Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-your-face-out-there dept.

Geoffrey.landis writes "Terry Southgate discovered that his wife Wendy appears on the Google Street View of his neighborhood not once or twice but a whopping 43 times. From the article: 'It seems as if the Street View car simply followed the same route as Wendy and Trixie. However, Wendy was a little suspicious that the car was doing something on the "tricksie" side. Several of the Street View shots show Wendy looking with some concern towards the car that was, well, to put it politely, crawling along the curb. "I didn't know what it was doing. It was just driving round very, very slowly," Wendy told the Sun.' The next best thing to being a movie star — a Street View star!"

106 comments

  1. This Gang Warfare Must Stop by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

    I knew that gang violence had gotten bad in some parts of the world but now even Google vans have become roving death squads spewing bullets. What? Was there a Bing van behind her or something? Forty three shots! How many clips is that and will they be holding Brin and Page accountable?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by eldavojohn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Shut up and die.

      TrisexualPuppy suffers three times the amount of normal puberty angst!

      It's alright, TP, I still love you.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by ae1294 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Depends on the handgun but probably 4 clips. Then again it was probably 2 if they used an AR-17 but it could have just been 1 if Google paid for the 100 round mag...

      I agree that things must be bad now that Google feels the need to take out Bring users in the middle of the day. What if children had been near by!

      Do no evil... right... Maybe Google should think of the children and call off there holly war...

    3. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Google Street View Shoots the Same Woman 43 Times

      Bet she's getting tired of that.

    4. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Consider that it's vehicle based, and they drive an awful lot. To get that much shooting done, they're using a belt fed gun. Magazines are for portability. Belts are for throwing lots of ammunition down range. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm picturing a team of Googlers driving by in a black van, holding out their cameras sideways while busting some pictures now. :P

    6. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Funny

      My thought in response to this new information - "Only 43 times?"

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by ManlySpork · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually most modern handguns are loaded using magazines. There is an easy way to differentiate between clips and magazines, sadly people, especially the media are most often mistaken. I'm not guaranteeing this method of differentiation has a 100% accuracy, but: If it holds bullets and is used to slide the bullets into the weapon (into it's magazine well). It's a clip. If it hold bullets and is inserted into the weapon, it's a magazine. Some people might say, they both hold bullets, what does it matter? I reply to that with this: RAM, Hard Disk Drives, they both have GB's, what does it matter?

    8. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by khallow · · Score: 2, Funny

      I imagine she thought they were just run of the mill gangsters and hoods. You have to for extreme danger. If you see someone start to flash one of these signs, you have half a minute to several minutes before the bullets start flying (depending on the dexterity of the signer). Use that time wisely.

    9. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Well considering how much money Google has I'm surprised they haven't upgraded their van's to use laser turrets that run off small but powerful nuclear batteries...

      They could just drop the vans and vaporize human target from space! Lets all hope they never get that Google moon base fully operational!

    10. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by VanGarrett · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Depends on the handgun but probably 4 clips. Then again it was probably 2 if they used an AR-17 but it could have just been 1 if Google paid for the 100 round mag...

      But does it run Droid?

      --
      Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
    11. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by newdsfornerds · · Score: 1

      They cut the poor woman in half!

      --
      Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
    12. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I had a Calico M-100 with a hundred round clip but it was .22LR. They also made 9mm but that only went up to 50 round.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    13. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by not+flu · · Score: 1

      Maybe some of the bullets missed.

    14. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's no moon, that's a data center!

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    15. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by lytithwyn · · Score: 1

      You beat me to the punch! I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets irked when people say clip instead of magazine. I wish I had some mod points for you!

    16. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          They wouldn't use nuclear power. They have Naquadah generators. Small, powerful, and if you overload it, strong enough to level a city. Oh, what they would do to Beijing.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    17. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by CrankyFool · · Score: 1

      What about En-Bloc clips for the M1 Garand? Holds a bunch of cartridges (and seriously, you can't be all pedantic about clip vs magazine and then get the cartridge/bullet thing wrong :) ), slides into the gun. Thoughts?

      I've seen it defined (IMHO better) thus:

      Clips hold rounds, but typically at least a part of each round protrudes from the clip;
      Magazines encase rounds.

    18. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Some people might say, they both hold bullets, what does it matter?

      Don't forget, they also hold casings, primers, and powder, in addition to the bullets. These cool, modern inventions are called "cartridges".

