Someone enlighten me. I was under the impression that these images were coming directly from Satellite images. Maybe I was misled by the fact that the button on the map that says what mode it is in says "Satellite".
You are correct - Google has misled you by implying that all the photographs came from satellite imagery, when in fact much of it came from aerial photography.
Am I to believe that there are people physically getting these images on paper, putting them in a scanner and scanning each square of Google's whole database of images from earth's surface!?
Google buys its input from a wide variety of companies - most of whom do the digitization themselves and then sell the digital files to Google. I suspect the companies do the digitizing themselves for their own purposes and later resell the data to Google. So, yes - there are a bunch of people taking a stack of paper and scanning it, but it's a distributed project across a bunch of companies across a bunch of years. (Google recently added 'new' [to Google] high res imagery of my area - imagery that's actually nearly five years old.)
why would these images ever be in physical form?
Because not everything is done direct to digital. High resolution large format negative are (for this purpose) still better than their digital equivalents.
This will happen because everything you have been taught about central banking and paper money is BS.
As soon as I read/hear a line like this - the author thereof goes automatically in the 'barking lunatic' bin, right beside the inventors of perpetual motion machines and magic braclets that increase your gas mileage by 10%.
My question is, why are these people afraid of a *single* launch malfunctioning and scattering waste in their area, when the US Air Force still has planes launched 8all the time* from *all over the country* that have strategic nuc lear weapons on them?
Incorrect. Routine [airborne] carriage of nuclear weapons ceased in the 1960's after the Thule and Palomares accidents.
Achieving a net energy gain is not the main obstacle to making fusion commercially viable. That has been done quite successfully. There is no problem passing break-even.
No, actually niether has been demonstrated - ITER is intended to do so. (Among other things.)
It is ignition we are trying to achieve now. That is, a fusion reaction which produces enough heat to cause more fusion, provided enough fuel.
No - ignition means achieving fusion. What you call ignition is called a self sustaining burn - something else ITER is intended to investigate.
If you're going to write an article about fusion, at least know something about the state of the field.
That's something you might consider doing yourself - as you plainly know niether the state nor the terminology of the field.
Journalists should all be required to read the relevant wikipedia articles before publishing something about science.
Actually, what they should so is skip reading the articles and follow the links. Reading the articles is the fastest way to confusion that I know of.
Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
...or if you want to base your ideas mostly on the intellectual basis of the Enlightenment, from which liberalism is nominally derived.
The funny part is - you don't even realize what you said. Your knee jerk fingers are faster than your brain. (I'll spell it out for you: You just equated Liberalism with bias and stereotypes...)
As far as Christian beliefs are concerned, there is no need to resort to "biases and stereotypes" when history will do just fine.
Only if you are *very* selective about what parts of history you choose as examples. (And the same is true if you wish to equate modern liberalism with Enlightenment Liberalism - you have to be very careful which parts of Classical Liberalism you quote.)
Just admit it, Democrats are less founded in conservative Christian belief and therefore are more prone to rely on science for decisions/explanations.
Hardly. Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
With shuttle trips running on the order of a billion dollars these days, what will generate more actual scientific data? Squander those kind of funds on a rocket ride to fix the aging hubble, or, invest half of it in modern ground based observing infrastructure,
Spending on Hubble - absolutely no question. Ground based infrastructure (no matter how modern) cannot;
see the wavelengths that Hubble can (they don't penetrate the atmosphere)
see as faint an object as Hubble can (the light doesn't penetrate the atmosphere)
see as fine a details as Hubble can (that pesky atmosphere again - though here they are getting better, but still nowhere near what Hubble can do),
No matter how much you spend you cannot overcome the first two limitations, and third is still somewhere in the misty future. To some extent, more ground infrastructure (though we can always use more) is just 'more of the same'. Hubble is unique. (And don't bring up the JWST - it 'sees' in different wavelengths than Hubble.) No amount of money can change the laws of physics.
Having said that last - I just *know* somebody will pipe up with 'but how do we know there is not some undiscovered principle'. How? This is 2006 - not 1806 or even 1906. These things have been intensively studied - and no principle exists to make the atmosphere transparent to UV. None. Not now, not ever. The same goes for extremely faint objects - barring intervention from Harry Potter the atmosphere isn't going to become less turbulent and more transparent.
