It's not as if the Sound, Long Island's North Shore, or the Connecticut Shoreline areas haven't been photographed countless times by state and Federal agencies. I'm surprised that Microsoft exposed something that looks so slapdash to the public.
It's not as if the missing area has anything but open water - none of the shore is missing as the OP implies.
I agree that Miles is the very best we've got, but in terms of enthusiasm and sheer geekiness there was no one better than his predecessor, the late great John Holloman. Loved it when John would say "I'm not sure, let me check" and then haul out his 4-inch-thick binder of the Shuttle Operations Manual. Hey vultures, I've got some MSNBC commentator's bones for you to pick!
The *very* best we have is MSNBC's Jim Oberg - who is a NASA flight controller turned commentator/journalist. (He's actually sat console for (IIRC) about a dozen launches/flights.)
Disclaimer: I'm part of JimO's volunteer fact checking/brain trust team - so I may be a bit biased.
[/me waves to any other of the 'clones' that may be reading.]
Sad to say, but the examples you cited weren't lives lost in the pursuit of knowledge. They were lives lost to managerial short-sightedness and corner-cutting.
That's theory - but as always the reality is quite different.
It's one thing to take a calculated risk when you understand the odds. To take your fate in your own hands. It's totally different to put your fate in the hands of others, who then don't treat the situation with the diligence it deserves.
Which work of fiction did that come from - because it doesn't describe Apollo 1, Columbia, or Challenger. (Except in the simplified comic book versions of the accidents.)
You wanna try your luck with the Russian space program?
Hell NO. The Soviet/Russian record makes the US record look pure as driven snow.
You have to be kidding. Whereas the image of Central Park that you linked above is certainly off by several meters, the image linked by the GP is beautifully integrated.
Which is not what is under discussion here - the blending between adjacent areas that were photographed at seperate times are. (From the original post 'blending/fade from one set of images to another'.) He claims that Google does so, and Microsoft does not - when the evidence is abundant that any fading/blending Google does is of no real use. For all intents and purposes it might was well not exist.
Furthermore, when you routinely trawl Google Maps and Earth you find that mismatches are as common, if not more common, than matches. This is unsurprising as true blending is exceedingly difficult, ask any cartographer. Given the myriad of possible observation angles, lighting conditions, etc... I suspect any matches are more a product of luck than selection or design.
Could it be better? Probably (specially if they had images of the same resolution and acquired in the same season). But for the intended uses that image is pretty, pretty good.
Certainly it could be better - if you wanted to spend the $MEGA_BUCK$ to do so. Certainly the image is useful for it's intended purpose.
But my central point is this: The OP, like many when the topic is Google _______, wilfully blind themselves to faults they hold Microsoft accountable for. The OP took a specific instance (the seams near his house) and incorrectly generalized it to cover the entire data set.
It looks like the images on the left are from a newer satellite - they're a lot more clear.It looks like the images on the left are from a newer satellite - they're a lot more clear.
Extremely unlikely, Google has been quite clear that resolution varies wildly. (Mostly because hi res imaging is costly - whereas low res is available virtually free.) Furthermore, zooming out shows quite clearly that your 'left hand' area is within one of the high res urban areas - which appear all over the map, embedded in the lower res coverage of the rest of the map. Zooming further out very plainly shows the blocks of scattered hi res across the New England area.
The recipe and brand of their beer is published under a Creative Commons license, which means anyone can use the recipe for pleasure or profit.
The only catch: If you make money selling their unique beer, you have to give them credit and publish any changes you make to the recipe under a similar license.
Which is actually *more restrictive* than what exists currently - which is utterly free copying with essentially zero legal restraint.
On their website, the students said they are interested in seeing how their beer will get better once it is out in the world, acquiring slight improvements as the recipe is shared.
'Beer' (generic) can't get better - it is what it is. There isn't a platonically ideal 'beer' which we can by slow steps approach.
In the beer business, more than just recipes are moving toward open source, as some brewers are adopting an open-source business model as well. An ex-Red Hat employee in Australia has developed his love for spirits into an open-source project by creating a brewery that is owned in part by its customers.
That's not open source - nor is it new. I own (owned actually) a chunk of Anheuser-Busch for several years (I.E. stock). I was a partner in a store where I routinely shopped. (Heck, condo's have been around for decades - and they follow this business model.)
Niether homebrewing nor OSS is well served with idiotic articles like this one.
Google maps uses a blending/fade from one set of images to another. My area is full of these seams - they line up pretty good but some of them show views during the summer and others were taken in the winter or fall time.