    19. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by sowth · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when you say magazine, don't most people get confused and think you are talking about pornography?

    20. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

          That's a strong justification for government mandated gun control. Every bullet should hit its target. The people need to be trained better.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    21. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      They aren't "clips" they are magazines. Clips hold rounds of ammunition for insertion into a magazine. AR-17? You mean AR-15, right, I find it highly unlikely you are familiar with the very rare AR-17 shotgun, but I could be wrong. In this context though, I doubt it. If you are wondering how many MAGAZINES of ammo used in a handgun would be 43 rounds, 3 would be the most likely, assuming a regular 9mm handgun. Mag capacity varies depending on the gun and caliber of ammo used. If one uses a handgun based on a rifle, like an AK-47 pistol, or an AR-15 pistol, there are 75 round and larger drums available; so it's largely a question of how much gun geekery do you want to get into?

    22. Re:This Gang Warfare Must Stop by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      AR-17? You mean AR-15, right

      Woooosh!

  2. Update of the classic by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's Waldo? Now Where's Wendy!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Update of the classic by swb · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it's "Wenda" not Wendy.

  3. Blocked streets? by topham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In a country known for the government being big brother they are blocking streets so google can't take pictures? What?

    1. Re:Blocked streets? by zero_out · · Score: 0

      It's also a country known for establishing colonies, then angering with their overbearing government, to the point of inducing rebellion and the formation of a new superpower.

    2. Re:Blocked streets? by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

      erm - "they" are citizens keeping Google out of "their" street. The opposite of Big Brother.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    3. Re:Blocked streets? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      That's easy. Everyone knows Big Brother is there for their own protection. He sees all to make sure we're safe. we all trust Big Brother to protect us. Well, unless Big Brother sees we did something he didn't like, then there's nowhere to hide.

          Google, on the other hand, is just invading our privacy by taking pictures.

          Photography is illegal, or so I was told when I was taking photographs from a public road. It's amazing how quick you can get the sheriffs department and Homeland Security on you for just having a camera in the wrong place. Apparently you can request a photography pass, but you have to apply for it in advance, and the request won't be granted.

          Now I've opted for photography with a DSLR mounted on a telescope. It's obvious when I'm taking photos from 100 feet away, but less obvious when I'm taking the same photo from a few miles away. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Blocked streets? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      ... did you happen to notice that there was a police car following the Google car? It was both Big Brother *AND* Google. Road blocks or no road blocks, Google is coming in with a police escort.

          Coming soon: Google House View - See the inside of every house.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:Blocked streets? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      But not literally opposite, since they don't seem to oppose Big Brother itself.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:Blocked streets? by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let this be a lesson to you boys and girls. Sure, you might be able to offload a bunch of religulous crazies by shipping them somewhere else. But you run the risk that by some strange fluke, the natives won't murder them in their beds, and pretty soon, you have a whole continent full of religulous crazies with nukes.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    7. Re:Blocked streets? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Big Brother does not tolerate competition. It also does not like giving people ability to see what Big Brother sees, I wouldn't be surprised if they forbade Google from doing this altogether at some point.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    8. Re:Blocked streets? by orasio · · Score: 1

      In a country known for the government being big brother they are blocking streets so google can't take pictures? What?

      I don't know about you, but if I absolutely _had_ to choose someone to take pictures of me, I'd much rather prefer it was the government that I can hold accountable, instead of a multinational corporation. I'm intrigued about your reasoning, though.

    9. Re:Blocked streets? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal, if they told you that they were either misinformed or lying. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy, if it can be seen from public space, it's unlikely to be considered private by legal definitions. But IANAL so YMMV.

    10. Re:Blocked streets? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arguing with a cop over the finer points of the law also isn't illegal, but it might as well be.

    11. Re:Blocked streets? by theaveng · · Score: 2, Informative

      America

      Canada

      Australia

      India

      Yeah that planned worked really well for the British. The funny thing is that they never learned their lesson, and just keep pissing-off the colonists.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    12. Re:Blocked streets? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      However, arguing with a mall rentacop over the finer points of law is downright fun. After the real cops arrive then you get all polite and stuff (and do what they say, because they have handcuffs, guns, and Miranda cards, and while in theory you will get your property (camera) back, in reality this is not always the case).

