That is exactly my point. And who is it that sets the wages for both sets of people? The executives. The leaders. In socialism that's the politicians, the government. And just what in socialism guarantees that those politicians are honest and actually give a rip about the people over whom they rule?
Show me honest politicians. By politicians very nature they are prone to corruption for who seeks power except for those who desire power? And once they are in power, under socialism just how are governments abuses to be controlled? They won't be because the government controls everything.
Saying socialism will cure the ills of society and abuses of power is foolish. It can't. It simply institutionalizes all abuses of power as they are now governmental abuses of power.
And what is it that gives anyone in any situation real power? Money. Thus, those in power accrue to themselves the money as it perpetuates their power. That's human nature and no political system is going to change that.
Absolute bullshit. Your claim is not reflected in reality in any socialist country.
Really? Point me to one socialistic country in the world where the politicians and working class have absolutely equal standards of living. Not a one exists, or ever will exist.
No. Capitalism is not often described as greed is good. The "greed is good" mantra is moral issue, not a political issue. That the mantra was first coined in a capitalistic society is irrelevant. Go take a look at how the leaders of the Soviet Union crushed their own people while making themselves rich. They most definitely thought greed was good as they lived and governed by the principle of greed. They lived high on the hog while their people starved and drank themselves to death in hopelessness.
I believe in capitalism because I believe in the freedom of the individual, and I soundly reject the "greed is good" mantra. Greed is self-destructive to all who practice it, as well as destructive to any capitalistic society as a whole. This has been well-illustrated in the financial meltdown of the US economy. Greed pushed business people to violate every sound business practice in existence. Greed so blinded them that they cut their own throats, so to speak, and our economy will be decades in recovering, if it ever does.
Well, at least that's what the socialistic activists and leaders of socialistic governments want you to believe. In reality the outcome is much different. You end up with a serf class and ruling class, and never the twain shall meet on any economic level.
That's not true. You could lose a lot of money shipping food to starving people in Africa. The notion that the lack of profit there means there are better uses for your capital is ridiculously capitalism-centric thinking.
What you really mean is greed.
Capitalism does not require greed to succeed, and exists everywhere, including all left wing ideologies and left wing governments. Take a look at how the rulers of hard-core communist countries live in contrast to the people they govern to see the truth of this.
Greed is the problem. It is greed that causes people to think that the only measure of success for a company is profit, and even more specifically short term profit. It is greed that causes businessmen to cheat their employees out of wages and benefits. It's greed that causes them to cheat each other. It's greed that causes them to charge "what the market will bear" rather than a reasonable price at which they still make reasonable profit. The starvation and extreme differences in wealth between the rulers and the people in all totalitarian countries are caused by the same thing. Greed.
As greed is a problem that springs from the human heart, not a political ideology-driven problem you cannot point to a political ideology as the cause, nor for the cure.
This post should be a +5 for insightful as this poster nails the issue squarely. Circumvention of bad laws is not the solution for bad laws. The only real solution is getting rid of the bad laws.
So, you would have no problem with me modifying software on your computer without your consent or knowledge? I'll be there directly and modify the way most of your software works in some way or another.
You'll have no problem with that at all, right? It's just software, right?
Ummmm.... Take a good look at this thread and see how many people misunderstood the question and the point the article was making. This is supposed to be a collection of above average people with respect to intelligence, but it was a fairly high percentage of people who didn't "get" the question or the point of the article.
Here I think part of the problem is that people are so arrogant that they can't read the question without inserting their own personal belief into what they read, so, they end up not understanding what they read.
I'd agree with you. I'm expert in neither MySQL nor Postgresql, but have worked with both, and I prefer working with Postgresql. It just makes more sense to me, and I find it a little easier to use even though I've used MySQL more.
Just because M$ says it is time to change your habits, does not mean it is time for you to
Oh, I don't know about that. Back in 2003 MS kept telling me to upgrade Win2K. I did. To Debian. Changed my habits completely. Best advice they ever gave me.
As for the article, why don't they just calculate the efficiency boost upon swapping a vehicle. It could even be extended to more than just fuel by taking in parameters like battery life , maintained, recyclability etc. I mean, this is the general public we are talking about....they just need to know if they are getting 5 gold stars or 2 black crosses.
You're not answering the question that the article asked. The question has nothing to do with total amount fuel used.
