Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Earth To Show Ocean Floor

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-running-from-big-brother-google dept.

Google 181

f1vlad writes "Google is expected to announce the addition of ocean floor imagery to its Google Earth project, which will complete digital representation of our planet. 'The existing site, to which an estimated 400 million people have had access, already includes three-dimensional representations of large cities around the world and includes images from street-level and aerial photography covering thousands of miles across Britain and elsewhere. The new additions to the website are expected to include views of the ocean, and portions of the seabed. They will also provide detailed environmental data that will enhance information about the effect of climate change on the world's seas and oceans.'"

cancel ×

181 comments

Well, there goes my plan (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693533)

Anyone want to buy a slightly used underwater marijuana farm?

Re:Well, there goes my plan (5, Funny)

xch13fx (1463819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693705)

is it in international water? Cuz you could make it a point of interest and have boats come take "tours." Just don't let the Somalians find out.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (5, Informative)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694095)

I don't even worry about my land-based marijuana farm in my hometown
Google hasn't updated the maps around here for 10 years . . .

Re:Well, there goes my plan (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694179)

Yeah it's the same here. They can get the ocean floors in, but can't get anything even resembling a recent image of my area.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (4, Interesting)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694753)

Since they just display the most recent imagery that their providers have, the issue isn't with Google but the fact that appearently no one considers your plot of land important enough to actually photograph. If you want an ego boost, find out how much it costs to charter one of the companies providing the aerial photography to do a fly by of your area.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (5, Funny)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695563)

Even better is that the imagery of my part of the world has regressed! Two years ago the data was quite current. Now, however, the data seems about five years old.

So what's the deal with that?

Re:Well, there goes my plan (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695583)

Of course, Mr. Marijuana farmer might just call up the DEA to see if they have any recent pics. "High value" is a relative term.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695123)

Picture in front of my place has a hot girl standing there. I love the city.

On a different aspect - imagine what this will do for scuba divers - especially wreck divers.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (1)

GodKingAmit (1192629) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696127)

Link?

Re:Well, there goes my plan (3, Funny)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694563)

I know a certain Olympic swimming who might be in the market.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694617)

Plus Emilio Largo [imdb.com] is going to have to move his secret operations.

Re:Well, there goes my plan (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694815)

It's really an excellent starter lair. I'm hoping to sell to a young evil genius couple. Though it's not really ready for world domination, it's probably just fine for country-wide domination. And while it's true that I had to turn the shark tank into a grow bed, everything is still wheelchair-accessible and cat-friendly. The laser cannon still works too, but the power bill is a real bitch if you use it.

Two words. (4, Interesting)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693541)

Marianas Trench.
Can't wait to see how that looks.

Re:Two words. (4, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693915)

Marianas Trench.
Can't wait to see how that looks.

Really, really dark.

Re:Two words. (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694191)

remember goatse? well think deeper and darker

Re:Two words. (1)

Fear the Clam (230933) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695487)

remember goatse? well think deeper and darker

But not as large.

Re:Two words. (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694121)

I thought it was the marijuanas trench ?

Two words: Congressional thievery (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694239)

*YAWN* Wake me when Google can show me why I should give a single dollar to career bureaucrats in states like CA and NY who can't balance a budget and who would rather run their states into the ground and tax their residents into oblivion than sacrifice a single dollar of entitlement spending?

Re:Two words. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694791)

Buffer overflow, thats 9 words

Wondering (1)

Gription (1006467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694889)

Officially do you count a contraction as one word or two?

Whoops (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693559)

I wonder if a few of my "special jobs" as a concrete mixer will show up on these maps. If so, anyone got a list of countries without an extradition treaty with the U.S.?

Re:Whoops (5, Funny)

Kickersny.com (913902) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693605)

If so, anyone got a list of countries without an extradition treaty with the U.S.?

Wikipedia has a list for everything. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Whoops (0, Offtopic)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693997)

Even his special jobs?

Re:Whoops (1)

Gription (1006467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694987)

Cuba comes up on the short list of safe havens. (Beats the tar out of North Korea!)

Depends on if one of the special jobs was there...

