Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Keyhole, Google Scholar

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the google-google?-google! dept.

Google 270

baegucb_18706 writes "The front page of Google has a link to Keyhole where you can download a free trial of satellite imagery. Is it worth the cost for a subscription, and is it the start of the real commercialism for Google? And a challenge to MS's imagery?" D H NG writes "According to CNET, Google introduced a new service for academics called Google Scholar on Wednesday. This service searches scholarly literature such as technical reports, theses and abstracts. This service will not carry ads." And finally, reader ian@FalsePositives.com links to some speculation about how a sufficiently competent search engine could write the news itself.

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

woo hoo (-1, Offtopic)

gnoos (828264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852902)

first comment been waiting ages for that. wikkid.

Satelite imagery (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852914)

Sure its nice, and fun to browse, but I don't see a real good consistent profit motive for providing satelite imagery. Who needs it that can't get it already at a local courthouse, etc.

Unless someone can show me otherwise.

Re:Satelite imagery (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853012)

I think people want it right there, right then. I believe most people will get what they need from the 7 day trial.

It will be an amazing asset for schools and colleges etc. The 3d exploration module looks really good, and combined with being able to switch to a martian map, it increases it uses further.

I see some of the imagary is scanned at a 3inch resolution (Las vegas for example), but the majority of the planet is at the lesser 70cm-1m range.
3 inches! Just think about how detailed that is, they can see your Tin Foil Beany. They KNOW your wearing it.

I live in England and would love this software, but they don't seem to have the resolution here yet (London is down as a 70cm map, I'm nowhere near there so its useless...

Re:Satelite imagery (2, Interesting)

swordboy (472941) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853067)

but I don't see a real good consistent profit motive for providing satelite imagery.

I know surveyors who use terraserver multiple times per day. It is a vital tool for them.

Re:Satelite imagery (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853115)

Ok sure, but I imagine that surveyors seek out the tools they need, they don't expect them to be on the frontpage of google.

What I'm asking is "is the everyday joe blow going to be using a tool like this on a daily basis for something other than play?".

Re:Satelite imagery (3, Interesting)

CreatureComfort (741652) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853305)


I think the more relevant question is, will the average Joe Blow pay a monthly subscription for this just to occasionally play. I bet, and Google is betting, that the answer to that is yes. Look at all the other garbage people spend money on for play.

Also, why is using this "for play" not a valid reason for it to be offered?

Re:Satelite imagery (1)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853437)

Also, why is using this "for play" not a valid reason for it to be offered?

It is a valid reason, so long as it lasts. It might appeal to a niche market who will pay for it, but for most people, they will try it for a few days, think its neat to move around the world in 3d. But eventually will find no entertainment in it. IMHO, this is the same problem virtual environments like Second Life fail. There is not much reason to come back. You fly around for a while, get bored and forget about it.

I think where Keyhole might shine though is if it where encorporated into GPS devices and palmtops, where it could enhance mapping equipment for people's cars.

Re:Satelite imagery (2, Insightful)

swordboy (472941) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853363)

Ok sure, but I imagine that surveyors seek out the tools they need, they don't expect them to be on the frontpage of google.

It is just advertising. Google doesn't intent to keep it on the front page but this is the cheapest way to get exposure for the service. Only a very small percentage of the people out there will need and pay for this but how will google get those people to do so if they don't advertise the fact that they've got this service available?

What's the best way to let people know what services that you provide?

Put them on the front page.

Once it gets a following and becomes well known, google will take it off of the front page and move onto something else. They will probably do this with hundreds of different services over the course of the next decade. Cheap exposure.

all americans are stupid (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10852924)

hail the EU

Re:all americans are stupid (0)

mailtomomo (776971) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853102)

using your own logic : you are american.

Umm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10852928)

Compatible with Windows for PC


What about the rest of us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10852972)

Will we get keyhole too someday?

Re:What about the rest of us? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853008)

Let's build our own.

Obligatory Futurama quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853182)

With Blackjack and Hookers!

Re:What about the rest of us? (2, Funny)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853220)

Don't worry. It's BETA. I'm sure Google will add support for Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, Minix, RISC OS, Amiga, and OS/2 by the time they're done.

In google we trust (0)

elh_inny (557966) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852933)

It's always nice to find a picture of your house on the Internet...
I think that in google we should trust, they will lead us in the right direction, they seem to be having better and better ideas all the time...