The reason the question the article asked is important is because not everyone has the same transportation needs. Thus, those people who can move from a 10 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle, all other aspects of usage being equal, and still fill their transportation needs, will reduce total consumption more than the people who now have a 33 mpg car and buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
A million people cutting their fuel usage by 50% will cut total consumption more than a million people cutting their fuel usage by 33%. It's basic math.
No, it isn't a contrived example. I know a lot of people whose lives require two vehicles. Both get used equally, but one gets poor mileage because of what it's used for, and the other gets good mileage because it has a completely different usage.
For years my wife and I had two rigs. One always got between 25 and 30 mpg. The other always got about 10 mpg. One was my work vehicle and the other our pleasure vehicle used for traveling, going to get groceries, visiting the in-laws, etc.... Both were driven about the same number of miles per year. There are literally millions of people in the same situation. Most of them are small business owners, contractors, etc....
You're still wrong. You're misunderstanding the question. The question isn't which vehicle will use less gas, but which vehicle will use less gas compared to its former usage.
The article wasn't even addressing the question you answered.
Uhhh.... No. You misunderstand the question. The question isn't which group of cars uses less gas, but which group of cars reduces its usage the most. That will always be the group with the largest percentage of gain in mileage.
We must have oil at this point in time. The food you eat, the packaging on most of the products you buy, most of the roads you drive on, the source of heat in vast majority of homes, no refrigeration of any kind, plus a large proportion of all products you buy, all come from oil or its byproducts, or use oil in one form or another in the production process. Do we need to move away from it? Yes, but unless we completely shut down our economy we must have oil right now. Is stopping all transportation of goods, no longer repairing our transportation infrastructure, eliminating all large scale farming, or no longer using any form of heating that relies in any way, shape, or form, on oil and gas viable right now?
How happy are you going to be living with a completely collapsed economy? It's coming, due to our national debt, but stopping all oil use would be even more devastating than national bankruptcy due to debt. Think about it. Imagine a life right now with no products that come from oil. No more computers. No more internet(You think not? The insulation on all electrical wires is made from oil). No plastic products, period. No way to travel.
Our argument wouldn't even be possible without oil, at this point in time. That's what I mean by common sense. We have all built our economies based on oil, and changing the base of the entire world economy is not an easy thing to do without damaging it extensively and lowering our standard of living by orders of magnitude. These changes must be done gradually. The move to oil took some time, and so will moving away from it.
You're absolutely correct. So, who is really responsible for this spill? The environmentalists. If not for their lack of common sense we would not be drilling 5000' below the surface.
Yes, BP screwed up. But, if not for lawsuits tying up all wells in much more accessible locations Deepwater Horizon would not even have been drilled, tapped, and put into production.
Sure, maybe he is wrong, but you're a bit of a douche for calling him an idiot for merely suggesting the possibility.
Re-read your first post, based on that it's a perfectly legitimate suggestion.
I think you should apologize and thank him for caring enough to reply to your post.
Hug it out you guys.
Ummm.... Let's take a look at this sort of objectively.
1. Did he "suggest" something, or just make a pronouncement? He made a pronouncement. There was no wording that could be considered as suggesting anything. It was, paraphrased, Hey, idiot, don't you know the difference between abuse of something and the use of something? What's more, his wording ridicules everything I said worked for me.
2. What evidence did he have on which to base his pronouncement? None. He didn't even ask under what circumstances had led me to conclude that capsaicin works on my headaches. Why? If he was actually trying to be kind and suggest something with no ulterior motives why didn't he ask about why I think capsaicin works? No, instead he assumes the worst of me.
3. What is the implication of his pronouncement? That I'm stupid enough to overindulge/overuse of the active ingredients in hot peppers to the point that it actually is the cause of my headaches, rather than the remedy for them.
4. Where is his evidence for the conclusion he had to have reached to imply what he did in #3? He had none. How arrogant do you have to be to reach that kind of conclusion about another person about which you know absolutely nothing?
5. His "suggestion" was insulting and out of line. He implied about me what I openly said about him.
6. Where's your outrage at his arrogance and condescension?
I hate to break it to you, but you're a complete idiot. You know, at the babbling idiot level of intelligence. I'm surprised you can read and write.