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    13. Re:Blocked streets? by sowth · · Score: 1

      It is illegal when they claim it is against "national security" to take pictures. "National security" is a vague enough concept that they can claim just about anything is in the interest of "national security."

    14. Re:Blocked streets? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      That's the difference between what law enforcement says, and what the real law says. When a uniformed DHS officer is standing in front of you saying that you're endangering national security you have two choices. You can say "Sorry sir, I won't take any pictures and I will be leaving now.", or you can argue the point, end up in handcuffs and be taken away to jail so your lawyer can (hopefully) argue that there was nothing illegal about doing it. When the representative of the government says "It was for national security issues, which cannot be discussed without everyone having the necessary security clearance, and even then it's on a need to know basis. I therefore cannot disclose the reasons for it. Suffice it to say he was intentionally endangering national security."

          We all have to know when is a good time to fight, and when is a time to gracefully step away from a freedom endangering situation. I'm sure there will be better incidents to fight against. In my situation, since there were no witnesses other than myself, a friend, DHS and SO, if I disappeared under the guise of national security, no one would ever know where I went or why.

          If you're interested, these are the photos that weren't shot.

          Why do I hear silent black helicopters over my house, and what's that black van doing parked out front?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:Blocked streets? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, I wouldn't say illegal, but it can be downright unhealthy. I've never been on the unhealthy side of a taser, CS gas, nor pepper spray, but I've experienced them as parts of various trainings. Well, only the direct contact stun gun, not the projectile version. None were very pleasant.

          I don't particularly like the idea of spending extensive time with a LEO where they're trying to find any reason to take me in. "Have you been drinking" is never best responded with "I haven't, but you sure look drunk."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Blocked streets? by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Canada and Australia still recognize the queen as their head of state. The brits never pissed them off enough to rebel, hell the US even tried invading canada because they still supported the brits.

    17. Re:Blocked streets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those restrictions are simply in place to protect the currently existing government monopoly on espionage!

    18. Re:Blocked streets? by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      The saddest thing is, the have been news about exactly that.
      Putting cameras in bars and people's homes. Naturally the 'foot in the door' is the 'stop crime blahblah' but what will stop them from going full monty?
      Ya know, it is just to protect the children against the NaziZeoniteIslamofashistCommunist threat.

    19. Re:Blocked streets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to school for you, to learn that your war of independence was about the commercial interests of the founding fathers, not freedom or control. Hint: the mother country was undercutting their businesses.

    20. Re:Blocked streets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The next best thing to being a movie star-- a Street View star!"

      This is the typical British attitude, and it is the reason Big Brother is able to exist.

    21. Re:Blocked streets? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      I believe the police have pointed out to people who suggest they're going to do that, that it would be a criminal offence. I think the offence is still called "Obstructing the Queen's Highway" or it might just be "Causing an Obstruction".

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    22. Re:Blocked streets? by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, someone actually remembered the previous story. That's why I said it.

          In reality, we already have a look into quite a few homes. Look at all the places people post pictures of themselves at.

          Some people are kind enough to put wireless web cams in, on unsecured wireless networks. You can simply park in front of their house, and see inside. Some people use wireless cameras which simply broadcast out the signal if you have the appropriate receiver. Google Maps is nice enough to have a webcam overlay to see webcams in an area.

          The 1984 idea of big brother watching through the television isn't really that far off. Big Brother already knows what you're watching through your smart set top box. They already know your recording preferences through your DVR. I'd be willing to bet a good bit of profiling can be done through that information. Does the target watch a lot of "true crime" shows? Either he's interested in watching bad guys get caught, or interested in the methods to avoid detection.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  4. This is a new record! by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The breaks the record held by Amadou Diallo, who was shot 41 times... by the NYPD.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  5. Followed the same route? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    How do we know that the “concerned” woman wasn’t following the street view car, rather than the other way ’round?

    In fact, it sort of sounds like that’s what happened... she followed the suspicious vehicle around for a while, and then she turns up in Google’s street view. Surprise!

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:Followed the same route? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Well, I've seen the street view car a couple times in my city, and trust me, you can't keep up with it without sprinting. She doesn't appear sprinting in any of those pictures.

    2. Re:Followed the same route? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, but it has to hit the side streets as well. She caught up to it again at least twice.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:Followed the same route? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Actually went to the address provided by the article.