Re:In google we trust (2, Insightful)

iztaru (832035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852999)

Yes, its interesting, however, it doesn't worth the money. You cannot find there any information that you cannot find anywhere else (e.g.: pictures from places that you want to visit). I think that Google is just trying to expand its business in order to find new ways to do money. The search engine competition is very hard these days. Google has brand recognition, so they must capitalize on it with other business.

Re:In google we trust (3, Insightful)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853068)

You raise a valid point in there.. it reminds me of those large bookstores that took the market share in Canada.

Our local Chapters bookstore (an extremely large bookstore, with Starbucks, music, gifts, etc.) popped up, filled with wonderful chairs and beautiful features. After they destroyed the rest of the market, had their captive audience, the quality of service declined - the comfy chairs dissapeared because goodness, it cost far too much money to have people in there simply enjoying themselves and not consuming!

Interesting to see if Google follows the same model.. at least theres MSN search to keep them on their toes! Healthy competition is good, for the enduser at least.

lexis-nexis replacement (5, Interesting)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852940)

Is that what Google scholar is going for? I guess it would end up as a pay service before long.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (1)

endlessoul (741131) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853037)

That's certainly what it sounds like. In my opinion, if Google Scholar were to get off the ground, I think the "brand recognition" could definitely help people to come to their site, as opposed to Nexis.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853038)

Typically you get an abstract free, then pay for the paper. I suspect that google won't charge for the search itself, but will repeat this tried and true business method somehow (maybe they can make arrangements for a commission from the sale of the paper by the site they found for the person. Searching for nonfree content doesn't count as an ad)

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853119)

I did a search on my papers and was a able to view a PDF of them. It looks like they are getting versions posted on distance education websites. These papers are all licensed for free viewing for academic purposes. The only drawback seems to be that supplimentary materials like code and videos are not linked to.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (1)

kindofblue (308225) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853431)

I have a paper published by ACM Press and it is not available. The link goes to the publisher site where you can subscribe for access.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853049)

If it provides good information then it could be good for more than just schools but for folks in R&D or even just design. To see what others ahve done and are doing is good for keeping at the cutting edge.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (4, Interesting)

calibanDNS (32250) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853078)

My first thought when I read this was that Google could easily challenge Lexis-Nexis [lexisnexis.com] and Westlaw [westlaw.com] for their hold on the law school community in the US. While my wife was in law school I routinely helped her research cases using both of these services, and quite frankly their interface sucks. It took forever to find just about anything, and they had to continually pelt the students with free gifts just to keep them coming back. Google could potentially do very well in this area and I think there is certainly room for another competitor; especially one with Google's name recognition.

Re:lexis-nexis replacement (4, Insightful)

jacobm (68967) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853382)

More a CiteSeer [psu.edu] replacement, I think. The idea behind CiteSeer is that in academic computer science, most researchers (and most conferences and journals) make their papers available for free on the web, but there are so many of them and so many places to look that actually finding a paper that's relevant to your research is really hard. The CiteSeer folks realized that web spiders could do a very good job of indexing all those papers and putting them in a searchable form and that it was much cheaper (computationally, financially, effort-wise) than traditional approaches like Lexis/Nexis. CiteSeer has been available for free for years, and Google Scholar seems like it's just a much better interface to the same idea, so I don't see any reason why they'd turn it into a pay service.

NASA? (5, Interesting)

Clemensa (800698) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852941)

Is this not very similar to what NASA are doing? NASA's is free, but I think Google's has a much better resolution and can zoom in more detail. However, I remember a while back NASA saying they would probably support Open Source in the near future with their project?

Re:NASA? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853202)

Is this not very similar to what NASA are doing?

No, NASA is doing something rather amaturishly similar to Keyhole.

Re:NASA? (1)

dema (103780) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853211)

I remember a while back NASA saying they would probably support Open Source in the near future with their project?

Well, that's a good sign :D

Re:NASA? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853266)

http://learn.arc.nasa.gov/worldwind/

runs on PC, uses .NET, so /.ers with their high morals will not get to enjoy this.

nothing cooler than a USGS 1M in 3D.

Not Such Link (5, Informative)

dorward (129628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852948)

Google isn't linking to Keyhole here. Maybe is it to random users, or selected geographical areas.

Re:Not Such Link (5, Informative)

dorward (129628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852968)

Ah ha! It does appear in the Google Tools, but not on the front page.