Google doesn't consistently use blending - Look at Central Park , you can plainly see the southern portion was imaged in summertime, while the northern portion was imaged in winter. The 'blending' between them is a few (ground) meters at best - pretty useless.
Another interesting 'feature', Microsoft doesn't seem to have censored in the same way Google has - NSB King's Bay plainly shows a pair of Tridents at the pier, whereas Google is (very) obviously retouched.
Why is there a big hoopla about Planetary society raising meager $250,000? You need money to carry out research. NASA obviously doesn't care much about basic sciences, and is quite busy wasting tax dollars in 'spectacular' but dumb and useless shuttle launches.
NASA cares plenty about basic science - and the basic science these tapes were meant to accomplish was accomplished decades ago. (In fact a great deal of both the data and the science is available on the web.) What TPS wants to do is 'extended science', something NASA has been trying to get funding for over the past few years - but has been unable to do so.
TPS is essentially lying to you when it claims the tapes haven't been read or analyzed.
Don't whine. Just fix the bugs in the recipe & check in the fix. That's what open source beer is all about.
That's just the point the grandparent is trying to make - you can't fix the bugs because the 'code' is horribly incomplete. You can't even determine what the 'code' is supposed to do, and huge swaths of it are nothing but stubs and terse notes from the programmer to himself ('magic happens here'). What's left after you remove all those parts is outright wrong - I.E. intentional divide-by-zero.
I could take my experience and use the recipe as a base for preparing my own beer (I'm a reasonably experienced and knowledgeable homebrewer), but it almost certainly wouldn't be the beer the original author intended to create.
Myself and several other home-brewers share recipes and techniques all the time.
That is "shared source", not "open source".
Get thee to Google, or to any homebrew store - and note the hundreds of recipes available for free (-as-in-air). The grandparent is correct, homebrew recipies have been open source for decades. The creator of the 'beer[1]' in the linked article has done both the homebrew and OSS communities a vast disservice by creating confusion where none existed before.
[1]I say 'beer' because the recipe as released will produced horrid swill that will drive any drinker back to Budmilloors post haste. If this recipie were code, it would be the 0.0.0.0.0.0.1 release - I.E. about the equivalent of a usenet or slashdot post.
Space is a complete vaccuum, just like the kind in thermos bottles, and it's a VERY good thermal insulant. If your arm is at 37C, and you stick it in the best insulant possible, it will remain at 37C.
Heat is also gained and lost through radiation - so any skin exposed to the sun will rapidly be burned (because of the unfiltered UV) while getting heating. Any skin in shadow will lose heat by radiation.
In addition, the moisture in the upper layers of skin will be boiling away - carrying away more heat.
Well, if this one is funded by the schools and not the US Gov't, then THEY get to choose when to pull the plug.
Not some accountant.
What, you think those schools don't have accountants? You don't think that at some time in the future that the cost of repairs/maintenance/upgrades won't figure into the decision to continue with or dismantle this telescope?
If this is possible to do telescopes on earth that can have the same quality as Hubble(I mean, the quality that would have the successor of the Hubble...), then it's pretty interesting because it will be cheaper at the end (maintenance, upgrading, etc).
Except it's not possible, despite the hype in the article. No earthbound telescope will ever be able to see the wavelengths that Hubble does - it's a matter of physics, not technology. The light in those wavelenghts never reaches the ground. Nor does Hubble have to contend with the dust and moisture in the atmosphere.
I dont see any buying, just alot of selling from a few select folks.
It's called diversification. When a stock triples from its IPO like that it leaves the insiders with all their eggs in one basket. I don't care how positive you are on the company at that point. It'd be lunacy to buy, and prudent to sell.
Historically it's also a sign that it's time for outside investors to look carefully at getting out of a stock position.
Go back to the GTA:SA thing. The problem was they found out that between psycopathically antisocial mass murdering rampages you can have consensual sex. SEX....the reason we are all here on this earth! It will corrupt the kids....the sex that is, not the senseless violence and mass murder of police and bystander alike.
It's all so freaking absurd.
(sigh) No, what's absurd is people like the AC here who keep throwing out this strawman - without understanding what the controversy is about.
Nobody was complaining about the sex in the game. The complaint was about the incorrect rating. Nobody is ignoring the violence - because the game was rated as being violent.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled strawmen.
Seriously, this is basically how all successful exploration has proceeded in the past.
ROTFL. The great Age of Exploration was driven by one thing and one thing only - short term profit. (Sure, sure - they made spin laden pronouncements about Glory to God and Kingdom etc..., but those we just a spoonful of sugar to salve the psyche.)
In the third disaster they couldn't find the cause of the fuel sensor problem so they declared that only three were needed and launched anyway.