      96 Cross Street, Mid Suffolk, England, United Kingdom

      She's barely in the initial panorama. But she's out ahead of the location of the Google Van. You have to "step" forward several times before anything other than her back is visible.

      She just happened to be slowly walking her dog on the day that the Google van drove by.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:Followed the same route? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It passed her by, but it diverted off on some side streets and she caught up to it a few more times as it drove around. So she does appear quite a few times.

      Links here, I’m too lazy to repeat it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  6. Now they' done it. by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All her neighbors now know she is the one who isn't cleaning up after her dog.

  7. Another way to play with the paranoid by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

    Wow, this must have really freaked her out. Not only the whole follow-her-around thing (which is just creepy enough to be hilarious), but imagine if she did a search and found her own likeness time after time.

    This should be done more often as a very excellent prank. Bonus points if you catch someone doing something embarrassing.

    1. Re:Another way to play with the paranoid by gooman · · Score: 1

      Bonus points if you catch someone doing something embarrassing.

      I thought that was what YouTube was for.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
  8. In case anybody missed it... by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Update of the classic Where’s Waldo

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  9. Definitely not interested in Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If she had any privacy concerns they are dead now. After that smiling interview to the Sun with her husband and telling the world where she lives, it seems ironical that Google took the pains to obscure her face.

    1. Re:Definitely not interested in Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea who she was, I do know...

      So did far more damage to her "privacy" then Google did.

    2. Re:Definitely not interested in Privacy by fyrewulff · · Score: 1

      They didn't take any pains.. they automatically blur faces and license plates with an algorithm (it tends to catch non-face and non-license plate type things sometimes)

      --
      "We need to get over this notion, that, for Apple to win... Microsoft must lose." - Steve Jobs, 1997
  10. Direct Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Mid+Suffolk,+96+Cross+Street,+United+Kingdom&sll=40.459641,-79.946434&sspn=0.01249,0.013304&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=96+Cross+St,+Elmswell,+IP30+9,+United+Kingdom&ll=52.232307,0.91356&spn=0,0.021479&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=52.232275,0.913747&panoid=xMXcXyWefCGivDb6qoFlaQ&cbp=12,292.34,,0,18.65

  11. Followed? I don't think so. by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have a look at the Street View:

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=96+cross+st,+mid+suffolk,+united+kingdom&oe=utf8&safe=active&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=96+Cross+St,+Elmswell,+IP30+9,+United+Kingdom&gl=us&ei=Gu7VS82_EpLmswPGtujFCQ&ved=0CAoQ8gEwAA&ll=52.232355,0.913327&spn=0.000941,0.002835&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.232378,0.913198&panoid=mqYHojIBcpgVM_XiBp0gMw&cbp=12,102.99,,0,16.42

    Looks to me like she was walking her dog, and the Google Car drove by, passed her, and kept on going.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Followed? I don't think so. by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah. That’s what happened. Nobody followed anybody, their routes just happened to intersect a few times.

      I knew it was kind of silly anyway, because Google street view is always going to take half a dozen pictures of the same thing as it drives down the street. 43 seems much, but if it passed her a few times it’s not surprising.

      For those interested, it starts with the Street view car approaching her, first sighting her here and driving past, turning onto Cooks Rd. (there’s one step at which she isn’t in the picture because it was filmed when the car returned to film the rest of Cross St.), and she’s still visible from a good distance down Cooks. Then the car turned off to other streets and when it returned to film more of Cooks Rd, there she was; the car turned onto Thedwastre Close and she’s barely still visible but once again the street view car hits some side streets and when it drives past she’s caught up to it again.

      I wasn’t counting, and I don’t really care to look through the whole neighbourhood to find out whether she ran into the car a few more times...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Followed? I don't think so. by JumpDrive · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the links.
      For a fuzzy blurr , she's kind of hot.

    3. Re:Followed? I don't think so. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, the dog is totally hot.

  12. Is that a police car behind google? by f00zbll · · Score: 1

    I don't know what police cars look like in UK, but the car behind google "might" be a cop car. If that's the case, maybe he was going slow to avoid getting pulled over?

    1. Re:Is that a police car behind google? by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is a police car. And “Google Street View Shoots Police Car 43 Times” would be equally amusing, IMHO.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  13. Wardriving by idontgno · · Score: 1

    you're doing it wrong

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  14. Happens frequently on Discovery Channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happens very often when they film animals in the wilderness looking at film crew wondering what the humans are doing.

