True, but at the rates you have cited you can lose 10 payloads and still be cheaper than the nearest competitor.
That is the rationale. I can't say that it is *better* in this particular case, but it is one way to manage costs. If your payload can be replicated fairly inexpensively, then it is the best way to manage your costs.
Google maps doesn't seem to have been meant as a source of data for professionals - which is why it's so amusing that Google maps are so interesting to you
You work with electronics for a living. I guess you would know a lot about the value of aerial photos.
- I'd thought you had your own, better, sources!
Now why would I have better sources? I work for a private consulting company.
Your statement is equivalent to my claiming that, because you work with electronics, you have your own IC fabrication plant.
We live in a capitalistic state and therefore you should expect to pay for anything that helps you in any profession simply because, in this country, everybody is out to make a buck.
No disagreement here. But your comparing apples to oranges. The *public* paid for the compilation and mapping of these products and now a private company is charging *you* for its use.
Getting satellite views of physiographic features from a readily available source is truly one of the best things to come from the internet. The only downside to the Google satellite images is that the highest resolution images cover metropolitian areas. This is great for folks who use it for urban planning, environmental impact assessments, historic studies, etc., it doesn't do much for geologists or geographers. Still, it is free.....
As a geologist it is nice to have aerial tools on line, especially when some of the other taxpayer funded sources of data have been taken offline by private companies. While I don't object to paying for data produced by private companies, I get a bit steamed with the idea that I have to pay *twice* for government-generated data. I understand the necessity to save the taxpayers money, but in the case of topographic, DEM, and DLG sources generated by the government, we have already paid for most of the cost of production; hosting is a fraction of cost for agencies such as the USGS.
Even if hosting were a significant cost, paid advertising could cover the cost and provide a good income for any company interested in providing the service for the government. The fees that some of these charge for taxpayer-subsidized data is rediculous.
Orrin Hatch has done a great job. You must be a druggy. Only a druggy could have as much hatred for Orrin Hatch, and use as much senseless rhetoric as you do. Why don't you go "medicate" yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
A lightsaber prop from the original series? I thought it would have gone for more than a $200K US.
I guess the fans are broke after having to pay for the high ticket prices and the assorted other crap that came with the last three movies.
The law of diminishing returns works after all.
I guess you get what you pay for.
True, but at the rates you have cited you can lose 10 payloads and still be cheaper than the nearest competitor.
That is the rationale. I can't say that it is *better* in this particular case, but it is one way to manage costs. If your payload can be replicated fairly inexpensively, then it is the best way to manage your costs.
I'm English.
How nice! A fricken Limey telling *me* how to write English.
Oh, wait....
you don't seem to get the point,
I got the point: my comment was meant to be a JOKE.
Yes you are. You are a bigot. A closed-minded intolerate bigot.
The word you are reaching for is "intolerant".
But being a dumbass, you wouldn't know the difference.
Although this article is a couple of years old, the scientific community is not necessarily convinced of microgravity's promise.
This is one result that may or may not scale to industrial production.
I'm not closed minded, but I am skeptical.
When you update your installation and suddenly all your scripts break.
Of course nothing ever breaks with a Windows update.
Google maps doesn't seem to have been meant as a source of data for professionals - which is why it's so amusing that Google maps are so interesting to you
You work with electronics for a living. I guess you would know a lot about the value of aerial photos.
- I'd thought you had your own, better, sources!
Now why would I have better sources? I work for a private consulting company.
Your statement is equivalent to my claiming that, because you work with electronics, you have your own IC fabrication plant.
You're doing landslide assessments with undated satellite photos?
I'm not. I use recent information that I purchase from a private company.
The source of that information, however, is paid for public funds.
We live in a capitalistic state and therefore you should expect to pay for anything that helps you in any profession simply because, in this country, everybody is out to make a buck.
No disagreement here. But your comparing apples to oranges. The *public* paid for the compilation and mapping of these products and now a private company is charging *you* for its use.
That is corporate welfare.
Great viewer.
Not much help in adding to our own GIS.
If you want *that* kind of access, you need to pay a private company.
Terraserver doesn't have topos, DEMs, or DLGs.
That's the raw data files, buddy.
Yes, and they are for sale too.
Good thing everyone ignored your mod advice.
But you claim to work for the goverenment.
Wrong again.
I said one of my customers is the federal government.
I call bullshit.
Fine. Give me the URL for free USGS data.
It doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for nearly five years.
The maps can be nice and useful, but why the satellite view?
Aerial views of large physiographic features is essential for watershed studies, landslide assessments, earthquake risk evaluations, etc.
If you are a geologist urban planner, or historian, why can't you buy satellite imagery?
I do. Re-read the original post.
The cost of the data should be inconsequential if you have any kind of a budget.
One of my customers is the federal government.
I think many of the folks who post here object to the notion that I should think of my budget as "inconsequential".
Having to pay twice for data from tax-funded sources is outrageous, but it doesn't make your life harder.
Wrong again. If I buy the data for a goverment client, you pay three times for the same data.
What I'm trying to say, professionals might have a use for this, but it shouldn't benefit them that much.
You don't spend much time analyzing aerial data, do you?
Getting satellite views of physiographic features from a readily available source is truly one of the best things to come from the internet. The only downside to the Google satellite images is that the highest resolution images cover metropolitian areas. This is great for folks who use it for urban planning, environmental impact assessments, historic studies, etc., it doesn't do much for geologists or geographers. Still, it is free.....
As a geologist it is nice to have aerial tools on line, especially when some of the other taxpayer funded sources of data have been taken offline by private companies. While I don't object to paying for data produced by private companies, I get a bit steamed with the idea that I have to pay *twice* for government-generated data. I understand the necessity to save the taxpayers money, but in the case of topographic, DEM, and DLG sources generated by the government, we have already paid for most of the cost of production; hosting is a fraction of cost for agencies such as the USGS.
Even if hosting were a significant cost, paid advertising could cover the cost and provide a good income for any company interested in providing the service for the government. The fees that some of these charge for taxpayer-subsidized data is rediculous.
Thanks again to Google.
However, there might be a best kernel for you.
That was the context I was using the term "best" for.
Oh well, I think you're just trolling anyways, so why bother?
Yes indeed; why bother?
Saying that something is "the best" does not mean shit.
That is your opinion.
There are others.
I am speaking english for myself.
Well, in "English", the first letter of a noun is capitalized.
You just misused the word best, that is all.
That is your opinion.
There are others.
So, you are trying to tell me Solaris was a joke ? :)
;)
AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!
I have defeated you.
Typical Moonite bravado.
Orrin Hatch has done a great job. You must be a druggy. Only a druggy could have as much hatred for Orrin Hatch, and use as much senseless rhetoric as you do. Why don't you go "medicate" yourself.
Ooooh!
The Orrin Hatch fan club has arrived.
Nice try on the smear job.
You go to Radioshack for legal advice?
I'm bookmarking your post for posterity. It is a classic.
I also said, if you cared to read the original post, that it would be illegal in the future. That would mean this device would *also* be illegal.
And Radioshack's attorneys would just advise the production staff to quit making them.
Radioshack - for legal advice... That's good.