If something is failing it is failing for a reason. Don't launch till you know the cause and for gods sake don't "solve" the problem by simply rewriting the rules to say that it's OK for a "critical" system to fail.
The problem is - they *do* only need three to launch.
Prior to Challenger the rule was they needed three. During the safety review afterwards, they discovered a common mode failure that could drop two off-line during powered flight, leaving only one operational. Because of this the flight rules were changed to require all four being operational prior to launch. During the current stand down, all orbiters have been modified to eliminate that common mode, thus it's perfectly safe to launch with one bad sensor. Problem is, the documentation isn't up to date.
I'm also in the UK, but I've been following this a bit, so let me explain:
Some Americans are stupid(*). Some stupid Americans will dial 911 on their cellphone, and when asked where they are will respond "right here". This doesn't help the 911 dispatchers send the emergency crews to the right place - they have to explain to the guy at the other end that no, they don't magically know where they are, and please can you give me your address.
(* Some Americans are really smart, too. I am not a troll).
Yes, you are a troll - because you ignore the non trivial chance that a smart American may not know where he is, or may not have time to talk to the 911 folks, and still not be stupid.
About ten years ago I had muscle spasms in my back that became quickly bad enough to prevent from drawing enough breath to talk coherently. E911 to the rescue - I gasped out 'cannot breathe', and the EMT's came right to my door.
About three years ago the house two doors down caught fire with a child trapped inside. Thanks to E911 I could call tell them about the fire - and then go attempt a rescue (sadly I failed). Time elapsed on the phone less than 10 seconds.
About six months ago I was visiting my sister, and when I was home alone there was a child v. automobile accident in the street in front of her house - I couldn't have given the adress if my own life depended on it because I didn't have it memorized. E911 to the rescue.
One intelligent American - three times in the last decade that E911 made a difference.
The additional catch is that VOIP is less reliable than traditional telephony, so 911 calls may be lost. People should know this so they can make an informed decision.
The real problem is that VoIP providers are marketing themselves to Joe Sixpack as a replacement for a traditional POTS landline - and are not being entirely clear that they are in fact not a complete replacement.
In the case that kicked this whole mess off - the VoIP provider routed a 911 call to 'normal working hours only' line rather than to the regional 911 center as their literature claims.
These statements from persons who obviously never coded anything show pure ignorance. However, this ignorance is going to cost Game Companies, Publishers, Distributors a LOT of time and Money. All because rather than ask the Parents of children to do their Jobs,
The parents *are* doing their jobs - they are checking the ratings level on the box and making a decision as to whether or not the game is suitable for their children. The central problem is this the developer lied to the ratings board resulting in an incorrect rating.
It's easy to place the blame on the parents as so many on Slashdot have done - but that position ignores the facts of the matter.
BORING?!? I don't consider watching the basic 'freedoms' being taken away 'Boring'. I consider it a very scary situation as I wonder what else they are going to be taking away.
If any of your freedoms were being taken away or limited, you'd have a point. But that's not what is happening.
The SIMS has an ESRB rating of E-T (Everyone/Teens). However, there is a patch available for The SIMS that removes the dithering done when they are changing clothes, allowing one to see buck naked SIMS!. Doesn't this mean the ESRB should also revoke The SIMS "Everyone" rating?
Have you ever seen a buck naked Sim? ASCII pr0n is more erotic.
The thing that amuses me the most about this whole episode is that senators and other publicity hounds never noticed the game when it was just violence, madness and mayhem, but shock of shocks, a character "gets a cup of coffee" and skin friction ensues, and the next thing you know, this is the worst thing that could ever possibly have happened to our kids!
The thing that depresses me most about this whole episode is that nobody on Slashdot has a clue about what the issue is. Nobody is upset because the game contains skin friction. They are upset because the developer told the ratings board the game contained no skin friction - when in fact it did. The developers lied, resulting in an incorrect rating - knowing that a correct rating would depress sales.
It is about the kids - but it's about the parents too... They trust the ratings board to provide reliable information for them to base informed parenting decisions on. They deserve to protected from developers who kowingly lie and mislead.
In GTA San Andreas, you can mow down innocent pedestrians one one side of the street whilst smashing up your stolen car. That's fine, that's an M rating for you. What? There's sex too?! Dear God man, pull it from the shelves!
(sigh) The same simple minded comment gets moderated Insightful - thus proving neither the poster nor the moderator have any insight.
The game is not being pulled because it has sex in it. It's being pulled because the label says it has no sex in it - when it fact it does. It's mislabled. The developers of the game lied.