  15. TFA asks if 43 is the record... by thwack328 · · Score: 1

    This biker got photographed at least 53 times.

    (Although he might have been aware of that...)

  16. I know others by nuggz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Happened to a few people I know, not surprising, the same vehicle drives several nearby streets throughout the day.
    If it's a nice day, and you're running around, you're likely to get a few photos taken.

    1. Re:I know others by jopsen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what can happen if you go outside... :)

  17. Who's walking down the streets of the city by stkpogo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Smiling at everybody she sees

    Everyone Knows It's Wendy

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

  18. Clone, get a job, ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject above, and consider it.

  19. The lady was the stalker by RJBeery · · Score: 1

    While it's possible that the photographing vehicle was "stalking" her, I find it just as likely that she was walking alongside the vehicle. Otherwise, how could you explain that this poor old lady happened to be in 43 different locations that the vehicle wanted to record?? 43 pics of the front of her house? Unlikely.

  20. Is she hot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're all thinking it.

    1. Re:Is she hot? by sowth · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know. They didn't use a thermal imaging camera.

  21. I've seen better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some guys hunted the van down

    1. Re:I've seen better by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      What impresses me most is the two deck-chairs and the umbrella by the side of the road. I wonder how long they were waiting for it.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  22. It's a brilliant marketing ploy. by Noland150 · · Score: 1

    She will soon be selling an SVO service. Search Vehicle Optimization.

  23. You're too lazy (and stupid) to get a job Clone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clone, get a job. You are lazy. Then again, it's tough to get a job when you have no skills other than sitting on your behind on slashdot all day.

  24. Wow, 43 times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is she dead yet?

  25. But the real question is... by Phoe6 · · Score: 1

    Why not 42?

    --
    Senthil
  26. 43? More like 5 by billstclair · · Score: 1

    I guess if you count all the photos at each location, you might get 43, but I can see the lady and her dog from only 5 locations. Start at Anonymous Coward's Direct Link, back up a couple of steps, go north on Cooks road, rotating to look south, and back up a couple more steps. The cop car keeps following for a little while, but the lady disappears.

  27. Why are you lying and libelling others in your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your signature Clone, however, isn't Jeremy Reimer the guy who had parts of his website removed for libelling APK by his hosting provider and Reimer was caught email harassing APK by his ISP, Shaw of Canada, when Shaw put Reimer on a tracking ticket for it (which Reimer promptly ceased his email harassment of APK once he was aware of that happening), and arstechnica strangely no longer puts up articles by the blatantly unqualified Jeremy Reimer? Jeremy Reimer and his friends Jay Little also had their websites removed entirely from CrystalTech.com and from petitiononline.com also, because of their making death threats to APK just because APK showed that Exchange Server stalls due to memory fragmentation are stopped when a memory optimization program is used (microsoft's own called clearmem.exe) after Jay Little, whom Jeremy Reimer brought in because Reimer doesn't even have a degree or years to decades of professional hands-on experience in the trenches doing computer work, failed in stating verbatim "I am an Exchange Expert" and when Jay Little saw what APK put up, he tried to harass APK by nitpicking his posts at NTCompatible.com also, where Little stalked APK there and failed on issues regarding ramdisks/ssd and also Windows own error codes/crash codes which got Jay Little kicked from NTCompatible.com as it did on Channel 9 at Microsoft also? Seems that was what happened at Windows IT Pro here http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html which anyone can read. So much for your libelling others Clone. You can't even get that right.

  28. That's because... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    She's slow.

  29. Clone, libelling others is against the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your signature Clone, however, isn't Jeremy Reimer the guy who had parts of his website removed for libelling APK by his hosting provider and Reimer was caught email harassing APK by his ISP, Shaw of Canada, when Shaw put Reimer on a tracking ticket for it (which Reimer promptly ceased his email harassment of APK once he was aware of that happening), and arstechnica strangely no longer puts up articles by the blatantly unqualified Jeremy Reimer? Jeremy Reimer and his friends Jay Little also had their websites removed entirely from CrystalTech.com and from petitiononline.com also, because of their making death threats to APK just because APK showed that Exchange Server stalls due to memory fragmentation are stopped when a memory optimization program is used (microsoft's own called clearmem.exe) after Jay Little, whom Jeremy Reimer brought in because Reimer doesn't even have a degree or years to decades of professional hands-on experience in the trenches doing computer work, failed in stating verbatim "I am an Exchange Expert" and when Jay Little saw what APK put up, he tried to harass APK by nitpicking his posts at NTCompatible.com also, where Little stalked APK there and failed on issues regarding ramdisks/ssd and also Windows own error codes/crash codes which got Jay Little kicked from NTCompatible.com as it did on Channel 9 at Microsoft also? Seems that was what happened at Windows IT Pro here http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html which anyone can read. So much for your libelling others Clone. You can't even get that right and you certainly like lies and libel, which are against the law in the USA and in other nations also.