I've suffered from frequent bad headaches since I was 8 or 9 years old and stumbled upon this remedy in my mid-30's. IOWs, and hopefully you'll be able to understand this with your level of intelligence, I suffered for decades with the MDs able to do nothing for me but feed me narcotics for the pain, which is not exactly a sustainable solution. Most of the time I just suffered through them as too-frequent requests for pain killers would bring on a doctor's accusations of being a con artist looking for drugs.
I just happened to eat a spicy meal one day when I had a bad headache coming on, and realized less than a half-hour later my headache was gone, which was not a common occurrence as once a headache sets in it's around for a day or more. The next time I had a headache I made myself a spicy burrito and it worked again. I found that spicy food worked every time over an extended period of time. Later I learned about capsaicin and tried the cayenne capsule method. It worked too. Because of this it's been 20+ years now since I've needed a prescription for a headache.
I gradually worked up a tolerance to the heat in the food so it doesn't bother me, and I now consider lesser levels of spice to be bland, but the same amount of pepper gives me the same relief now that it did more than 2 decades ago when I first realized it worked.
Like I said to start with, you're a babbling idiot.
Yeah, and the therapies based on capsaicin actually work, and without serious side effects. I use capsaicin regularly, both internally and externally.
I suffer from a lot of headaches and over-the-counter medications do nothing for them. The only prescription meds that work have narcotics so they aren't really an option because of the frequency of my headaches, and I don't like the side effects as enough narcotics to kill the pain also make me high enough that everyday life--driving, working, etc... aren't really possible.
I take 2 to 4 cayenne capsules with food, depending on the heat rating of the cayenne, or eat a spicy meal with the heat coming from habenero peppers in home-made meals(say a bean burrito with 1/4 - 1/2 of a diced habenero in it), or the spices used in traditional Thai cooking in a restaurant meal(4 out of 5 stars on the heat level)--we have a very good local Thai restaurant run by a Thai immigrant who's one of the best cooks I've ever seen--and a headache severe enough to make my eyes very sensitive to light will disappear in a matter of minutes.
At those levels of heat there is no pain associated with the cure either as I eat spicy food on a regular basis, although what I think is bland most people say burns their mouth.
But once again you're making assumptions. The first one being that I believe the age of the universe as a whole, and the amount of time there has been human life on earth are one and the same. I can't even begin to draw that assumption from the Bible. According to the Bible life existed in the universe long before humans were created.
You're also once again saying that 1% of the data conclusively proves something. I have yet to see a scientist who will claim anything as set in stone from having 1% of the data from any large study. Any, and all, preliminary conclusions drawn from the first 1% of the data are seen as assumptions at that point in any large, complex study. No firm conclusions are drawn about anything at that point.
Who's to say that evidence will not surface that says the assumptions about conditions always being like they are now won't be proven false? Neither of us can prove it one way or another. You can assert that they won't be, but you can't prove it. No way. There's too much still to be learned from that vast reservoir of 99% of the data that is still unknown.
The study of the universe is in infancy. If you want to deny that and all it implies about what is now thought to be true, go ahead. It won't change the fact that we humans can conclusively prove very little about the entire subject. You want to accept everything now known about the universe as absolute fact, go ahead, but realize that it's based on faith, not on conclusive proof.
While you can't prove that there is no god (or similar esoteric entity), you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting. Like Islam, Christianity and all this creationist stuff...
Hmmm.... OK. Scientists say they have collected about 1% of the total data available in the universe. That means 99% of the information about the universe is unknown. How are you going to conclusively prove anything one way or another about the origins of the universe based on 1% of the total evidence? That seems to be, at best, a fool's errand.
t would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).
Any half-way intelligent burglar cases his target first. What use a week old to months old view of a neighborhood would be I can't figure out. A burglar cases a specific house to find out when it is empty, when it's occupied, if/what/when the neighbors can easily see possible entry points, activity levels and times of activity in the neighborhood, what type of security system is in the house, etc....
A satellite photo would be useless for that type of information, and that's the type of info that's most useful when planning a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
That is exactly my point. And who is it that sets the wages for both sets of people? The executives. The leaders. In socialism that's the politicians, the government. And just what in socialism guarantees that those politicians are honest and actually give a rip about the people over whom they rule?
Show me honest politicians. By politicians very nature they are prone to corruption for who seeks power except for those who desire power? And once they are in power, under socialism just how are governments abuses to be controlled? They won't be because the government controls everything.