Ooops.... This is what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693609)

This is what happens when the Google Street View van accidentally goes off the end of the pier: It keeps driving!
(or maybe the driver was distracted by the deer he just hit)

I'm hoping I can get some clear views of Atlantis in the coming months

Re:Ooops.... This is what happens... (3, Interesting)

fifedrum (611338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694081)

ha! the street view car that hit the deer, the accident occurred about 3 miles from my house. In their defense, there are thousands of deer roaming the area, so many that car deer collisions are a daily thing, and it's not at all uncommon to see a carcass on the side of the road.

The undersea stuff is interesting because it might give a top-down view of wrecks if the wreck is in shallow water.

Re:Ooops.... This is what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694215)

Like this one? [neowin.net]

Google's world domination (1)

ChimneysCantTalk (1453299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693627)

will now be complete. I should get going to Mars before they do!

Re:Google's world domination (3, Funny)

TeXMaster (593524) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693869)

Too late [google.com]

Ship Wrecks (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693649)

Will we all became virtual Jacques-Yves Cousteaus and explore unknown shipwrecks from the comfort of our home ?
Or the level of zoom is not that great ?

Re:Ship Wrecks (1)

jammindice (786569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693901)

Can't wait to check out the Bermuda triangle, if there are no ships then it must be true!

Re:Ship Wrecks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693959)

Bermuda triangle has been debunked.

http://www.randi.org/ [randi.org]

Re:Ship Wrecks (2, Insightful)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695149)

Well this will only detail the top, and maybe slightly angular, shots of wrecks. This will helpe us find lost wrecks. But as a diver I can tell you this will not replace scuba diving by any means....to see gorgeous coral, fish life, and go inside caves/wrecks is something you can only experience in person....video doesn't begin to capture the feeling...of being dinner for a school of barricuda :D

Re:Ship Wrecks (2, Funny)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695317)

Yeah, myself... I'm waiting for them to get Streetview of the ocean floor....

Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (4, Insightful)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693655)

Perhaps now we'll be able to see those massive floating garbage islands in the Pacific Ocean that we're always hearing about.

Re:Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (5, Funny)

darkitecture (627408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693791)

Perhaps now we'll be able to see those massive floating garbage islands in the Pacific Ocean that we're always hearing about.

You mean New Zealand?

Re:Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (5, Funny)

jammindice (786569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693861)

Perhaps now we'll be able to see those massive floating garbage islands in the Pacific Ocean that we're always hearing about.

You mean New Zealand?

I believe he meant Australia, he did say massive

Re:Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (2, Funny)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694251)

Yeah New Zealand is just one big Hollywood back lot nowadays....

Re:Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (5, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694367)

You'd be modded Flamebait if any Aussies could actually get through their Internet filter to Slashdot.

Re:Floating Garbage Islands in the Pacific Ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694833)

I believe he meant Australia, he did say massive

But he didn't say hot air. Australia has lots of hot air.

Bathymetry (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696043)

Funny yes, insightful, not sure. What's at stake is bathymetry (well.. that's what the rumors say), the 'topography' of the ocean floors, not satellite imagery of huge areas of surface water.

Can someone tell me why we're discussing this as a state of rumor when a few hours later (after the actual announcement), we would have solid elements to discuss?!

Britiain? (-1, Troll)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693665)

What's that? Isn't that some small island nation somewhere? He silly poster, slashdot's for Americans ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, I was hoping it would show that ocean below the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico. This isn't one of the hypoxia, dead zones, but an area of high salinity that has an actual border between it and the regular water above it. It was on one of the discovery channel series, but I forgot what it's called. Anyone know?

Re:Britiain? (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695337)

It was on one of the discovery channel series, but I forgot what it's called. Anyone know?

Dirty Jobs [wikipedia.org] ?

Oh no, that was the show where Steve [wikipedia.org] did a British version [wikipedia.org] of Jackass [wikipedia.org] .

Google IS Evil! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693673)

This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of the sea floor and its inhabitants. Google think they can just share whatever information they get with anyone they want. Boycott Google!

Re:Google IS Evil! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693787)

You suck, MoFo!

"street-level and aerial photography " (1)

genka (148122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693677)

Does Google have aerial (not satellite) photos like Microsoft? I've never encountered them on Google maps.