  30. Is that a police car behind Clone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your signature Clone, however, isn't Jeremy Reimer the guy who had parts of his website removed for libelling APK by his hosting provider and Reimer was caught email harassing APK by his ISP, Shaw of Canada, when Shaw put Reimer on a tracking ticket for it (which Reimer promptly ceased his email harassment of APK once he was aware of that happening), and arstechnica strangely no longer puts up articles by the blatantly unqualified Jeremy Reimer? Jeremy Reimer and his friends Jay Little also had their websites removed entirely from CrystalTech.com and from petitiononline.com also, because of their making death threats to APK just because APK showed that Exchange Server stalls due to memory fragmentation are stopped when a memory optimization program is used (microsoft's own called clearmem.exe) after Jay Little, whom Jeremy Reimer brought in because Reimer doesn't even have a degree or years to decades of professional hands-on experience in the trenches doing computer work, failed in stating verbatim "I am an Exchange Expert" and when Jay Little saw what APK put up, he tried to harass APK by nitpicking his posts at NTCompatible.com also, where Little stalked APK there and failed on issues regarding ramdisks/ssd and also Windows own error codes/crash codes which got Jay Little kicked from NTCompatible.com as it did on Channel 9 at Microsoft also? Seems that was what happened at Windows IT Pro here http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html which anyone can read. So much for your libelling others Clone. You can't even get that right and you certainly like lies and libel, which are against the law in the USA and in other nations also.

  31. Clone, lies and libel are your style? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your signature Clone, however, isn't Jeremy Reimer the guy who had parts of his website removed for libelling APK by his hosting provider and Reimer was caught email harassing APK by his ISP, Shaw of Canada, when Shaw put Reimer on a tracking ticket for it (which Reimer promptly ceased his email harassment of APK once he was aware of that happening), and arstechnica strangely no longer puts up articles by the blatantly unqualified Jeremy Reimer? Jeremy Reimer and his friends Jay Little also had their websites removed entirely from CrystalTech.com and from petitiononline.com also, because of their making death threats to APK just because APK showed that Exchange Server stalls due to memory fragmentation are stopped when a memory optimization program is used (microsoft's own called clearmem.exe) after Jay Little, whom Jeremy Reimer brought in because Reimer doesn't even have a degree or years to decades of professional hands-on experience in the trenches doing computer work, failed in stating verbatim "I am an Exchange Expert" and when Jay Little saw what APK put up, he tried to harass APK by nitpicking his posts at NTCompatible.com also, where Little stalked APK there and failed on issues regarding ramdisks/ssd and also Windows own error codes/crash codes which got Jay Little kicked from NTCompatible.com as it did on Channel 9 at Microsoft also? Seems that was what happened at Windows IT Pro here http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html which anyone can read. So much for your libelling others Clone. You can't even get that right and you certainly like lies and libel, which are against the law in the USA and in other nations also.

  32. Clone likes to lie and libel others online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your signature Clone, however, isn't Jeremy Reimer the guy who had parts of his website removed for libelling APK by his hosting provider and Reimer was caught email harassing APK by his ISP, Shaw of Canada, when Shaw put Reimer on a tracking ticket for it (which Reimer promptly ceased his email harassment of APK once he was aware of that happening), and arstechnica strangely no longer puts up articles by the blatantly unqualified Jeremy Reimer? Jeremy Reimer and his friends Jay Little also had their websites removed entirely from CrystalTech.com and from petitiononline.com also, because of their making death threats to APK just because APK showed that Exchange Server stalls due to memory fragmentation are stopped when a memory optimization program is used (microsoft's own called clearmem.exe) after Jay Little, whom Jeremy Reimer brought in because Reimer doesn't even have a degree or years to decades of professional hands-on experience in the trenches doing computer work, failed in stating verbatim "I am an Exchange Expert" and when Jay Little saw what APK put up, he tried to harass APK by nitpicking his posts at NTCompatible.com also, where Little stalked APK there and failed on issues regarding ramdisks/ssd and also Windows own error codes/crash codes which got Jay Little kicked from NTCompatible.com as it did on Channel 9 at Microsoft also? Seems that was what happened at Windows IT Pro here http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/41095/the-memory-optimization-hoax.html which anyone can read. So much for your libelling others Clone. You can't even get that right and you certainly like lies and libel, which are against the law in the USA and in other nations also.