Saying socialism will cure the ills of society and abuses of power is foolish. It can't. It simply institutionalizes all abuses of power as they are now governmental abuses of power.
And what is it that gives anyone in any situation real power? Money. Thus, those in power accrue to themselves the money as it perpetuates their power. That's human nature and no political system is going to change that.
Absolute bullshit. Your claim is not reflected in reality in any socialist country.
Really? Point me to one socialistic country in the world where the politicians and working class have absolutely equal standards of living. Not a one exists, or ever will exist.
No. Capitalism is not often described as greed is good. The "greed is good" mantra is moral issue, not a political issue. That the mantra was first coined in a capitalistic society is irrelevant. Go take a look at how the leaders of the Soviet Union crushed their own people while making themselves rich. They most definitely thought greed was good as they lived and governed by the principle of greed. They lived high on the hog while their people starved and drank themselves to death in hopelessness.
I believe in capitalism because I believe in the freedom of the individual, and I soundly reject the "greed is good" mantra. Greed is self-destructive to all who practice it, as well as destructive to any capitalistic society as a whole. This has been well-illustrated in the financial meltdown of the US economy. Greed pushed business people to violate every sound business practice in existence. Greed so blinded them that they cut their own throats, so to speak, and our economy will be decades in recovering, if it ever does.
Well, at least that's what the socialistic activists and leaders of socialistic governments want you to believe. In reality the outcome is much different. You end up with a serf class and ruling class, and never the twain shall meet on any economic level.
That's not true. You could lose a lot of money shipping food to starving people in Africa. The notion that the lack of profit there means there are better uses for your capital is ridiculously capitalism-centric thinking.
What you really mean is greed.
Capitalism does not require greed to succeed, and exists everywhere, including all left wing ideologies and left wing governments. Take a look at how the rulers of hard-core communist countries live in contrast to the people they govern to see the truth of this.
Greed is the problem. It is greed that causes people to think that the only measure of success for a company is profit, and even more specifically short term profit. It is greed that causes businessmen to cheat their employees out of wages and benefits. It's greed that causes them to cheat each other. It's greed that causes them to charge "what the market will bear" rather than a reasonable price at which they still make reasonable profit. The starvation and extreme differences in wealth between the rulers and the people in all totalitarian countries are caused by the same thing. Greed.
As greed is a problem that springs from the human heart, not a political ideology-driven problem you cannot point to a political ideology as the cause, nor for the cure.
This post should be a +5 for insightful as this poster nails the issue squarely. Circumvention of bad laws is not the solution for bad laws. The only real solution is getting rid of the bad laws.
So, you would have no problem with me modifying software on your computer without your consent or knowledge? I'll be there directly and modify the way most of your software works in some way or another.
You'll have no problem with that at all, right? It's just software, right?
Ummmm.... Take a good look at this thread and see how many people misunderstood the question and the point the article was making. This is supposed to be a collection of above average people with respect to intelligence, but it was a fairly high percentage of people who didn't "get" the question or the point of the article.
Here I think part of the problem is that people are so arrogant that they can't read the question without inserting their own personal belief into what they read, so, they end up not understanding what they read.
I'd agree with you. I'm expert in neither MySQL nor Postgresql, but have worked with both, and I prefer working with Postgresql. It just makes more sense to me, and I find it a little easier to use even though I've used MySQL more.
Just because M$ says it is time to change your habits, does not mean it is time for you to
Oh, I don't know about that. Back in 2003 MS kept telling me to upgrade Win2K. I did. To Debian. Changed my habits completely. Best advice they ever gave me.
As for the article, why don't they just calculate the efficiency boost upon swapping a vehicle. It could even be extended to more than just fuel by taking in parameters like battery life , maintained, recyclability etc. I mean, this is the general public we are talking about....they just need to know if they are getting 5 gold stars or 2 black crosses.
Wow. What arrogance.
You're not answering the question that the article asked. The question has nothing to do with total amount fuel used.
The reason the question the article asked is important is because not everyone has the same transportation needs. Thus, those people who can move from a 10 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle, all other aspects of usage being equal, and still fill their transportation needs, will reduce total consumption more than the people who now have a 33 mpg car and buy a car that gets 50 mpg.
A million people cutting their fuel usage by 50% will cut total consumption more than a million people cutting their fuel usage by 33%. It's basic math.