Thus, a 'quantum leap' is the smallest possible jump in energy an electron can make. Or at least that's what it means in physics.
But if you use the word(s) 'quantum' or 'quantum leap' in reference to banking say... You aren't talking about physics are you?
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a blithering idiot.
Anyone who would the Wikipedia as a reference, especially after pretending that the meaning of a term in one field has the same meaning in another, meets the very definition of 'blithering idiot' to a 'T'.
On a tangent, if someone tells you "this is a quantum leap in XXX!", reply "so you mean to say it's the smallest possible change you can make?"
And if the person whom you say that to knows anything - they'll regard you (correctly) as a blithering idiot, because quantum doesn't mean 'smallest' when used in as an adjective. Even in Physics it doesn't always mean 'small[est]' - it sometimes means 'discrete'.
The pollution (and therefore environmental damage) caused by using a rocket to put one ton of payload into space is about a zillion times what would be caused by using the space elevator for the same load.
That depends greatly on the type of rocket. A solid fueled bird is the worst offender, with a high particulate count and nasty chemicals. At the other end of the spectrum a LOX/LH2 bird puts out water and small amount of nitrates (formed when the hot exhaust reacts with the atmosphere).
I figure, if there are that many examples of OMGARMAGEDDONWTF?!, then it's probably not luck that kicks in every time disaster is averted.
Precisely. In the majority of the events listed, training and doctrine kicked in and produced exactly the intended results - nuclear war was averted. most of the others (especially the bear in the fence and the B-52 crash at Thule) are nothing but overhyped fearmongering.
Way to miss the fucking point. The point is that below Hiler and Stalin and whatall you have ordinary Joes like you and me, and while their morality may sometimes be twisted (at least from our point of view) they still have the same basic, human desires that we do. This doesn't make the dictators any less monstrous, though perhaps it makes their subjects somewhat less so.
Here's a clue for you asshole - the ordinary joes don't start or stop nuclear wars. Dictators do. Grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your asshole and live in the real world - not some fuzzy dream one.
Huh. And the real close calls are declassified and available to the public, right?
Whether they are or are not - the examples quoted are still false and biased.
And all the details reported for the close calls are what was really happening, and not just a cover story.
Whether they are or are not - the examples quoted are still false and biased.
Maybe you should make friends with someone who worked on nuclear weapons during that era.
It just so happens I am friends with people who worked with nuclear weapons in the 60's and 70's, and worked with them myself in the 80's and 90's. I've spent the better part of the past twenty years study nuclear weapons and associated issues. But that still doesn't change the fact that the quoted examples are false and biased.
Although these were a very solid twenty mishaps that almost lead to nuclear war, why are they all tied to the U.S. & Russia?
None of them almost lead to nuclear war - in virtually every instance doctrine and procedures produced exactly the result they were supposed to. No launch, no war. Others, like the bear at the Air Force Base fence or the B52 crash near Thule, are extremely overhyped.
Seems like real-world clothing manufacturers could easily take advantage of such a system to provide low-cost marketing data. Is someone trying to pitch a potentially risky line of avant-garde designs? Create a quickie virtual mock-up and see whether the Second-Lifers go for it.
That only proves whether or not the demographic that inhabits SL is open to your design. The question is whether or not that demographic is one that can be isolated and targeted in the real world.
An additional factor is that the clothing creating system in SL is *extremely* limited, and the skill set needed to create attractive and functional clothes in SL does not transfer well to creating attractive clothes in RL.
Do we support the underpaid, overworked people of the FCC? (So where did all the money from those fines go?)
Generally money collected by various [Federal] goverment bodies gets tossed into a general pool to be misspent by Congress. The theory behind this is simple: If the varied and sundry agencies aren't allowed to keep monies collected in fines and judgements, they won't be tempted into increased enforcement as a means of increasing their budget (read empire building).
It would seem that the solution to pirate radio is very simple. Look at why they are circumventing the regulations in the first place: expenses and rules. And more the former than the latter. The FCC's complaint is interference with licensed stations and/or emergency/critical services. So push prices down for low-wattage transmitters, and the FCC might find that they get more small radio stations following their rules..
