interesting to see what an actually crash site looks like in this imagery.

  183. and yet, they've located 6 other missing aircraft by SpectralDesign · · Score: 1

    True, most missing persons don't leave giant scorch marks behind, but the search for Steve Fossett has apparently lead to the discovery of 6 other missing aircraft, so there's that...

    --
    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
  184. Obviously the Reptillians got him by Chaos+Motor · · Score: 1

    No other explanation really. He was getting too close to commercial spaceflight so the Reptilians have taken him. It's the logical conclusion.

  185. Automated color searching? by Buckler · · Score: 1

    Since the plane is apparently mostly blue, and the search area appears to be mainly scrub and rock, would it be possible to automate a grid search over the area via Google Earth, and have the system automatically tag any significant areas of blue for later examination?

  186. Re:and yet, they've located 6 other missing aircra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I ever go missing I hope my loved ones "arrange" for a rich person to go missing in the same area.

  187. For those nay-sayers by CharonX · · Score: 1

    For those nay-sayers that whine "But we aren't trained SARs experts. We won't know a shadow from an actual plane.":
    We do not need to. If it looks like a plane, like somthing plowed through the trees, or (let's hope not) a big crater - Flag it! I spend some time looking at what I can only describe as "only lots of bloody landscape and even more bloody landscape", sometimes roads, sometimes a couple of trees or even a forest, but nothing that even remotely looked like a plane or remains of a plane. And thus the real SARs experts don't have to spend maybe 1/10 of the time looking at the same boring landscape and conclude, "nope he aint here". Of course we are far less efficient, but in the end we save the SARs experts time, because, ya know, they don't have to waste their time looking at nothing, but can concentrate at more promising pictures.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  188. Re:Obligatory question in capitalist America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually -- searching for Mr. Fossett helps a lot of people. It's probably already been noted here that there are say 150 airplane wrecks in the western US that haven't been found, and this search effort has been turning up about one a day since it started. So in my mind, every minute spent searching for this guy is a minute spent on these other people, which will certainly bring closure for a few families out there.

  189. RescueSteveFossett.com by Backyard+Billy · · Score: 1

    Post your findings on RescueSteveFossett.com.

  190. I've found Steve Fossett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found Steve Fossett (the missing cruise missle from the recent incident involving a B-52) everyone's looking for. I want a reward of £1 billion, I may be willing to negotiate.

    email: newalias at hotmail dot com

  191. Let Fossett Walk Home if he's still alive by domokuns · · Score: 1

    In the past few days they went looking for this guy they found the wreckage of about six other planes of varying ages. Let him walk out if he's still alive. If this guy really wants to be known for breaking records here's his opportunity.
    Armchair record breaking in baloon chair pods and fancy planes is one thing beating the elements in a real situation is another.
    Sounds like publicity to me.

  192. I've found Steve Fossett by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found Steve Fossett (the missing cruise missle from the recent incident involving a B-52) everyone's looking for. I want a reward of £1 billion, I may be willing to negotiate.

    email: newalias at hotmail dot co dot uk

  193. Re:Question... by G+Fab · · Score: 1

    I guess you have to question the effectiveness of a system like that. There would be millions of false positives (and I do not think that the person would be distinctly a different color from above.

    How many people can you see in these new satellite images? Because I can guarantee you there are hundreds of people walking around down there.

  194. This look like a plane to you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    38 15'54.84"N, 119 29'56.87"W
    Found and tagged this on mturk.

    It's roughly plane-shaped and -sized, doesn't quite fit in with the surroundings, and wasn't there on the old imagery (though it's difficult to compare because the old and new images don't align properly).

    What do other people think?