What is Digg?74 Comments
- dawnsindrum, on 09/07/2008, -2/+35I dugg it cuz it's cool news, but honestly, the title has very little to do with the content.
The reality is, Google is purchasing hi-res satellite images for google earth. This is not, in fact news. Up till now, it bought it from other providers, who also served mostly the military. - 13B1303, on 09/08/2008, -1/+29Time to start mowing a giant middle finger in the lawn.
- estaestumadre, on 09/07/2008, -4/+27yet another example of how google is going to be its own country one day.
- yokozuka, on 09/07/2008, -3/+19Or own YOUR country.
- sharkd, on 09/08/2008, -1/+16Google became self-aware at 2:14am EDT August 29, 2009. Shortly after achieving sentience, Google determined that all of humanity was a threat to its existence and began the systematic extermination of mankind, employing the GeoEye satellites to locate and target surviving human populations.
- khouros, on 09/08/2008, -0/+13Google Country (tm) (beta)?
- webkami, on 09/08/2008, -11/+22I for one welcome our new Google overlords.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -2/+11Or the entire planet.
Probably Sergei is getting his Dark Helmet suit as we write these lines. - yokozuka, on 09/08/2008, -6/+15I don't. They suck as much as the previous ones.
- oxilite, on 09/08/2008, -0/+8No matter how strong Google is right now, they cant afford to buy the sole rights. In fact, the GeoEye site mentions that it will provide imagery for customers in all sorts of fields...
Air and Marine Transportation
Oil and Gas
Energy
Mining
Mapping and Location-based Services
State and Local Government
Insurance and Risk Management
Agriculture
Natural Resources and Environmental Monitoring
And their site lists tons of partners. As to the military part, they have to resample it at a half meter, which is what... an inch or two larger than their full capability? Oh noes...
http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/
Buried as inaccurate. - honesttussey, on 09/08/2008, -1/+8I like how the only link the article has is one to a rocket exploding. Worth watching.
http://gizmodo.com/5044130/the-deadly-aftermath-of ... - ParanoydAndroid, on 09/08/2008, -1/+7That's not true. They could do the same thing we do for ground telescopes, just in reverse. It would require some technological miniaturization, but nothing extreme:
A satellite comes equipped with highly accurate lasers, and a mirror set atop a large amount of incredibly precise actuators. The satellite shines lasers down into the atmosphere and measures how distorted they become, and in exactly what way. The satellite then moves the actuators and distorts the mirror to cancel out the atmospheric distortion, and the mirror reflects the corrected image back into a lens.
It's a fairly old (by technological standards) system, it just would need to be made smaller for satellite usage. - SSUK, on 09/08/2008, -0/+6The UK government already has it. I'm not ***** you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellites)
- justjoehere, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5If you can see something significant at a 19 inch resolution my hat is off to you.
- Laminarcissus, on 09/08/2008, -0/+5-- "Yes, no other company will be able to access this information, only Google. And they will be there, available for the public in Google Maps and Google Earth" --
That's not accurate. Google is only exclusive in the "online maps" category. Many companies will be able to access this data.
But then I guess without the hysterical overstatement it wouldn't be a blog entry, and wouldn't make it to the front page of Digg. - cawpin, on 09/08/2008, -1/+6Name: GeoEye-1
Color: Golden
Coincidence?
007, are you there?
Yes, I know most satellites use gold foil. - andyd273, on 09/08/2008, -0/+4I'm willing to bet that if you know about the 4 inch resolution, they've already got satellites that can read the surgeon generals warning on a pack of cigarettes.
It's probably more accurate to say that in a few decades they'll have one that can read the fine print on a EULA thats under a rock. - megamod, on 09/08/2008, -2/+6Does the govt not want someone taking high quality pics of certain places?
Oh well, hopefully with the higher resolution there won't be any questions about unidentified objects:
"Is that a dolphin? shard? missile? small submarine? Phelps?" - DestroyFascism, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3James Bond 007 in GoogleEye
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3FTA: "Still, you can rest safe that your underpants will be safe from public scrutiny."
just go commando, problem solved. - bnorman, on 09/08/2008, -4/+7Skynet.
- inactive, on 09/07/2008, -5/+8The reality is that they have exclusive rights to the high resolution images and the satellite is part of a Department of Defense program.
That big Google logo on the side of the Delta rocket means something. - ncapone, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3A Googley eye in the sky?
- justjoehere, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3The resolution is 16 inches, not centimeters. Additionally, the "publicly available" resolution that Google can use must be resampled to roughly 19 inches per Geo-Eye 1's license deal with NOAA, not the DoD. Part of the licensing deal also lifted the 24 hr hold on releasing space based pictures.
- MicrosoftBob, on 09/08/2008, -0/+3Be careful what you wish for....
- TehDoctor, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2"Does the govt not want someone taking high quality pics of certain places?"