Re:Not Such Link (2, Informative)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852983)

It appears on the frontpage for me. Coming from Bloomington, IN

Re:Not Such Link (1)

peterprior (319967) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853224)

Not here.. coming from the UK to google.com. Maybe it is only there to areas covered by keyhole. That would make sense...

Re:Not Such Link (1)

byolinux (535260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853287)

I can't find the link anywhere here (UK)

Re:Not Such Link (2, Informative)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853000)

A friend near Minneapolis MN doesn't get the link either. While I get it near Madison WI. It must be a geographical thing, though I am not sure why. There is less data on my area than his, yet I have the link. Go figure.

Re:Not Such Link (1)

_Pinky_ (75643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853033)

Doesn't appear on the frontpage when I just now went to google...

I'm guessing it could very well be geo specific... According to the keyhole page, they dont have high res for the whole globe, only major metro areas...

Of course I'm up here in Alaska, and we didn't even make the pull down... Grrr...

Re:Not Such Link (1)

genesplicer (314591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853054)

I don't see it on the front page either (I'm in Toronto - and I checked both google.ca and google.com).
I will say though that the addition of Google Scholar is yet another reason why Google is the _Greatest Invention Ever!_ ... Fire, the wheel, sliced bread - they've got nothing on Google.

Re:Not Such Link (1, Funny)

dorward (129628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853127)

Fire, the wheel, sliced bread - they've got nothing on Google.

This is true, Fire might let you see naked bottoms in the dark, but Google gives you access to a world wide database of naked bottoms.

Re:Not Such Link (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853221)

But Google runs on fire, allowing you to see naked bottoms in the dark.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

KFG

Re:Not Such Link (1)

Monoman (8745) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853203)

No link for me either. Tried multiple browsers, force refresh, etc.

Random, phased in, or based on some criteria?

Wonderful (1)

Braingoo (771241) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852950)

Now I can use google to make sure those evil garden knomes in my backyard arn't realy moving closer to the house when im not looking.

Writing the nes itself? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852954)

Would it be able to get a sufficient amount of meaningless technobable, managementspeak, sentence fragments and misspelled words?

I thought not.

Re:Writing the nes itself? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853180)

Actually, going counter to the joke, my first impression is that is the only sort of "news" it could write, which, given the joke, would, indeed, render its output indistinguishable for what passes for "news" these days.

I'll believe a search engine can "write" news when I can't tell a difference in quality between its output and Twain's or Mencken's.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

KFG

Re:Writing the nes itself? (3, Funny)

Random_Goblin (781985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853240)

meaningless technobable, managementspeak, sentence fragments and misspelled words?

you want it? You already have it
Mission statement Generator [dilbert.com]

(in a life imitating art moment, I am currently looking at a job application that wants me "To exploit all synergies within the group and drive through efficiencies via excellent operational planning.")

Winders (2, Informative)

doon (23278) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852960)

So I go to Download Free Registration, and it says compatible with Windows for PC's. So I guess I won't be able to use it :(

Authors (5, Interesting)

endlessoul (741131) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852967)

From the website:
I'm an author. Why would I want my articles in Google Scholar?

Your work likely has great value to a number of people who may not know it exists. By including your articles in Google Scholar, others will be more likely to find them, learn from them, cite them and build on the foundation you have laid.


Sounds like a good way to make yourself known in the writing world. For now, it sounds like a kickass idea. Go Google.

another shameless plug modded up to 5 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853269)

another shameless plug modded up to 5. /., you have become a tool of marketting wogs

Not a big deal (5, Insightful)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852975)

So Google included Keyhole in its list of tools, which now takes another click (on more >> from the google homepage) to get to it. Heaven forbid that Google would do anything remotely business-like.

Quite frankly, Google is a corporation, and if they can help Keyhole get a few more customers (who need the service for whatever reason) while making a few dollars on the side, I think we should accept it as completely legitimate.

And no, I don't think this is the start of a slippery slope of Google into outrageous commercialism.

Re:Not a big deal (2, Interesting)

_Pinky_ (75643) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853070)

I completely agree... Google provides ads, but not obtrusive, like other sites. This just falls in the same line.

I don't have the link when I hit the main page, but even so, it's a link. You don't want the service, don't click on it...

It's not a popup, it's not tricking people to click on it... and if it helps google continue providing the service they provide, I'm for it...