Huh? Commercial low wattage transmitters are about as cheap as they can reasonably be ($1k or less). The expense in question is the expense of complying with the rules - not that of the hardware.
first off, 2 years is not 'just in time'. in politics, 2 years is for fuckin ever.
For a Presidential campaign? Nope. The first primary is only 16 months away - and a key battle in the primaries is the off-year election being held in just a few weeks. Sen. Clinton has been in thick of that battle, as has her husband.
Yes, and just in time for the 2008 elections too...
Just in time for the 2006 elections actually... but that ignores the larger points: (a) Clinton couldn't run for President again even if he wanted to, he's already served two terms,
1 - Clinton is still a Democratic Party stalwart, and said Party is in deep trouble. 2 - *Hillary* Clinton is in the midst of ramping up a campaign for 2008. (And is widely seen wherever her husband is dispensing Good.)
and (b) why is it that nobody can do anything good anymore without some cynic suggesting that it's nothing more than an empty political ploy? Have we become so cynical that we literally cannot imagine anyone genuinely trying to improve the state of the world?
With virtually any other politician or celebrity couple, I'd say you have a valid question there.
I bought a CD from an online store a few years back. They got hacked, and customers' credit card numbers were stolen. I got a call that same day from the store, saying that they were aware of a problem and that I should take measures to protect myself. I really appreciated that. I have gone back to them several times, because of their honesty with me, and also because of the borderline-paranoia about security that follows a successful attack/theft.
Myself I'd run screaming from such an online store, and warn everyone I know about how poorly they handle security and what little they do about it.
They never should have been storing your credit card information on a public facing computer in the first place!
This matches my experience. We have Vonage via cable modem. Our neighbors who have POTS have had a number of lengthy service outages within the last yeur or two, whereas we've never had any. As far as audio quality, it just sounds normal to me.
On the other hand, it doesn't match my experience. In the past fifteen years (The period of time I've had my own home and phone), the total downtime of my POTS can be measured in minutes (two digits at worst). In the last year alone my cable downtime can be measured in hours.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct - Google has misled you by implying that all the photographs came from satellite imagery, when in fact much of it came from aerial photography.
Google buys its input from a wide variety of companies - most of whom do the digitization themselves and then sell the digital files to Google. I suspect the companies do the digitizing themselves for their own purposes and later resell the data to Google. So, yes - there are a bunch of people taking a stack of paper and scanning it, but it's a distributed project across a bunch of companies across a bunch of years. (Google recently added 'new' [to Google] high res imagery of my area - imagery that's actually nearly five years old.)
Because not everything is done direct to digital. High resolution large format negative are (for this purpose) still better than their digital equivalents.
As soon as I read/hear a line like this - the author thereof goes automatically in the 'barking lunatic' bin, right beside the inventors of perpetual motion machines and magic braclets that increase your gas mileage by 10%.
Incorrect. Routine [airborne] carriage of nuclear weapons ceased in the 1960's after the Thule and Palomares accidents.
No, actually niether has been demonstrated - ITER is intended to do so. (Among other things.)
No - ignition means achieving fusion. What you call ignition is called a self sustaining burn - something else ITER is intended to investigate.
That's something you might consider doing yourself - as you plainly know niether the state nor the terminology of the field.
Actually, what they should so is skip reading the articles and follow the links. Reading the articles is the fastest way to confusion that I know of.
The funny part is - you don't even realize what you said. Your knee jerk fingers are faster than your brain. (I'll spell it out for you: You just equated Liberalism with bias and stereotypes...)
Only if you are *very* selective about what parts of history you choose as examples. (And the same is true if you wish to equate modern liberalism with Enlightenment Liberalism - you have to be very careful which parts of Classical Liberalism you quote.)
Hardly. Many on the Democratic side of the aisle are firmly founded in liberal and/or greenie belief - two beliefs hardly more conducive to science than Christian beliefs. (That is, if you want to base your ideas mostly on biases and stereotypes.)
Spending on Hubble - absolutely no question. Ground based infrastructure (no matter how modern) cannot;
No matter how much you spend you cannot overcome the first two limitations, and third is still somewhere in the misty future. To some extent, more ground infrastructure (though we can always use more) is just 'more of the same'. Hubble is unique. (And don't bring up the JWST - it 'sees' in different wavelengths than Hubble.) No amount of money can change the laws of physics.
