<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The weather, a carnival and some geography</title>
	<atom:link href="http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/01/30/the-weather-a-carnival-and-some-geography/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/01/30/the-weather-a-carnival-and-some-geography/</link>
	<description>If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do? --Psalm 11:3</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:04:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/01/30/the-weather-a-carnival-and-some-geography/#comment-922</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=376#comment-922</guid>
		<description>Most of the pictures from Google (and the like) are not satellite pictures. There are a bunch of companies out there that fly over terrain with aircraft and take pictures that they try to sell in various markets. (Note that only populated areas enjoy the "hi res" images. That's because these companies have no market for areas without population.) I suspect that the standard satellite resolution is what you would see in the areas on Google Earth that are &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; hi res.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Note: I worked on one of the top resolution satellites for commercial use. They were touting a 1 meter resolution. That means, in essence, that they could differentiate between things at least a meter in size. Maybe that will ease your mind?)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most of the pictures from Google (and the like) are not satellite pictures. There are a bunch of companies out there that fly over terrain with aircraft and take pictures that they try to sell in various markets. (Note that only populated areas enjoy the &#8220;hi res&#8221; images. That&#8217;s because these companies have no market for areas without population.) I suspect that the standard satellite resolution is what you would see in the areas on Google Earth that are <i>not</i> hi res.</p>
<p>(Note: I worked on one of the top resolution satellites for commercial use. They were touting a 1 meter resolution. That means, in essence, that they could differentiate between things at least a meter in size. Maybe that will ease your mind?)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dana</title>
		<link>http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/01/30/the-weather-a-carnival-and-some-geography/#comment-921</link>
		<dc:creator>Dana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=376#comment-921</guid>
		<description>Oh, it isn't really Google Earth itself that concerns me.  I know it isn't real time, but it is kind of eerie to think how much those satellites up there can "see."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mind boggling!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, it isn&#8217;t really Google Earth itself that concerns me.  I know it isn&#8217;t real time, but it is kind of eerie to think how much those satellites up there can &#8220;see.&#8221;</p>
<p>Mind boggling!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://principleddiscovery.com/2007/01/30/the-weather-a-carnival-and-some-geography/#comment-920</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://principleddiscovery.com/?p=376#comment-920</guid>
		<description>Just a note to ease your concerns about Google Earth (which is, indeed, a fascinating program) (and which has its counterpart in the Windows Live program) ...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;... it is often assumed that because it is so detailed, it is "real time". Let me reassure you, &lt;i&gt;it is not&lt;/i&gt;. I moved into my house 2 years ago. Not only did no Internet map program know I was there, but even Google Earth seemed to think I lived in a dirt lot. It took almost 2 years for them to update to something more recent. (I finally live in a house.) Unfortunately, even though my house is visible, my street is not listed anywhere and only one Internet map service to this day knows that we live in the middle of a huge housing complex. Yeah ... I think, as long as you're not a target, they're still a ways off of tracking your movements.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;(Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the birdwatch thing in February. I'll definitely want to take part in that.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a note to ease your concerns about Google Earth (which is, indeed, a fascinating program) (and which has its counterpart in the Windows Live program) &#8230;</p>
<p>&#8230; it is often assumed that because it is so detailed, it is &#8220;real time&#8221;. Let me reassure you, <i>it is not</i>. I moved into my house 2 years ago. Not only did no Internet map program know I was there, but even Google Earth seemed to think I lived in a dirt lot. It took almost 2 years for them to update to something more recent. (I finally live in a house.) Unfortunately, even though my house is visible, my street is not listed anywhere and only one Internet map service to this day knows that we live in the middle of a huge housing complex. Yeah &#8230; I think, as long as you&#8217;re not a target, they&#8217;re still a ways off of tracking your movements.</p>
<p>(Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the birdwatch thing in February. I&#8217;ll definitely want to take part in that.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