You need to look at your math again. You are using numbers that are not even relevant to the example in the article.
100 miles at 10 mpg is 10 gallons of gas used. 100 miles at 20 mpg is 5 gallons of gas used. That's a savings of 5 gallons.
100 miles at 33 mpg is 3 gallons of gas used. 100 miles at 50 mpg is 2 gallons of gas used. That's a savings of 1 gallon of gas.
Looks to me like you plucked your numbers out of thin air.
No, it isn't a contrived example. I know a lot of people whose lives require two vehicles. Both get used equally, but one gets poor mileage because of what it's used for, and the other gets good mileage because it has a completely different usage.
For years my wife and I had two rigs. One always got between 25 and 30 mpg. The other always got about 10 mpg. One was my work vehicle and the other our pleasure vehicle used for traveling, going to get groceries, visiting the in-laws, etc.... Both were driven about the same number of miles per year. There are literally millions of people in the same situation. Most of them are small business owners, contractors, etc....
You're still wrong. You're misunderstanding the question. The question isn't which vehicle will use less gas, but which vehicle will use less gas compared to its former usage.
The article wasn't even addressing the question you answered.
Uhhh.... No. You misunderstand the question. The question isn't which group of cars uses less gas, but which group of cars reduces its usage the most. That will always be the group with the largest percentage of gain in mileage.
Nice straw man.
What a load of crap.
We must have oil at this point in time. The food you eat, the packaging on most of the products you buy, most of the roads you drive on, the source of heat in vast majority of homes, no refrigeration of any kind, plus a large proportion of all products you buy, all come from oil or its byproducts, or use oil in one form or another in the production process. Do we need to move away from it? Yes, but unless we completely shut down our economy we must have oil right now. Is stopping all transportation of goods, no longer repairing our transportation infrastructure, eliminating all large scale farming, or no longer using any form of heating that relies in any way, shape, or form, on oil and gas viable right now?
How happy are you going to be living with a completely collapsed economy? It's coming, due to our national debt, but stopping all oil use would be even more devastating than national bankruptcy due to debt. Think about it. Imagine a life right now with no products that come from oil. No more computers. No more internet(You think not? The insulation on all electrical wires is made from oil). No plastic products, period. No way to travel.
Our argument wouldn't even be possible without oil, at this point in time. That's what I mean by common sense. We have all built our economies based on oil, and changing the base of the entire world economy is not an easy thing to do without damaging it extensively and lowering our standard of living by orders of magnitude. These changes must be done gradually. The move to oil took some time, and so will moving away from it.
You're absolutely correct. So, who is really responsible for this spill? The environmentalists. If not for their lack of common sense we would not be drilling 5000' below the surface.
Yes, BP screwed up. But, if not for lawsuits tying up all wells in much more accessible locations Deepwater Horizon would not even have been drilled, tapped, and put into production.
Sure, maybe he is wrong, but you're a bit of a douche for calling him an idiot for merely suggesting the possibility.
Re-read your first post, based on that it's a perfectly legitimate suggestion.
I think you should apologize and thank him for caring enough to reply to your post.
Hug it out you guys.
Ummm.... Let's take a look at this sort of objectively.
1. Did he "suggest" something, or just make a pronouncement? He made a pronouncement. There was no wording that could be considered as suggesting anything. It was, paraphrased, Hey, idiot, don't you know the difference between abuse of something and the use of something? What's more, his wording ridicules everything I said worked for me.
2. What evidence did he have on which to base his pronouncement? None. He didn't even ask under what circumstances had led me to conclude that capsaicin works on my headaches. Why? If he was actually trying to be kind and suggest something with no ulterior motives why didn't he ask about why I think capsaicin works? No, instead he assumes the worst of me.
3. What is the implication of his pronouncement? That I'm stupid enough to overindulge/overuse of the active ingredients in hot peppers to the point that it actually is the cause of my headaches, rather than the remedy for them.
4. Where is his evidence for the conclusion he had to have reached to imply what he did in #3? He had none. How arrogant do you have to be to reach that kind of conclusion about another person about which you know absolutely nothing?
5. His "suggestion" was insulting and out of line. He implied about me what I openly said about him.
6. Where's your outrage at his arrogance and condescension?
I hate to break it to you, but you're a complete idiot. You know, at the babbling idiot level of intelligence. I'm surprised you can read and write.