Re:Not a big deal (1)

quickflash (636214) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853151)

If you actually go to the keyhole site, you will see that an article that states: "Google Acquires Keyhole Corp." I wouldn't consider pushing your own products along the lines of taking money from others to push there's.

Google acquired Keyhole (1)

stripmarkup (629598) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853395)

It happened over three weeks ago. The news is on Keyhole's front page.

Please don't kill citeseer. (0, Offtopic)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852977)

Thank you.

Re:Please don't kill citeseer. (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853166)

If they can create a new citeseer universities can subscribe to, it would be really nice. Currently citeseer is mostly unusable due to load.

Re:Please don't kill citeseer. (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853396)

I haven't had any big problems with it, but I'm not a heavy user nor am I in the US, so I might have the time-zone thing going for me.

I hope the moderator who moderated my comment "off-topic" thought it through. If we assume that google scholar gets as prevalent as "google www", but goes pay/limited, then that might have a big impact on the ability of those of us who aren't faculty nor stundents to access papers.

Even today I have a hard time accessing papers which are only available at the ACM digital library (which is pay-only). I'd like to see a move away from closing papers up in journals and digital pay-for-use libraries.

Between the ACM and Google this could spell less access for public.

Offload citeseer? Great! But let's hope this isn't another ivory tower in the making.

Re:Please don't kill citeseer. (1)

Lalakis (308990) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853192)

If google was Microsoft, they would have bought citeseer and everyone (in the citeseer company) would be happy. Now, who do you like best, MS or Google?

Scholar search! (5, Interesting)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 9 years ago | (#10852978)

Excellent! As a postgrad CS student, I've been more or less relying on Citeseer [psu.edu] and Google to search for literature online. Citeseer is really useful, but I find its search rather cumbersome. If Google can create a specialty search for academic papers...I'm more than thrilled! Go Google!

Re:Scholar search! (1)

mwood (25379) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853277)

It's still just a plain vanilla text search, though. Lots of sites are working day and night to create high-quality metadata for their holdings and share those data around, going out of their way to expose such metadata to spiders, but where do you go to find a search engine which can be told to, for example, find articles *by* $WELL_KNOWN_SCIENTIST as opposed to articles *mentioning* $WELL_KNOWN_SCIENTIST?

Re:Scholar search! (5, Informative)

5E-0W2 (767094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853445)

Worldwind (5, Informative)

SammysIsland (705274) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853002)

ummm.... worldwind [nasa.gov] from NASA is free and seems to be the same thing...

Re:Worldwind (1)

dapyx (665882) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853190)

Worlwind doesn't work since it was slashdotted.

So, I tried keyhole a week and so ago and it too didn't worked on my machine. I tried now to reinstall, but it says the trial expired. Oh, well...

Re:Worldwind (2, Informative)

entrager (567758) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853227)

As far as I can tell (I'm still downloading it), the highest resolution World Wind provides is 15m/pixel. Keyhole has far higher resolution, down to 1ft/pixel in most areas.

Re:Worldwind (2, Informative)

stg (43177) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853439)

No, World Wind has tons of black&white 1 meter coverage through USGS, and a few select urban areas at .25 meter, color.

I've used both, and Keyhole has fairly better US coverage and tools, but had very poor coverage on most of the world - usually just the Blue Marble NASA texture (not even landsat).

World Wind's Landsat server is still off after an earlier slashdotting but there is some cache files and proxy servers around (info available on their forum). The program is already open source and available at CVS on https://sourceforge.net/projects/nasa-exp/ [sourceforge.net]

A copy of the source is also included in the NASA regular download.

How is this different than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853014)

adding site:.edu and site:.gov to current Google searches?

Slashdot news cluster (-1, Offtopic)

LupeSpywalper (713932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853016)

This is just a part of today's /. news cluster. You can browse images from 100 chinese satellites spotting californian cars via GPS.

Surely it's not wrong to link to your own company? (1)

rp8774 (727469) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853020)

http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/keyhole.html Doesn't this make linking to Keyhole the same as linking to Picasa?

EPIC (5, Insightful)

jamie (78724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853022)

That last link, http://poynterextra.org/epic/ [poynterextra.org] , is really interesting. But the key technological turning point, where Google comes up with a magic algorithm to combine and rewrite multiple news stories to generate a customized, nuanced, original news story for each reader, is not grounded in reality.

