61–70 of 693 posts
Organizations/NGOs heavily rely on satellite imagery (i) to assist in delivering many humanitarian efforts. It would seem useful for the UN to strongly prohibit the diminishing of such capability. (i) www.hotosm.org
The UN does not have this authority.
Im kind of confused - they're saying its a problem for reporters and people trying to investigate, but also that other providers provide high resolution imagery. I feel like both those things can't be true. How can it be a problem if you can just get the needed images from non usa companies?
In Summary:
- Old out-of-date imagery: $
- Newer up-to-date imagery that has been captured: $$$
- Tasking a spacecraft to request image of a specific area: $$$$
> "Considering the importance of current events, I see no reason why commercial imagery of this area should continue to be deliberately degraded,"
Yeah, no. That does not answer the question right before it. What's with these sinister edits?
tldr: Israeli-US agreement limited resolution until July 2020, and Gmaps hasn't gotten around to updating the imagery since.
Perhaps pedantic, but it wasn't an agreement per se, just a regular domestic U.S. law, although Israel did indeed lobby in favor of the law. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyl%E2%80%93Bingaman_Amendment
Side note, does anyone have any great works of political theory that talks about how to deal with bribery?
Is it possible to have real-time live-feed of the entire planet? If cost isn't an issue, would something like that be possible?
The short answer is no. High-resolution imagery comes from low-orbit satellites, which make a complete orbit about every two hours, and image long, narrow strips with each pass, taking days to image the whole planet. There are many of these satellites: commercial, non-military (publicly-accessible) governmental, and governmental (secret), of varying resolutions. These are also supplemented by aerial (plane) imagery.…
Heck, put up 100,000 satellites and use the same kind of tech Apple/Google/MS use in their 3D views of cities (it, they do take airplane and satellite photos at various angles, and use software to stitch together the separate pieces).
Seems totally possible to meet OP's request given money not being an issue.
Is it possible to have real-time live-feed of the entire planet? If cost isn't an issue, would something like that be possible?
The short answer is no. High-resolution imagery comes from low-orbit satellites, which make a complete orbit about every two hours, and image long, narrow strips with each pass, taking days to image the whole planet. There are many of these satellites: commercial, non-military (publicly-accessible) governmental, and governmental (secret), of varying resolutions. These are also supplemented by aerial (plane) imagery.…
And the market for near-real-time imagery might be even larger than the market for internet connectivity.
Im kind of confused - they're saying its a problem for reporters and people trying to investigate, but also that other providers provide high resolution imagery. I feel like both those things can't be true. How can it be a problem if you can just get the needed images from non usa companies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should they have negotiated with the Palestinian Authority, which only partially controls the West Bank, or with Hamas, which took control of Gaza and proceeded to murder leaders from other Palestinian political parties? It is kind of hard to know who the "official" representatives of the Palestinian people actually are due to the failure to establish a functional Palestinian state or government.
> Hamas, which took control of Gaza and proceeded to murder leaders from other Palestinian political parties You appear to be misinformed. Hamas won regular elections (considered such by international observers, who also reported obstructions from Israel ). Hamas then kept respecting the ongoing ceasefire with Israel and started softening its stance towards it, offering a permanent ceasefire, while on the other side…