  33. Clone I see you like to libel others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But basically, I support the law http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1629374&cid=31995628" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday April 27, @02:40AM (#31995628)

    Ahem: Bullshit - Clone, I noted that you also called APK, the person you refer to in your signature here, a "spyware maker" http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31736454 , but he noted that Nir Sofer and Dr. Mark Russinovich have also had many of their wares classified falsely as spywares too, and that he took CA's 21 point test and his app did not violate a single point of their test and they downrated his app to "zero threat levels" because of this. APK also put up the very first guide to securing Windows back in 1998 which was highly rated at Neowin in 2001 and grew into the most viewed and most effective guide for securing Windows NT Operating Systems out there currently at 350,000 views strong and being made a sticky pinned thread, an essential guide, or being the most viewed and being usually rated 5 of 5 stars by readers of his security guide for Windows such as here http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=f94b12f3d43b3b9446bed90155910842&showtopic=2662 . At 350,000 views strong and with great feedback too, your calling him that shows you do anything but support the law, and regularly break it with libel on your part towards others clone. You are a scumbag libelling little weasel clone, and now everyone will know how much so, after reading this reply.

  34. Clone likes libelling others online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But basically, I support the law http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1629374&cid=31995628" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday April 27, @02:40AM (#31995628)

    Ahem: Bullshit - Clone, I noted that you also called APK, the person you refer to in your signature here, a "spyware maker" http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31736454 , but he noted that Nir Sofer and Dr. Mark Russinovich have also had many of their wares classified falsely as spywares too, and that he took CA's 21 point test and his app did not violate a single point of their test and they downrated his app to "zero threat levels" because of this. APK also put up the very first guide to securing Windows back in 1998 which was highly rated at Neowin in 2001 and grew into the most viewed and most effective guide for securing Windows NT Operating Systems out there currently at 350,000 views strong and being made a sticky pinned thread, an essential guide, or being the most viewed and being usually rated 5 of 5 stars by readers of his security guide for Windows such as here http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=f94b12f3d43b3b9446bed90155910842&showtopic=2662 . At 350,000 views strong and with great feedback too, your calling him that shows you do anything but support the law, and regularly break it with libel on your part towards others clone. You are a scumbag libelling little weasel clone, and now everyone will know how much so, after reading this reply. Just because you're a loser that doesn't have a job and because you've never done a thing in your life that's of service to others, doesn't give you the right to libel others who have, clone.

  35. Clone likes to libel others online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But basically, I support the law http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1629374&cid=31995628" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday April 27, @02:40AM (#31995628)

    Ahem: Bullshit - Clone, I noted that you also called APK, the person you refer to in your signature here, a "spyware maker" http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31736454 , but he noted that Nir Sofer and Dr. Mark Russinovich have also had many of their wares classified falsely as spywares too, and that he took CA's 21 point test and his app did not violate a single point of their test and they downrated his app to "zero threat levels" because of this. APK also put up the very first guide to securing Windows back in 1998 which was highly rated at Neowin in 2001 and grew into the most viewed and most effective guide for securing Windows NT Operating Systems out there currently at 350,000 views strong and being made a sticky pinned thread, an essential guide, or being the most viewed and being usually rated 5 of 5 stars by readers of his security guide for Windows such as here http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=f94b12f3d43b3b9446bed90155910842&showtopic=2662 . At 350,000 views strong and with great feedback too, your calling him that shows you do anything but support the law, and regularly break it with libel on your part towards others clone. You are a scumbag libelling little weasel clone, and now everyone will know how much so, after reading this reply. Just because you're a loser that doesn't have a job and because you've never done a thing in your life that's of service to others, doesn't give you the right to libel others who have, clone.

