They are using this as a vector to install Chrome. That annoys some people, but at least the people most likely to be running IE 6 or 7 at home are also the ones most likely to remain co-opted-in to a Chrome download.
I find the forced "Google Update" install more annoying.
Plus, the uninstall note for Google Update points out that if you want to remove it, you must first remove all Google software, otherwise the Updater will be reinstalled within hours.
There is something about Google Earth that just doesn’t make it as fun to use as Maps. Maybe because Earth is a lot uglier than Maps? There are all those customization options but no sensible defaults and a very strange aesthetic, completely unlike what you see on the much more subtle and sophisticated Maps. Navigation also feels somewhat broken. I often manage to get lost in Earth, that doesn’t happen to me on Maps.…
I've felt that the Maps is generally way better due to it's availability as you and everybody else has it, you can embed it etc. It actually feels more integrated to my desktop... I mean my browser.
Tangential to the conversation. So theoretically, Google will be able to count the number of trees in a given city right?
I imagine that it would be a very rough estimate. In areas of dense tree coverage in parks or backyards Google probably just plants trees to cover the area since it would be nearly impossible to actually differentiate each individual tree in a canopied area. Trees that are out in the open, standing alone can obviously be counted, but trees in groups probably can't.
That's assuming they're doing the tree counting with imagery. The newer Google Street View cars I've seen have LIDAR rigs on top, so they could be mapping trees that way.
I imagine that it would be a very rough estimate. In areas of dense tree coverage in parks or backyards Google probably just plants trees to cover the area since it would be nearly impossible to actually differentiate each individual tree in a canopied area. Trees that are out in the open, standing alone can obviously be counted, but trees in groups probably can't.
That's assuming they're doing the tree counting with imagery. The newer Google Street View cars I've seen have LIDAR rigs on top, so they could be mapping trees that way.
But presumably they aren't driving through most of the forests, right?
It doesn't do a good job of using the available UI on the Mac at least… • No pinch-zoom or rotate. • The two finger panning motions don't work, the vertical portion having been repurposed as zoom. …but the animation seems smoother and the more prominent date display at the bottom of the view should lead more people to the historical imagery. The transition to street view is brilliantly done! Moving around in street v…
Agreed. It also slowed down my entire system to the point where I had to Force Quit it... and even then, it took a good 30-40 seconds before the system got responsive again... I kinda feel like Google Earth is less and less relevant and mostly always revert to using Google Maps instead...
They are using this as a vector to install Chrome. That annoys some people, but at least the people most likely to be running IE 6 or 7 at home are also the ones most likely to remain co-opted-in to a Chrome download.
Odd, I installed today expecting Chrome to tag along (which I was then going to remove) but no Chrome followed.
That's assuming they're doing the tree counting with imagery. The newer Google Street View cars I've seen have LIDAR rigs on top, so they could be mapping trees that way.
But presumably they aren't driving through most of the forests, right?
I don't see any reason they couldn't do the same from the air. You can tell foliage with LIDAR, and I'd imagine you could get a pretty good approximation of trunk location pretty easily by looking at the foliage height.
But presumably they aren't driving through most of the forests, right?
I don't see any reason they couldn't do the same from the air. You can tell foliage with LIDAR, and I'd imagine you could get a pretty good approximation of trunk location pretty easily by looking at the foliage height.
Fair enough, but do they collect their own aerial data? I was under the impression it's all collected through by third parties. Also, do they use anything other than satellite imagery right now? Is LIDAR effective at that range?