Re:"street-level and aerial photography " (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693911)

In Google Maps and Google Earth, Massachusetts is all aerial photography, because the state pays for and supplies it under an open content (but perhaps not Open Content) license. If you zoom in on the northeast US, you can see Massachusetts very well defined from a pretty high zoom.

Re:"street-level and aerial photography " (2, Informative)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693947)

Nearly all the street-level photos on Google Maps are aerial rather than satellite. If you can see windows in houses or road markings, then they are definitely aerial. Publically available satellite imagery is rarely much better than 1m resolution but some of the best govenment operated satellites claim to have resolutions comparable to aerial photos (I've not seen any samples myself though).

Re:"street-level and aerial photography " (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693987)

I think people get confused as Google calls it's button "Satellite" even when aerial photography from planes is being used.

Re:"street-level and aerial photography " (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693951)

I doubt you can get this [google.co.uk] level of detail from a publically available satellite image (and there's two more zoom levels after what I linked to!)

Re:"street-level and aerial photography " (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695771)

There's actually 3 levels. And I think I saw me mum.

Slight modifications (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693713)

And now they'll have to adapt the vans that do the street level photography. Some fish are going to be quite surprised.

Who wouldn't want to spend a month in a van and take several hundred million identical pictures? (Any resemblance with your holidays is pure coincidence).

Re:Slight modifications (2, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693793)

And now they'll have to adapt the vans that do the street level photography. Some fish are going to be quite surprised.

Not to mention the van drivers will be surprised when they encounter the sharks with frickin lasers.

Re:Slight modifications (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694881)

sharks with frickin lasers.

I, for one...

Cthulhu or Laser Sharks?

Re:Slight modifications (1)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694265)

google are evil

first they kill bambi [guardian.co.uk]

next up nemo

Re:Slight modifications (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695851)

I'll be ok with it if they substitute nemo with emo...

in addition to shipwrecks... (2, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693731)

There are some other sites that not everyone will be pleased will be in the public domain.

How about the locations of sunken nuclear subs like the Thresher and the Russian sub the Glomar Challenger went after? There are some nuclear warheads still down there!

Aren't there also a couple of nukes still "lost at sea" but with the approximate locations known?

Also, how about the plutonium in the Apollo 13 Lunar Module that was impacted in "the deep Pacific"?

My point is with rent-a-submersible services available (I guess from primarily, you guessed it, Russian vendors) it might be possible to pick up some dangerous things. In addition there are a few ecological sites (some "black smokers") that Oceanographers have been trying to keep secret to preserve them. Other than that, it seems like a great idea!

Re:in addition to shipwrecks... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694151)

some "black smokers"

You racist prick. Why not mention the white smokers too?

Re:in addition to shipwrecks... (1)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694327)

some "black smokers"

You racist prick. Why not mention the white smokers too?

they see me trollin'...

HEY the AC made a JOKE, don't mod me down! (-1, Offtopic)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695537)

Geez, my post deserves better! ;) Please give it the respect it deserves! (Karma whoring).

Re:in addition to shipwrecks... (2, Interesting)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695307)

These objects aren't just lost because they don't know where they are (satellites have been able to bypass the water for object detection for a while now). The problem with retrieving these items is the depth, or danger. So to retrieve these items you need to have advanced submarine technology...and if you have that, you probably have nuclear weapons. But even if you have that, submarines still cannot penetrate the deepest parts of our oceans, and even if they could --- how does a submarine wrap a hook on another object? It would need robotic arms (the pressure would kill a scuba diver). So while a potential issue, it is VERY hard/impossible to retrieve such objects with todays technologies.

10% coverage to start - I find that impressive (3, Interesting)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693759)

"FTA: Although, so far, there has been only limited data collected about the sea floor, with just 10% of the habitat mapped at any useful scale for science..."

I wonder how is going to work, since I'm guessing they cannot really 'map' the bottom of the ocean in the same way they do surface objects. Satellites with radar, ships with sonar?

Stil, considering how vast the oceans are, even 10% coverage is pretty impressive.