  36. Clone likes libelling others online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But basically, I support the law http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1629374&cid=31995628" - by clone53421 (1310749) on Tuesday April 27, @02:40AM (#31995628)

    Ahem: Bullshit - Clone, I noted that you also called APK, the person you refer to in your signature here, a "spyware maker" http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1591778&cid=31736454 , but he noted that Nir Sofer and Dr. Mark Russinovich have also had many of their wares classified falsely as spywares too, and that he took CA's 21 point test and his app did not violate a single point of their test and they downrated his app to "zero threat levels" because of this. APK also put up the very first guide to securing Windows back in 1998 which was highly rated at Neowin in 2001 and grew into the most viewed and most effective guide for securing Windows NT Operating Systems out there currently at 350,000 views strong and being made a sticky pinned thread, an essential guide, or being the most viewed and being usually rated 5 of 5 stars by readers of his security guide for Windows such as here http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=f94b12f3d43b3b9446bed90155910842&showtopic=2662 . At 350,000 views strong and with great feedback too, your calling him that shows you do anything but support the law, and regularly break it with libel on your part towards others clone. You are a scumbag libelling little weasel clone, and now everyone will know how much so, after reading this reply. Just because you're a loser that doesn't have a job and because you've never done a thing in your life that's of service to others, doesn't give you the right to libel others who have, clone.

  37. Why RTFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's obviously tres hot, right? Right?

  38. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is she at least hot? if not, forget it, if yes go to 2nd line
    any nudity?

  39. Why's Clone libelling others here? Geek Angst! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject above, and see how Clone tried to libel others here on this website via his signature and was proven wrong here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1632188&cid=31999288 .

    Funny how that shut clone53421, eh?

    Clone53421 is nothing more than a little out of work bum who can't get a job because he wastes his life on slashdot here libelling others (which is why he won't get a job, because his kind do this rampantly, and this is why suits against them are not worth it - nothing to be had in suing a "ne'er do well" like Clone53421 is why).

    Why is Clone libelling apk? Ok:

    ----

    Mozilla Firefox DOM Node Moving Use-After-Free Vulnerability:

    http://secunia.com/advisories/39175/

    Release Date 2010-04-02
    Last Update 2010-04-06

    ----

    Clone lost his behind in a debate with apk on FireFox http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/23/0415208/Germany-Warns-Against-Using-Firefox (when Germany warned vs. its usage, as they had for IE previous to that) here, regarding FireFox 3.6, which then forced a reissue of FireFox 3.6.2 (not 2.6.2 as Clone erroneously noted it there as also), but during the timeframe of that debate (03/23/2010 - 04/05/2010)?

    LOL: FireFox turned up YET ANOTHER SECURITY BUG in their DOM during that debate's timeframe (see between dashed lines above), which forced an issuance of FireFox 3.6.3 on 04/06/2010!

    Also, when that news of a NEW FIREFOX BUG came out?

    Well - Slashdot's moderators "strangely closed that thread on Germany early" (NOT) in less than 2 weeks...

    This libel of apk only showed Clone's poor defense of FireFox (inclusive of citing very old 3-5 versions out of date data on Opera bugs no less, version 9.52 & 10.52 just released today no less in final form) as erroneous, and that Clone is a sore loser.

    Clone, face it: Opera's FASTER than FireFox in HTML parse & process work, plus javascript work too, and Opera shows less bugs over time than FireFox does, consistently no less... whether or not you can handle that or not, doesn't matter - you LOSE, as per usual.

    Still - They're ALL pretty good browsers though, but this "little tidbit" from a "hacker-cracker/security researcher" MAY "shed a bit of light on the subject" of which browser to use (Because Opera's the overall FASTEST currently & especially on the MOST USED OS PLATFORM THERE IS ON PCs/Servers in Windows, & consistently over time, @ HTML parse work, & again has re-seized its crown in Javascript processing speeds as well, vs. FireFox currently (which typically, Opera led FF there as well over time MOST of the time too)):

    ----

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

    "The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."

    ----

    Nuff said, on the subject of which browser even the "hacker/cracker/security researcher types" use, & why (security-by-obscurity, @ THE VERY LEAST).

    All the libelling of others online will not help you, once people see how you react in your "geek angst" when you lose poorly due to bogus libelling of others on this website, which makes you appear in your true nature of being a libellous online scumbag weasel, clone53421.