I've suffered from frequent bad headaches since I was 8 or 9 years old and stumbled upon this remedy in my mid-30's. IOWs, and hopefully you'll be able to understand this with your level of intelligence, I suffered for decades with the MDs able to do nothing for me but feed me narcotics for the pain, which is not exactly a sustainable solution. Most of the time I just suffered through them as too-frequent requests for pain killers would bring on a doctor's accusations of being a con artist looking for drugs.
I just happened to eat a spicy meal one day when I had a bad headache coming on, and realized less than a half-hour later my headache was gone, which was not a common occurrence as once a headache sets in it's around for a day or more. The next time I had a headache I made myself a spicy burrito and it worked again. I found that spicy food worked every time over an extended period of time. Later I learned about capsaicin and tried the cayenne capsule method. It worked too. Because of this it's been 20+ years now since I've needed a prescription for a headache.
I gradually worked up a tolerance to the heat in the food so it doesn't bother me, and I now consider lesser levels of spice to be bland, but the same amount of pepper gives me the same relief now that it did more than 2 decades ago when I first realized it worked.
Like I said to start with, you're a babbling idiot.
Yeah, and the therapies based on capsaicin actually work, and without serious side effects. I use capsaicin regularly, both internally and externally.
I suffer from a lot of headaches and over-the-counter medications do nothing for them. The only prescription meds that work have narcotics so they aren't really an option because of the frequency of my headaches, and I don't like the side effects as enough narcotics to kill the pain also make me high enough that everyday life--driving, working, etc... aren't really possible.
I take 2 to 4 cayenne capsules with food, depending on the heat rating of the cayenne, or eat a spicy meal with the heat coming from habenero peppers in home-made meals(say a bean burrito with 1/4 - 1/2 of a diced habenero in it), or the spices used in traditional Thai cooking in a restaurant meal(4 out of 5 stars on the heat level)--we have a very good local Thai restaurant run by a Thai immigrant who's one of the best cooks I've ever seen--and a headache severe enough to make my eyes very sensitive to light will disappear in a matter of minutes.
At those levels of heat there is no pain associated with the cure either as I eat spicy food on a regular basis, although what I think is bland most people say burns their mouth.
Not necessarily.
But once again you're making assumptions. The first one being that I believe the age of the universe as a whole, and the amount of time there has been human life on earth are one and the same. I can't even begin to draw that assumption from the Bible. According to the Bible life existed in the universe long before humans were created.
You're also once again saying that 1% of the data conclusively proves something. I have yet to see a scientist who will claim anything as set in stone from having 1% of the data from any large study. Any, and all, preliminary conclusions drawn from the first 1% of the data are seen as assumptions at that point in any large, complex study. No firm conclusions are drawn about anything at that point.
Who's to say that evidence will not surface that says the assumptions about conditions always being like they are now won't be proven false? Neither of us can prove it one way or another. You can assert that they won't be, but you can't prove it. No way. There's too much still to be learned from that vast reservoir of 99% of the data that is still unknown.
The study of the universe is in infancy. If you want to deny that and all it implies about what is now thought to be true, go ahead. It won't change the fact that we humans can conclusively prove very little about the entire subject. You want to accept everything now known about the universe as absolute fact, go ahead, but realize that it's based on faith, not on conclusive proof.
While you can't prove that there is no god (or similar esoteric entity), you can still prove that certain forms of religion are wrong and self-contradicting. Like Islam, Christianity and all this creationist stuff...
Hmmm.... OK. Scientists say they have collected about 1% of the total data available in the universe. That means 99% of the information about the universe is unknown. How are you going to conclusively prove anything one way or another about the origins of the universe based on 1% of the total evidence? That seems to be, at best, a fool's errand.
t would be kind of hard to claim a robbery was a crime of opportunity (e.g. not premeditated) if the robber was found to have a map to the house, a picture of the front door, a satellite view of the surrounding neighborhood, and pictures of the inside (from Zillow, Redfin, etc.).
Any half-way intelligent burglar cases his target first. What use a week old to months old view of a neighborhood would be I can't figure out. A burglar cases a specific house to find out when it is empty, when it's occupied, if/what/when the neighbors can easily see possible entry points, activity levels and times of activity in the neighborhood, what type of security system is in the house, etc....
A satellite photo would be useless for that type of information, and that's the type of info that's most useful when planning a crime.