Rewriting English is similar to summarizing it. Using clever tricks, computers are about as good at writing a précis of a block of text as a dull 3rd grader -- every such summary lacks nuance, because the computer that generated it lacks understanding. All there is, is tricks. So the idea that an algorithm can be taught not only to understand the meaning of news stories that were written by humans, but then to rewrite them adaptively, is pure science fiction.

My favorite example of this is Cyc [cyc.com] , a project to feed into a database all the propositions which some believe constitute "common sense." For example, Cyc knows that dogs and cats are mammals, and that they are common pets, so one could tell it "I have a mammal as a pet," and it could deduce that I have a dog or a cat or maybe something else. In the early 1990s, when the project was getting started, its researchers believed that in about five years, it would be intelligent enough to read plain English text on its own and understand it well enough to assimilate into its database. At that point, of course, it would start absorbing all the knowledge in the world until it became the smartest encyclopedia there was.

And then in the last 1990s, its researchers were again interviewed, and again they said that it would soon be intelligent enough to read plain English text on its own and understand it. When? In about five years. For any time T, strong AI is always about five years away.

So I'm amused that the strong AI postulated in that excellent Flash animation, the key which allows "big media" to die off because computers will do custom rewrites of amateur news dispatches and form newsfeeds of their own, comes to pass in... about five years. I don't think the New York Times has much to worry about.

Re:EPIC (2, Funny)

mwlewis (794711) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853189)

I don't think the New York Times has much to worry
I think the NY Times does have much to worry about...but AI hasn't made the list yet.

Re:EPIC (1)

rice_web (604109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853216)

I think it's funny that the idea has arisen of late that computers can ever parse information as fluidly as the animation suggests. We've had computer science for decades and speech and language analysts for centuries before that and the only thing that they've concluded is that language is a very complex thing.

I speak English, German, French, and Spanish, so my question is this: how can Google even know the difference of languages without the appropriate headers? Well, Google feeds a set of common words, perhaps, that are common of certain languages or flags sites as they come along. However, that is not an automatic process. One can create common-word lists which filter out prepositions and only retrieve infinitives and nouns, but this trusts the standardization of language. What about misspellings and slang? What about poems and other forms of written expression? Few humans even make decent readers, let alone a computer that would be expected to understand everything.

I am currently working on a program that will parse news for the great state of North Dakota (even the little weekly publications from the small cities), and keyword-finding is a hell of a problem. Currently I'm working on a way to divide a typical sentence on boundaries of word order (subject, verb, objects, prepositional phrases, etc.), but I'm doing it as a fun, long-term project, and it's still greatly minimal in its approach. If anything, I will have written something that just takes a lot of extra CPU cycles, and still works less often than SlashDot editor.

Re:EPIC (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853313)

Rewriting English is similar to summarizing it. Using clever tricks, computers are about as good at writing a précis of a block of text as a dull 3rd grader -- every such summary lacks nuance, because the computer that generated it lacks understanding. All there is, is tricks. So the idea that an algorithm can be taught not only to understand the meaning of news stories that were written by humans, but then to rewrite them adaptively, is pure science fiction.

Thank you, sir, and thank you again. A thousand thank yous and a thank you.

My only concern is that since the average "journalist" now seems to write at about the level of a dull third grader (or is edited to appear as one) people won't be able to tell the difference.

KFG

Price (3, Informative)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853039)

The price is free when you have an Nvidia GPU, which I'm sure a lot of you do.

Click here [nvidia.com] to get an Nvidia only free(beer) version. Their site seems to be down at the moment, which is odd for such a large company, but when it comes back up, you can get it from there. There are many other cool programs you can get for free if you have an Nvidia card while you are there.

Re:Price (3, Informative)

isecore (132059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853210)

The price is free when you have an Nvidia GPU, which I'm sure a lot of you do.

Yes, you get the software and a trial-subscription.

But you still need a "real" subscription to use it more than 14 days. You can sign up for a free trial-version every 14 days, but that seems like a fair pain in the derriére.

Also if memory serves me Nvidia-users get a slight discount when purchasing a subscription.

OK, who the hell is.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853047)

sam-zen-pus?
And why in hell would anyone end their nym with pus [m-w.com]

Keyhole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853059)

It looks like Keyhole is just using Citipix (http://www.citipix.com) imagery. So its essentially cheap access to the Citipix database without the uber-cool Citipix image viewer? Pah.

Re:Keyhole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853263)

It looks like Keyhole is just using Citipix (http://www.citipix.com) imagery.

