Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3961 > unrolled thread

early days of Google streetview: a memoir

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  early days of Google streetview: a memoir RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-03 12:25 +0000
    Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-07-03 18:43 +0000
      Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-03 20:11 +0000
        Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-07-04 07:03 -0700
          Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-07-04 12:07 -0300
      Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2014-07-05 22:48 +1000
        Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-06 16:41 +0000
          Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-06 19:43 +0100
            Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-08 16:44 +0000
              Re: early days of Google streetview: a memoir Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-07-08 17:54 +0100

#3961 — early days of Google streetview: a memoir

From the «ah yes, there's the bathroom window» department:
Title: Early days of Streetview: a memoir
Author: zafiro17@pipedot.org
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 07:37:07 -0400
Link: http://pipedot.org/story/2014-07-03/early-days-of-streetview-a-memoir

Like it or hate it, Google's Streetview map interface[1] exists and is used
every day by all sorts of people. Getting to the point of a usable map
interface wasn't easy. Here are some war stories from the trenches by Iain
McClatchie, who participated in the effort[2].

We didn't know it at the time, but the problems we were having were
essentially due to the high resolution we were trying to shoot. High
resolution from a moving platform leads to short exposure times. Short
exposure times require large relative apertures to get enough sensitivity.
Compared to small format cameras, our focal lengths were fairly long (28
mm, IIRC), so that meant much larger apertures, much larger photocurrents,
and thus the problems we were fighting. In hindsight, the two real
solutions were lower resolution or CMOS sensors. Rather than try those, I
tried to make the high resolution CCD work with shutters (the R3 camera)
and choppers (R4).

It's a pretty amazing project and must have been an awesome time to be in on
the fun.

Links:
[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/views/streetview (link)
[2]: http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html (link)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3964

In article <lp3i3v$ag5$1@solani.org>, RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html

From the link: "Down until I'm done talking to Google about this post."

:-|

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3966

scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) Wrote in message:
> In article <lp3i3v$ag5$1@solani.org>, RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>>http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html
> 
> From the link: "Down until I'm done talking to Google about this post."
> 
> :-|
> 

Wow, that sucks.  was working this morning.  Google's lawyers are
 probably a bit trigger happy since those early days included
 slurping up wireless router log in credentials too and they were
 heavily fined for it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3967

On 7/3/2014 1:11 PM PT, RS Wood typed:

>>> http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html
>>
>>  From the link: "Down until I'm done talking to Google about this post."
>>
>> :-|
>
> Wow, that sucks.  was working this morning.  Google's lawyers are
>   probably a bit trigger happy since those early days included
>   slurping up wireless router log in credentials too and they were
>   heavily fined for it.

Was it technical or something?
-- 
Happy Independence Day, AmericANTS! :)
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3968

On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 07:03:35 -0700, Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>On 7/3/2014 1:11 PM PT, RS Wood typed:
>
>>>> http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html
>>>
>>>  From the link: "Down until I'm done talking to Google about this post."
>>>
>>> :-|
>>
>> Wow, that sucks.  was working this morning.  Google's lawyers are
>>   probably a bit trigger happy since those early days included
>>   slurping up wireless router log in credentials too and they were
>>   heavily fined for it.
>
>Was it technical or something?

	No, the software was designed to capture private traffic
(unencrypted emails, page visits etc).
	 If they just wanted the MACs they would have used different
and much simpler software. Hence the lawsuit.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3969

On 4/07/2014 4:43 AM, Scott Alfter wrote:
> In article <lp3i3v$ag5$1@solani.org>, RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2014/07/early-days-on-street-view.html
>
>  From the link: "Down until I'm done talking to Google about this post."
>
> :-|
>
>    _/_
>   / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
> (IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
>   \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
>

But this is the Internet.

http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MVBjyuv

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3973

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> Wrote in message:
> 
> But this is the Internet.
> 
> http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MVBjyuv
> 
> Sylvia.

Yay, Internet, routing around damage!  Wonder if that article
 Google was just forced to take down in Europe due to some
 peckerhead's 'right to be forgotten' is also cached somewhere -
 probably is!

I see Google's lawyers did ask this guy to take his article down,
 and given the words he uses to describe it (in the comments) it
 seems they weren't awfully diplomatic about it.  I responded 'the
 best censorship is self-censorship.'  That's what the authorities
 like best, and they are increasingly getting it.

Getting ready to put up a FIDOnet node.  Bring on the good times :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3974

In article <lpbuc0$njl$1@solani.org>, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> Wrote in message:
> > 
> > But this is the Internet.
> > 
> > http://www.tuicool.com/articles/MVBjyuv
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Yay, Internet, routing around damage!  Wonder if that article
>  Google was just forced to take down in Europe due to some
>  peckerhead's 'right to be forgotten' is also cached somewhere -
>  probably is!
> 
> I see Google's lawyers did ask this guy to take his article down,
>  and given the words he uses to describe it (in the comments) it
>  seems they weren't awfully diplomatic about it.  I responded 'the
>  best censorship is self-censorship.'  That's what the authorities
>  like best, and they are increasingly getting it.
> 
> Getting ready to put up a FIDOnet node.  Bring on the good times :)

AIUI, the article hasn't been taken down. All that's happened is that
if you google for the geezer who commented on the article, you won't
find the article via google. But you can enter other search terms and
google will provide a link to the article for you.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3978

> AIUI, the article hasn't been taken down. All that's happened is that
> if you google for the geezer who commented on the article, you won't
> find the article via google. But you can enter other search terms and
> google will provide a link to the article for you.

You're confusing two stories.  Or I am, or both.  There's another story
out there about a geezer who requested Google no longer index his story
due to his right to be forgotten.  Google did so, clumsily.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/guyclapperton/2014/07/03/is-google-wriggling-out-of-right-to-be-forgotten/

This is a former or actual Google employee writing about early days of
the Streetview program.  It was still up when I visited it, but later
in the day the author removed the article, replacing it with a "this
page removed while I talk to Google lawyers."  In the comments he made
it clear when responding to someone that the lawyers had threatened him
with nastiness, and he was not planning to republish the text.  (Had I
known, I'd have copied the thing whole-hog and posted on Usenet for the
win!).

First is clumsy policy.  Second is aggressive, menacing corporate lawyers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3979

In article <20140708164407.17f21fcf.rsw@therandymon.com>, RS Wood
<rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> > AIUI, the article hasn't been taken down. All that's happened is that
> > if you google for the geezer who commented on the article, you won't
> > find the article via google. But you can enter other search terms and
> > google will provide a link to the article for you.
> 
> You're confusing two stories.  Or I am, or both.  There's another story
> out there about a geezer who requested Google no longer index his story
> due to his right to be forgotten.  Google did so, clumsily.

Yes, you're right. That's the one I was referring to.

-- 
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where 
bitching is required to keep your head from exploding." - S Stremler in afc

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web