Re:10% coverage to start - I find that impressive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26695199)

They use a variety of sonars to do underwater mapping. The units I worked with were from Norway , and were Simrad EM multibeams. These sonars gave great resolution but the depth was limited when these sounders were mounted beneath the ship. Some vessels instead used a towfish design where we literally towed a sonar unit behind the ship. The data results from towfish designs was very noisy and not of as high a quality. The most advanced units were installed into an AUV(autonomous underwater vehicle) which we pre programmed and tossed into the water. These could reach depths of about 3500m and also included side scan sonar and subsurface sonar data.

I was working with several US government agencies, NOAA, USGS, et al on re-mapping US coasts back in 2001 and I remember there was supposed to be a big job to update the alaska maps and other northern maps which hadn't had the depth charts updated in decades.

I doubt they have even close to %10 but I do know they should have bathymetry for most coastal regions and pretty much anywhere that has laid cable/pipe in the last 10 or 15 years. We routinely mapped shipwrecks, proposed pipeline/fiber runs, and natural & synthetic coral areas.

Though I wonder how google is getting the data. The bathy data I collected was our bread and butter. It took a few million just to get us on and off a ship. I am not sure what the price of the data was but I know what it takes to get decent pictures from way down there. And it isn't simple or cheap. I also don't think the companies collecting the data are going to just let google have it.

Re:10% coverage to start - I find that impressive (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695705)

Thanks for that - interesting. This tends to confirm what I thought, namely that mapping the entire ocean floor to any meaningful level of detail is probably going to be prohibitively expensive?

Re:10% coverage to start - I find that impressive (1, Redundant)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695225)

Satellites with radar, ships with sonar?

Noooooo. Sharks with frickin' lasers !

Mod me redundant - I don't care. Someone had to say it.

...Britain? (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693769)

Gee, I thought you could already see the entire friggin' planet, not just one tiny island.

Anyway, I'm hoping for much-improved resolutions throughout the globe. Many places certainly don't reach the 50cm resolution that their own spacecraft gives them...

Re:...Britain? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694017)

Gee, I thought you could already see the entire friggin' planet, not just one tiny island.

The article quoted (and linked to) in the summary is from a British newspaper ;-)
(And most places in Britain seem to have high-resolution images, but Great Britain is only... erm... 0.14% of the land surface of Earth.)

Re:...Britain? (1)

jeffshoaf (611794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695333)

Great Britain is only... erm... 0.14% of the land surface of Earth.

So what's so "Great" about it then?

Re:...Britain? (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696009)

Great Britain is only... erm... 0.14% of the land surface of Earth.

So what's so "Great" about it then?

Their ego's...

Hasn't this already happened? (4, Informative)

Sir_Dill (218371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693785)

I was perusing Google earth the other day and I noticed that the sea floor was already shown with some coastal areas being VERY detailed.

check out the northwest coast of the US for a good example.

I don't know if this is an example of whats to come or if whats to come is going to be even better but I welcome higher resolution imagery of our planet.

It was out two weeks ago (1)

kaptain80 (1147495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693837)

Frank mentioned it on 2009-01-17 on Google Earth Blog [gearthblog.com] .

Re:Hasn't this already happened? (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693839)

I was perusing Google earth the other day and I noticed that the sea floor was already shown with some coastal areas being VERY detailed.

What you're seeing there is the underwater part of the continental shelf. The sea floor is a totally different beast altogether.

Re:Hasn't this already happened? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694773)

I love the underwater river beds off the coasts of northern California.

Ocean, the (short term) final frontier (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693823)

In the land version we can see even people and cars. What we will see there? Submarines? Fishes? Coral formations? Our sunken economy?

What is next? (-1, Redundant)

spamking (967666) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693841)

First Google Earth . . . then Google Mars.

Re:What is next? (2, Informative)

iceteep (771873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693971)

already done.... http://www.google.com/mars/ [google.com]

Re:What is next? (1)

spamking (967666) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693999)

DOH!

This will backfire bigtime. (3, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693877)

The ocean is so large and so vast, that, if Google codes the images honestly, that, people will readily see that for the most part, the bottom of the ocean is generally unexplored, that measurements of deep waters are infrequent and not in very many areas. They will see a few tiny areas where things have been photographed extensively, but, those will be but small points on a very, very large map. All of this unknown will open up ocean climate claims to ridicule, as if, measuring a drop of water in the shallow end of the swimming pool can somehow categorize the whole thing.