Yeah that non-existant website you point to is uber-cool all right.

Keyholes Maps (4, Interesting)

IndigoZenith (791590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853082)

I think keyhole has more Sat. Imagery of Iraq and Afghanistan, than all of the U.S. put together. This is pretty much a good way to tell if you are on the US hit list, when more and more Imagery is available for your Counrty (At least in the Middle East, otherwise Italy and Greece need to watch their asses). Otherwise, I think this is a great step for Google to take if they are developing their own in-house MapQuest. Plus it is too much fun spinning the planet in circles.

Re:Keyholes Maps (1)

gUmbi (95629) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853159)

This is pretty much a good way to tell if you are on the US hit list, when more and more Imagery is available for your Counrty

We never liked Alberta anyway...

Re:Keyholes Maps (1)

IndigoZenith (791590) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853307)

Yeah! Who needs Oil and searching for WMD's, when we could corner the Hockey and Canadian Beer market!

what's next? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853111)

Google gloryhole perhaps?

well (-1, Flamebait)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853124)

I suppose a google employee taking a shit will also make it frontpage on /. Yeah, thats right, mod me down, everone LOVES google...

Keyhole interesting, but not all that great (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853134)

I tried out Keyhole for a few days - it was interesting, but it seemed like most of the images I looked at that I could date were a couple of years out, at least. Also, the only hi-res images that exist are major population areas, which is slightly annoying if say, you want to examine Palo Duro Canyon or something like that.

3 inches (2, Interesting)

notthepainter (759494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853137)

Hmmm, Cambride Massachusetts is imaged down to a 3 inch resolution. I wonder what they did to deserve that.

Not quite licenes plate reading, but getting there.

I think I'll put a brim on my tin-foil hat.

Keyhole needs throughput capacity (2, Interesting)

rwebb (732790) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853158)

I downloaded and installed the 7-day free trial a couple of weeks ago, shortly after Google purchased the service and dropped the price of an annual subscription to a more reasonable level.

If they could have kept my DSL pipe full (or even occasionally full) when pulling down the image data I probably would have sprung for the subscription but the service was just unacceptably slow.

They do recommend that users have a broadband connection, so presumably the throughput will improve someday. However, if you're thinking about trying the service, do use enough of the free trial period to find out if it's fast enough for you.

EPIC 2014 (-1, Offtopic)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853161)

That one was really thought provoking. I am not sure if I should be scared shitless or wishing it was 2014 already.

Re:EPIC 2014 (0, Offtopic)

Fr05t (69968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853214)

Sorry what was that you were saying? I just shit my pants, and not the good kind either.

Sonic hedgehog is essential to foregut development (1)

Rescate (688702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853195)

I was giving Google Scholar a whirl, and found this scholarly paper from 1998 at the bottom of my search page [google.com] :

Sonic hedgehog is essential to foregut development [google.com] .

These days, foregut development is more from playing Doom 3 and Half-Life 2, I suppose...

Re:Sonic hedgehog is essential to foregut developm (1)

Halo- (175936) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853302)

I'm not a biologist/geneticist/etc, but "Sonic Hedgehog" is a protein named because of it's spikey appearance. Biologists are just as bad as physicists when it comes to naming things. Remember particle names? "up", "down", "strange"...

And don't get me started on the "funny" names us computer people like to give things...

ABC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853222)

I've seen news reports by ABC using keyspan.

How do I know they used it? There was a keyspan.com watermark on the top left!

Google Scholar is BETA (1, Funny)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853244)

Please remember that Google Scholar is BETA. You are not allowed to criticise it until 2015, at which time Google will change the name to "Google Scholar Release Candidate 1."

This has been a public service announcement from Google Advocacy Central BETA. If you have any feedback, please don't send it to us.

Worries about Scholar (5, Interesting)

3rd_Floo (443611) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853310)

The only thing I worry about with scholar, after giving it a whirl, is that some newer papers that have recently been published dont appear, since it seems it builds its index off of citations first. I worry that if Scholar does take hold, newer more obscure papers that may not get the publicity of more mainstream journals and venues of publication will never be seen again (This is all reliant on their indexing model not getting better). Perhaps i'll have to start submiting abstracts of my work to Google as well now...

Keyhole has a crappy install (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10853311)

I downloaded keyhole, but I can't install it becasue the crappy install won't let you select the install drive - or anything else. It does let you review your non-choices though...

