Google's Street View - Creepy or Cool?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
skek said:
No matter how badly I wanted the road to myself, I can't see riding through Chernobyl. Interesting story, Peter.

When Google first came out with the satellite images, the fed govt made them black out certain classified installations. The most famous one was the security installation on the roof of the White House. Now, you can see the roof (although I'm sure the image has been sanitized) when you zoom in on the WH. Or, for kicks, type in Area 51 into Google Maps. You can see the whole installation, including runways, hangars, etc. Where's the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Pssh, Groom Lake is there as a DISTRACTION.

Most of the good stuff happens during cover of darkness. Also there are other installations that are hidden in plain sight as well as other installations that are just plain hidden.

Alot of fun stuff used to happen out at Long Beach, but Boeing as well as the Govt. has let the whole area rot because they are a bunch of morons with memory and forethough of a gnat.... sorry... sorry [/rant]

-bix
 
I was a big fan of Elena Filatova, until it was revealed that much of her story was "more poetry" than reality. I think she's removed her defense of these accusations from her web site as I couldn't find it any more.

If I remember correctly though, she did admit to the fact that she wasn't solo. She was mostly in a car with her husband and her friend, and the motorcycle photos were staged. It was an interesting look at chernobyl, but not really the truth about how she traveled.
 
Besides, the real danger zone is not accessible on a vehicle, only on foot with a permit (medium-hard to get apparently). This is to control for what gets out. So the story about riding in the middle of the paved road is poetry too

Interestingly, rather than predicted eco devastation, the no-man zone has amazingly rich and thriving wildlife, because there are no people.
 
I remember watching a documentary recently about an area between two warring countries where the wildlife is thriving because no humans are present in the "green zone" between the two nations. I wish I could remember the two countries. For some reason Europe bordering the middle east comes to mind as the area. It was pretty cool to see how well nature thrives when we're not interfering.
 
Shay said:
I remember watching a documentary recently about an area between two warring countries where the wildlife is thriving because no humans are present in the "green zone" between the two nations. I wish I could remember the two countries. For some reason Europe bordering the middle east comes to mind as the area. It was pretty cool to see how well nature thrives when we're not interfering.
Click to expand...
We are nature. We are as much a part of this world as deer, beavers, and lions. Whatever we produce is also a part of nature, as is a beaver dam or an ant hill or a beehive. Unless you believe in some form of higher being, like God, you cannot seperate what human beings do from what a gopher does, as we both evolved on this planet over eons. If you do believe in God, the Creator, then it's highly egocentric to think of humans as interfering in God's creation, as if we could undo it with mere toil. Human beings don't thrive in areas higly populated with Kodiak bears; are they interfering with us? No.
 
We are nature. We are as much a part of this world as deer, beavers, and lions. Whatever we produce is also a part of nature, as is a beaver dam or an ant hill or a beehive. Unless you believe in some form of higher being, like God, you cannot seperate what human beings do from what a gopher does, as we both evolved on this planet over eons. If you do believe in God, the Creator, then it’s highly egocentric to think of humans as interfering in God’s creation, as if we could undo it with mere toil. Human beings don’t thrive in areas higly populated with Kodiak bears; are they interfering with us? No.
Click to expand...

Nude, I own a Jeep that gets horrible gas mileage, but performs wonderful offroad. I take this Jeep out to "wilderness" areas and drive to my heart's content. I am the last person to lament about how humans are destroying the earth. I believe I have every right to enjoy the outdoors as much as any other living thing on this planet. Is it possible that I may encounter a rattle snake, a mountain lion, or die by a boulder falling on me in an earthquake? Absolutely. Is it possible that I may run over a lizard or some small woodland creature? Yep. But because I am a part of nature both are accepted risks by interaction between species on this planet.

I was merely stating that it is fascinating to see how flora and fauna thrive and revive without human interaction. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Shay said:
We are nature. We are as much a part of this world as deer, beavers, and lions. Whatever we produce is also a part of nature, as is a beaver dam or an ant hill or a beehive. Unless you believe in some form of higher being, like God, you cannot seperate what human beings do from what a gopher does, as we both evolved on this planet over eons. If you do believe in God, the Creator, then it’s highly egocentric to think of humans as interfering in God’s creation, as if we could undo it with mere toil. Human beings don’t thrive in areas higly populated with Kodiak bears; are they interfering with us? No.
Click to expand...

Nude, I own a Jeep that gets horrible gas mileage, but performs wonderful offroad. I take this Jeep out to "wilderness" areas and drive to my heart's content. I am the last person to lament about how humans are destroying the earth. I believe I have every right to enjoy the outdoors as much as any other living thing on this planet. Is it possible that I may encounter a rattle snake, a mountain lion, or die by a boulder falling on me in an earthquake? Absolutely. Is it possible that I may run over a lizard or some small woodland creature? Yep. But because I am a part of nature both are accepted risks by interaction between species on this planet.

I was merely stating that it is fascinating to see how flora and fauna thrive and revive without human interaction. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your choice of words imply that animals do not thrive or revive due to human interaction. Do they need us to survive? Obviously not. But the phrasing you use certainly carries a negative connotation.
 
I’m not trying to pick a fight, but
Click to expand...

...but you are. A little bit.

That's OK. I'll bite because it's 5:30 on Friday and I'm ready to go home.

I will concede that the use of the word "interfere" was not the best choice of words, but I'm afraid my internal thesaurus failed me on a more apropros choice. Barring that word, I do not see the negative connotation.

The documentary did make the argument that the area was thriving because of lack of human interaction in the area, and made a strong case for it. It was also "pretty cool" and/or fascinating, intriguing, etc. to see what happens when humans aren't present in an area where they once were.
 
Now this company GIS.com has some very, very good data. Essentially they are a govt. sponsored company that filters the data from several ... places. :roll:

I'd be looking very, very, VERY closely at the Iranian Nataz processing plant facility. But that's just my guess.

-bix
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top