One can show pixel people gettin blown up by all kinds of pixel weapons, yet when there's one pixel nipple to be seen, the whole country goes up in arms about it?
No one is up in arms because it shows a nipple. They are up in arms because label on the game says that it doesn't show a nipple - when in fact it does. The difference is subtle, but important.
I personally think its gotta get boring to have to keep repeating that mantra over and over again. You're a parent, its your job to raise your kids. Its ultimately your responsibility.
It certainly is the parent's responsibility - and the ratings lables provide the information the parent needs to make the decision as to what his/her child should have acess to or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I'm part of JimO's volunteer fact checking/brain trust team - so I may be a bit biased.
[/me waves to any other of the 'clones' that may be reading.]
Furthermore, when you routinely trawl Google Maps and Earth you find that mismatches are as common, if not more common, than matches. This is unsurprising as true blending is exceedingly difficult, ask any cartographer. Given the myriad of possible observation angles, lighting conditions, etc... I suspect any matches are more a product of luck than selection or design.
Certainly it could be better - if you wanted to spend the $MEGA_BUCK$ to do so. Certainly the image is useful for it's intended purpose.But my central point is this: The OP, like many when the topic is Google _______, wilfully blind themselves to faults they hold Microsoft accountable for. The OP took a specific instance (the seams near his house) and incorrectly generalized it to cover the entire data set.
Three examples:Which is actually *more restrictive* than what exists currently - which is utterly free copying with essentially zero legal restraint.'Beer' (generic) can't get better - it is what it is. There isn't a platonically ideal 'beer' which we can by slow steps approach.That's not open source - nor is it new. I own (owned actually) a chunk of Anheuser-Busch for several years (I.E. stock). I was a partner in a store where I routinely shopped. (Heck, condo's have been around for decades - and they follow this business model.)
Niether homebrewing nor OSS is well served with idiotic articles like this one.
Another interesting 'feature', Microsoft doesn't seem to have censored in the same way Google has - NSB King's Bay plainly shows a pair of Tridents at the pier, whereas Google is (very) obviously retouched.
TPS is essentially lying to you when it claims the tapes haven't been read or analyzed.
I could take my experience and use the recipe as a base for preparing my own beer (I'm a reasonably experienced and knowledgeable homebrewer), but it almost certainly wouldn't be the beer the original author intended to create.
[1]I say 'beer' because the recipe as released will produced horrid swill that will drive any drinker back to Budmilloors post haste. If this recipie were code, it would be the 0.0.0.0.0.0.1 release - I.E. about the equivalent of a usenet or slashdot post.
But there isn't.
In addition, the moisture in the upper layers of skin will be boiling away - carrying away more heat.
Nobody was complaining about the sex in the game. The complaint was about the incorrect rating. Nobody is ignoring the violence - because the game was rated as being violent.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled strawmen.
Prior to Challenger the rule was they needed three. During the safety review afterwards, they discovered a common mode failure that could drop two off-line during powered flight, leaving only one operational. Because of this the flight rules were changed to require all four being operational prior to launch. During the current stand down, all orbiters have been modified to eliminate that common mode, thus it's perfectly safe to launch with one bad sensor. Problem is, the documentation isn't up to date.
- About ten years ago I had muscle spasms in my back that became quickly bad enough to prevent from drawing enough breath to talk coherently. E911 to the rescue - I gasped out 'cannot breathe', and the EMT's came right to my door.
- About three years ago the house two doors down caught fire with a child trapped inside. Thanks to E911 I could call tell them about the fire - and then go attempt a rescue (sadly I failed). Time elapsed on the phone less than 10 seconds.
- About six months ago I was visiting my sister, and when I was home alone there was a child v. automobile accident in the street in front of her house - I couldn't have given the adress if my own life depended on it because I didn't have it memorized. E911 to the rescue.
One intelligent American - three times in the last decade that E911 made a difference.The real problem is that VoIP providers are marketing themselves to Joe Sixpack as a replacement for a traditional POTS landline - and are not being entirely clear that they are in fact not a complete replacement.In the case that kicked this whole mess off - the VoIP provider routed a 911 call to 'normal working hours only' line rather than to the regional 911 center as their literature claims.
It's easy to place the blame on the parents as so many on Slashdot have done - but that position ignores the facts of the matter.
If any of your freedoms were being taken away or limited, you'd have a point. But that's not what is happening.It is about the kids - but it's about the parents too... They trust the ratings board to provide reliable information for them to base informed parenting decisions on. They deserve to protected from developers who kowingly lie and mislead .
The game is not being pulled because it has sex in it. It's being pulled because the label says it has no sex in it - when it fact it does. It's mislabled. The developers of the game lied.