I question their competence.

Also, isn't it time big companies ( and their subsidiaries ) used multi-platform tools so they can develop and release on multiple platforms easily *and simultaneously* ?

Groutch

So it's basically CiteSeer? (4, Interesting)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853326)

Google Scholar basically seems to be an attempt to replace CiteSeer. It doesn't seem to have quite as many features in terms of displaying information as CiteSeer does, but it does have the important features, and it does lack a couple of the longstanding problems with CiteSeer (for example, that CiteSeer is absurdly slow)...

I am curious which produces better search results. Google seems to produce its results mainly from a handful of sources, but a couple of tests showed it giving more relevant results than CiteSeer, and Google Scholar also immediately returned a copy of this one specific article I was trying to find awhile back that I knew to exist but couldn't find either on CiteSeer or Google normal search... Hmm.

At any rate CiteSeer indexes 716797 articles and Google Scholar... interestingly, doesn't provide an index size number at all.

We have just stepped into the 21st century (1)

nucleargeek (544900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853352)

Search technologies are the future: I have just tried google scholar and in my field (optical model potenitals for nuclear physics) I was able to get most of the relevant references that I have been acumulating for years in a few seconds.
I am VERY impressed.
I think that search technologies like google desktop or spotlight are going to define the user interface of the 21st century: no files that you have to keep track of, only information that is a search query away from your fingertips.

Google is thinking outside the box... (3, Interesting)

mogrify (828588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853354)

Google is clearly making an effort to consider ALL the different kinds of information available on the web. They've grown the idea of a search engine from simply something that indexes HTML pages to include PDFs, Office documents, images, news, products, etc...
This shows some initiative and creativity in trying to develop new ways for people to find all kinds of information, both on your desktop and on the Internet... just imagine when they get all this stuff integrated... you could search for a friend's address, and not only get a map of their house, but a satellite-guided view of the trip, as well as links to their website, public photo collection, slashdot and blog posts, e-mails you've written them, and scholarly articles they've written. Google wants to be a total information provider, and they're the only ones truly pulling all of this stuff together.

Keyhole (1)

jessecurry (820286) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853362)

After using keyhole I'll have to say that I was both impressed and disappointed. The things that impressed me the most about Keyhole were the fact that it had full color images of anywhere that I wanted to look(including my ranch in FL) and that it had a very elegant interface.
I was, however, disappointed with the speed at which these images were delivered to my desktop. The first 20 minutes that I used Keyhole I thought that it had a very limited high-res image base because everywhere that I tried to view came back very blurred. While browsing the software I had to take a call that lasted about 10 minutes, when I switched back to the keyhole application I was amazed to see a crisp clean image in front of me. I was on an OC-3, so it's not as if my connection would've caused a slowdown.
The Keyhole application definitely has a lot of potential, but if it continues to be so slow then I think I'll pass.
One of the more interesting features that was able to set Keyhole apart from other imaging services is that you can pan/tilt in "realtime" this was very cool because it enabled me to get a better view of what surrounded an area.
All in all it is a good product, but still needs to be polished a little. And the price per year is even fairly low.

another thought... (2, Insightful)

mogrify (828588) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853402)

Don't Google Keyhole and Google Scholar seem rather remarkably like beta versions of the Earth and Librarian programs from Hiro's study in Snow Crash?

Government should license this product (0)

nysus (162232) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853441)

Probably most of the images created for this software come from government agencies for the public good. I think the government should also get involved with licensing and furthering this software even further so all citizens can take advantage of it. If every poor taxpayer chipped in few cents and weatlhier tax payers chipped in a few bucks, we'd have one universal service that everyone could have access to and make use of.

Google Scholar (1)

wadam (563519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10853474)

So Google Scholar seems like it will be a pretty good resource, but for those of us in the humanities and social sciences, it doesn't look like it has a whole lot to offer just yet. Certainly, it doesn't compare to subscriber-only resources like JSTOR and Project MUSE. I like Google and I like the interface, so I hope that this changes in the near future, but I'm not really holding my breath. I don't know what it's like in the sciences, but part of the problem that I see is that University Presses who put out Humanities and Social Science journals are unlikely to allow them to be indexed on Google without some kind of monetary compensation. Smaller independent journals, maybe, but in the disciplines that I'm familiar with (Anthropology, Folklore, English etc.), those aren't the important journals anyway.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>