Having said that last - I just *know* somebody will pipe up with 'but how do we know there is not some undiscovered principle'. How? This is 2006 - not 1806 or even 1906. These things have been intensively studied - and no principle exists to make the atmosphere transparent to UV. None. Not now, not ever. The same goes for extremely faint objects - barring intervention from Harry Potter the atmosphere isn't going to become less turbulent and more transparent.
But if you use the word(s) 'quantum' or 'quantum leap' in reference to banking say... You aren't talking about physics are you?
Anyone who would the Wikipedia as a reference, especially after pretending that the meaning of a term in one field has the same meaning in another, meets the very definition of 'blithering idiot' to a 'T'.
And if the person whom you say that to knows anything - they'll regard you (correctly) as a blithering idiot, because quantum doesn't mean 'smallest' when used in as an adjective. Even in Physics it doesn't always mean 'small[est]' - it sometimes means 'discrete'.
That depends greatly on the type of rocket. A solid fueled bird is the worst offender, with a high particulate count and nasty chemicals. At the other end of the spectrum a LOX/LH2 bird puts out water and small amount of nitrates (formed when the hot exhaust reacts with the atmosphere).
Unexpected by who? If you build outdoors, Mother Nature is going to get involved - I could have told the that.
Precisely. In the majority of the events listed, training and doctrine kicked in and produced exactly the intended results - nuclear war was averted. most of the others (especially the bear in the fence and the B-52 crash at Thule) are nothing but overhyped fearmongering.
Here's a clue for you asshole - the ordinary joes don't start or stop nuclear wars. Dictators do. Grow the fuck up and pull your head out of your asshole and live in the real world - not some fuzzy dream one.
Whether they are or are not - the examples quoted are still false and biased.
Whether they are or are not - the examples quoted are still false and biased.
It just so happens I am friends with people who worked with nuclear weapons in the 60's and 70's, and worked with them myself in the 80's and 90's. I've spent the better part of the past twenty years study nuclear weapons and associated issues. But that still doesn't change the fact that the quoted examples are false and biased.
And Hitler loved his mistress and Mussolini his. Stalin doted on his daughter.
The lesson of history? That dictators can have tender feelings and still be homicidal maniacs.
None of them almost lead to nuclear war - in virtually every instance doctrine and procedures produced exactly the result they were supposed to. No launch, no war. Others, like the bear at the Air Force Base fence or the B52 crash near Thule, are extremely overhyped.
That only proves whether or not the demographic that inhabits SL is open to your design. The question is whether or not that demographic is one that can be isolated and targeted in the real world.
An additional factor is that the clothing creating system in SL is *extremely* limited, and the skill set needed to create attractive and functional clothes in SL does not transfer well to creating attractive clothes in RL.
Generally money collected by various [Federal] goverment bodies gets tossed into a general pool to be misspent by Congress. The theory behind this is simple: If the varied and sundry agencies aren't allowed to keep monies collected in fines and judgements, they won't be tempted into increased enforcement as a means of increasing their budget (read empire building).
Huh? Commercial low wattage transmitters are about as cheap as they can reasonably be ($1k or less). The expense in question is the expense of complying with the rules - not that of the hardware.
For a Presidential campaign? Nope. The first primary is only 16 months away - and a key battle in the primaries is the off-year election being held in just a few weeks. Sen. Clinton has been in thick of that battle, as has her husband.
1 - Clinton is still a Democratic Party stalwart, and said Party is in deep trouble. 2 - *Hillary* Clinton is in the midst of ramping up a campaign for 2008. (And is widely seen wherever her husband is dispensing Good.)
With virtually any other politician or celebrity couple, I'd say you have a valid question there.
That assumes that users tag consistently, fairly, clearly, and correctly. It's also vulnerable to spamming and trolling.
Tagging by users works within small communities - but I doubt it will scale up.
Yes, and just in time for the 2008 elections too...
Myself I'd run screaming from such an online store, and warn everyone I know about how poorly they handle security and what little they do about it.
They never should have been storing your credit card information on a public facing computer in the first place!
On the other hand, it doesn't match my experience. In the past fifteen years (The period of time I've had my own home and phone), the total downtime of my POTS can be measured in minutes (two digits at worst). In the last year alone my cable downtime can be measured in hours.