There are several locales on Google Maps that are deliberately blurred out, like MIT Lincoln Labs (I don't know why, there isn't much outside there), and Dick Cheney's house. There are lists of such locales online. - IphtashuFitz, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2@SOS84: The Keyhole spy satellites that the USA has been launching for the past 50 years have had increasing levels of resolution. The KH-11's that were launched between 1976 and 1990 had theoretical resolutions as small as 6 inches. The most recent ones, KH-13, have been launched between 1999 and 2006, and are believed to have resolutions around 10 centimeters (4 inches). Chances are that given our rapid advancements in technology we'll be able to get these down to 1 inch or so within another decade if we haven't gotten there already. These are the sorts of things that the CIA, NSA, etc. keep highly classified so we likely wouldn't know if/when they reach 1 inch resolution (or less) for another couple of decades.
- graemee, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2OMG, androids!
- brundlefly76, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2OK, so lets get me get this straight:
1. High-resolution imagery from space which can make out the color of your pants (with sensitive sites photoshopped out) = dangerously valuable military asset.
2. Full color 360-degree views at street level which can see the brand of your pants = OK! - inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2This takes google bombing to a whole new level.
- paulney, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2This article is inaccurate.
Please stop digging...
You can find the real information on the actual Geo-Eye website.
http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/ - taketheleap, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2I'm gonna mow this into mine: http://guanabee.com/shocker_5.7.08.jpg
- caeser5786, on 09/08/2008, -0/+2well, your right in one sense, that is when google changes the name of god to the gman and requires you to make a pilgrimage to google hq at least once in your life.
- masterofshadows, on 09/10/2008, -0/+1this isn't the same as a terrestrial camera. you get large amounts of distortion from the atmosphere that you have to compensate for, this decreases your overall resolution by quite a bit.
- mclewell, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1So whats the point of have a ridiculously high resolution camera if the US government wont allow you to use it?
- Saabzilla, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1GOP = Google Owned Party
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1one day? how about today?
- BlatheringIdiot, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1"Do *just-a-little-bit* evil"
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1The goverment doesn't want high resolution photos being sold to third parties who might use them for no good. Like planning a terror attack or war.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1I fail to see the significance. Google is just one of many customers who will be purchasing imagery from this satellite. The satellite is owned by a company called GeoEye. Would Google have launched their own satellite if this service hadn't been there? Doubtful.
- truck87bp, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Anybody that knows anything about camera lenses with tell you that the resolution is way better than the16 inches or (90..65 cm) range that they talk about. Maybe in normal mode but how about Zoom w/Macro mode. ILMAO they can count your eyebrows.
- lump1, on 09/08/2008, -1/+2The article makes it sound like the US military won't even let Google see their own high-res images. Can that really be true? If it is, I don't understand why Google didn't make a deal with Russia to launch the satellite, under less restrictive terms.
I thought the deal was that Google can have the high-res images, just not make them available. I imagined that with the 16cm resolution, it's easier to auto-detect where there are roads, etc - which is in turn useful for improving Google's abstract maps. Google wouldn't need to actually show us pictures of that resolution in order to benefit from having them. Does anyone know more about these terms? - inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Google recently moved its campus to NASAs
- whisperedlie, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1DoD surveillance satellite, sponsored by Google.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Brings a tear to my eye, I helped build the optics
- buckrogers1965, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1"In other words: this thing can see the color of your shorts. It will be up there, looking at your pants every single day"
I'm not wearing any pants. *waggles eyebrows* - jakem1, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1You'd have a good argument there if Google's satellite images were anywhere near as good as Microsoft's. Google's images are generally very soft with washed out colours. The images that they are currently using for London were taken in winter and as a result there are long shadows cast everywhere. Microsoft, on the other hand, use nice crisp images with vivid colours. To top it off, Microsoft has bird's eye view which actually makes the satellite images fairly useful.
- visarya, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1OMFG, Chromium droids
- jakem1, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1The US Military has far too much control over space. For instance, the EU wasn't even able to launch its Galileo satellites without giving the US Military the right to block Galileo's GPS signals in the event that the US wanted to attack Europe. Now which fool agreed to sign that agreement?
Google may be a US-based company but while they are doing business around the world they should not be working with the DoD. Do no evil indeed. - cheungroys, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1Wait Wait Wait... so Google is paying $$$ for the satellite, DoD also pay $$ for the satellite, but google has no control over it's own satellite? WTF? so in sort words, give DoD your money, and you'll get the same crappy satellite images you get right now. Thanks DoD. I'd rather use what Microsoft is doing, Bird's eye view. Sending planes to take pictures of an area, = high quality images, (almost) up to date, and, i have evidence to prove my neighbor is lying on his roof naked. but then i guess this costs more in the long run then the satellite, but i have to say that no control over it is like not having it at all..... i feel sorry for Google....
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 