Re:This will backfire bigtime. (3, Insightful)

Spinalcold (955025) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694431)

That's one of the points, to show people how little we know of the ocean. It could possibly help the science community exchange ideas on the ocean or maybe even fuel more interest into exploring those large expanses.

Re:This will backfire bigtime. (2, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694487)

That's one of the points, to show people how little we know of the ocean

Oh, I agree that it could be that, and I also agree that we should be exploring the bottom of the ocean more, in fact, we ought ought to be monitoring it with a permanent deep sea measuring network.

Re:This will backfire bigtime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694475)

Yeah, let's just check every single particule of the ocean to be sure.

Everyday, I check my self every single water molecule comming from my home taps. A drop testing from the water company is clearly not safe.

Re:This will backfire bigtime. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694727)

Everyday, I check my self every single water molecule comming from my home taps. A drop testing from the water company is clearly not safe

If that's the case, then, why do we even bother with the FDA? Certainly, we could just check one cow per year.

Re:This will backfire bigtime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26695767)

You don't test every cow in the us...

Thor's twins? (3, Funny)

sl8r (104278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26693943)

Finally, the russians will be able to find Red October!

The term is "Global Warming." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693973)

I won't let you get away with trying to scrub the term "Global Warming" from the public's consciousness. You misanthropic environmentalists invented the term, now you're stuck with it. You can't switch terms now that the Earth appears to be cooling slightly. While I applaud looking for new ways to provide energy that don't pollute the environment, I refuse to be lectured by the ultra-rich elite Left about how I should sit in darkness with my air conditioner turned off while they jet around the globe in private aircraft and enjoy luxuries that the rest of us can only dream of.

Re:The term is "Global Warming." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694325)

I just paid for my Vale condo with the profits from my carbon offset company. You better believe I'm not going to let go of this cash farm.

And the terrian? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26693975)

Does Google show the Ocean Floor terrian too??

It would be curious to travel deeper and deeper without being wet or suffer from the ocean pressure.

Good news for.. (1)

Falkentyne (760418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694011)

Gilligan! We're coming little buddy!

Mu ha ha, The Ocean Empire Building Begins (1)

itsybitsy (149808) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694307)

Ah yes, now I can proceed with my plans to build the underwater empire that will span the entire planet which should really be called Ocean!

Now if I could locate where my fleet, er school, of laser equipped sharks and dolfins have gone...

What about the alien bases? (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26694639)

Will Google be compelled to blot out the alien bases like they did for Area 51?

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694731)

The parasites will find Rapture!

Part of the collaboration with Ninnle Labs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26694821)

As many of you know, Google has been working with Ninnle Labs on things like a Google version of Ninnle Linux and Ninnle Office, and a port of Ninnle Office that will be crossplatform. This Google Earth mod is one of the early results of that collaboration.

how about updating the existing terrestrial maps.. (2)

slashdout (1262060) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695013)

The terrestrial maps are outdated, I would love to see updated terrestrial maps instead of gazing at the ocean floor.

Hidden worlds (1)

vsnc (1465925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695293)

Ahh now it will be easy to find the hidden tunnels to the mermaids.

Google Earth 5.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26695899)

Google seems to have posted a couple relevant videos about the announcement early:

What's New in Google Earth 5.0 [youtube.com]
Explore the Ocean in Google Earth 5.0 [youtube.com]

Anyone know anything about viewing the announcement event today live?

What about ice caps? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26695999)

For oceanic ice caps, do we get to see (a) the ice, (2) the floor, or (iv) either one, selectable as with the satellite imagery on the regular Google Maps?

Amazing! (1)

Saysys (976276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26696029)

The inclusion of environmental information forms the latest part of the company's plan to offer the public more data about climate change. In 2007 Google convened a high-level meeting of experts to help it develop sources of submarine information and environmental data.

It seems likely that the company will later unveil partnerships with institutions in Europe and the US as part of the project.

Google will find Hoffa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26696103)

I have no doubts..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...