|
Posted by Charles Packer on March 3, 2008, 10:46 am
Please log in for more thread options
Vice President Cheney has "had his house removed from
Google Earth." Thus said Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show,"
according to my wife. So I invoked Google Earth and
lo, all of the grounds of the Naval Observatory -- where
his house is -- is displayed at a much lower resolution
by means of much larger pixels; at least 10X larger,
my eyeballs tell me.
But that's not all. In another surprise, the White House
and Capitol are now rendered at full resolution, unlike
in 2004, the last time I checked (and posted here about
it). At that time, they were either pixelated or had
strange blank colored rectangles overlying parts of
their roofs.
But if you want to see Cheney's lawn at full resolution,
just use MapQuest in aerial image mode. All three of the
DC locations are at full resolution. However -- this is
really odd -- the Treasury building (next door to the White
House) has been obliterated by a seemingly misplaced image
which is a copy of one immediately to the southwest.
--
Charles Packer
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
mailboxATcpacker.org
|
|
Posted by Jufi on March 3, 2008, 12:42 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
> But that's not all. In another surprise, the White House
> and Capitol are now rendered at full resolution, unlike
> in 2004, the last time I checked (and posted here about
> it). At that time, they were either pixelated or had
> strange blank colored rectangles overlying parts of
> their roofs.
What I thought was surprising was that anyone offering those aerial photo
galleries would either feel the need to, or be forced to gray-out the White
House, Capitol, or anything else. Are those locations a secret? Is there
anyone the planet who doesn't know where they are? I honestly don't care,
but I find things like this just really, really strange.
|
|
Posted by Russell Patterson on March 3, 2008, 1:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
>>
>> But that's not all. In another surprise, the White House
>> and Capitol are now rendered at full resolution, unlike
>> in 2004, the last time I checked (and posted here about
>> it). At that time, they were either pixelated or had
>> strange blank colored rectangles overlying parts of
>> their roofs.
>
>What I thought was surprising was that anyone offering those aerial photo
>galleries would either feel the need to, or be forced to gray-out the White
>House, Capitol, or anything else. Are those locations a secret? Is there
>anyone the planet who doesn't know where they are? I honestly don't care,
>but I find things like this just really, really strange.
Yet something like the following location is not changed at all.
Which one is more dangerous to US interests?
47°33'25.24"N, 122°38'26.49"W
(Copy and paste it to the search window)
|
|
Posted by Spamm Trappe on March 3, 2008, 3:21 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:09:01 -0500, Russell Patterson wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> But that's not all. In another surprise, the White House
>>> and Capitol are now rendered at full resolution, unlike
>>> in 2004, the last time I checked (and posted here about
>>> it). At that time, they were either pixelated or had
>>> strange blank colored rectangles overlying parts of
>>> their roofs.
>>
>>What I thought was surprising was that anyone offering those aerial photo
>>galleries would either feel the need to, or be forced to gray-out the White
>>House, Capitol, or anything else. Are those locations a secret? Is there
>>anyone the planet who doesn't know where they are? I honestly don't care,
>>but I find things like this just really, really strange.
>
> Yet something like the following location is not changed at all.
> Which one is more dangerous to US interests?
> 47?33'25.24"N, 122?38'26.49"W
> (Copy and paste it to the search window)
??? "... dangerous to US interests" ???
ITYM: 47 38' 37"N , 122 7' 43"W
|
|
Posted by C J Campbell on March 3, 2008, 3:57 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>
But
>
>> that's not all. In another surprise, the White House
>> and Capitol are now rendered at full resolution, unlike
>> in 2004, the last time I checked (and posted here about
>> it). At that time, they were either pixelated or had
>> strange blank colored rectangles overlying parts of
>> their roofs.
>
> What I thought was surprising was that anyone offering those aerial
> photo galleries would either feel the need to, or be forced to gray-out
> the White House, Capitol, or anything else. Are those locations a
> secret? Is there anyone the planet who doesn't know where they are? I
> honestly don't care, but I find things like this just really, really
> strange.
Ostensibly it is to keep you from seeing certain security measures. The
White House image now looks sharp, but it has been 'cleaned' by the
Secret Service. Google has been known to cooperate with some other
governments in removing certain objects from Google Maps.
I doubt things will change under a new administration. What the Secret
Service says, goes, no matter how idiotic a President might think it
is. FDR used to go out of his way to antagonize his agents, making them
run after his wheelchair, and JFK made a point of never carrying cash,
mooching off his agents, but that is about as much as a President is
allowed to protest. Probably by the time the Secret Service is done
briefing a new President on all the people who want to kill him (or
her, if it is Hillary) the poor individual is probably as paranoid as
they come.
Not a job a normal person would want, for sure.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | GISuser.com weekly update | April 8, 2004, 6:32 pm |
| Watch this update from Microsoft | February 21, 2005, 6:29 pm |
| open-source GIS update | May 24, 2005, 9:20 am |
| SQL UPDATE using 2 tables in MapInfo 8 | April 29, 2006, 7:59 am |
| How to update zip data in mapping program (MapInfo 7) | February 9, 2006, 5:40 pm |
| aerial photography | March 13, 2007, 4:23 pm |
| Does anyone know where I can obtain aerial imagery of Colombia? | May 1, 2008, 3:12 pm |
| Kite Aerial Photography demonstration in San Francisco | May 17, 2004, 3:01 pm |
| Problems With Color Aerial Photos on Mapserver | May 3, 2006, 3:09 pm |
| 3D data points density for typical stereoscopy on aerial photographs | March 1, 2006, 10:12 am |
|
XML Sitemap