RSSGoogle's Street View vehicle trounced by law of physics
By Angela Gunn | Published April 10, 2009, 3:43 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left -- and, sometimes, two rights make a wrong. Take, for instance, Google's Street View function, well-liked by the uncertain motorist. Take, also, the idea of focused concentration on the road, a very good idea for drivers. Unfortunately, those two good ideas didn't combine so well for a Street View photo van in Pittsburgh.
As noted by Gawker and displayed by Google, a recent pass by the vehicle not too far from the baseball stadium was going well -- sunny day, everything's A-OK -- until the pole-borne camera attempted to occupy the same space as a low bridge overhead. The aftermath is visible online; not so useful for mapping purposes, but a nice warning as to how not to go about the journey.
This is news? There's a virus alert? I'd better not turn my computer on that day like millions of others did on April 1st. Viruses expire at midnight the same day, don't they? There's also desperate guy in Nigeria who needs my help, shoud I send him my bank information so he can deposit millions of dollars in my account?
This website is getting pretty desperate for news. All they do is read other sites and report the same story in almost the same wording a week later.
Score: -2
|This is bad journalism. This is the internet age. As soon as I read this, before reading the comments, I immediately had two very profound (but basic) unanswered questions:
1. Where did google admit there was a car accident? Where is the pic of the damaged bridge? Damaged cam? Debris? Where's the local police report? Local news report? Local SOMETHING report??
2. How come there was an accident, but the camera continued taking pics from both sides of the bridge with lighting and all street conditions look EXACTLY identical from both sides of bridge? Perhaps because there WAS NO ACCIDENT?
Huh?
hehehehehe
Reminds me of people who believe "virus warnings" or "bank security alerts" they get in email, obviously from spoofed domains.
OK, now please prove me wrong by answering any of my two questions above reasonably well.
Otherwise, stop misinforming your readers. YOU DO READ THE COMMENTS HERE, ANGELA. WE KNOW THAT ALREADY... AND YOU *CAN* CHANGE THE STORY...
Score: 2
|I think that technically qualifies as a "FAIL"
Score: 0
|Just a brief (meaning not worth researching, but thought we might be interested). Good catch IvanX
Score: 0
|Would be funny if it were true. Sorry, Angela, but a little more analysis is in order.
Click on the first photograph and look at the underpass approach. Notice the car park on the left hand side. Advance one frame.
The camera is now pointing to the sky. Spin your view to the left and you can see the car park and identify a silver Chevrolet SUV parked head-in, and a black Isuzu Rodeo parked tail-in (partially obscured by the tree). Remember the car park and these cars are before the underpass. Spin your camera right to centre and advance one frame.
Now the camera is pointing up. Spin the camera one click to the left and you can see the car park and the aforementioned vehicles. Still not into the underpass yet. Spin your camera back to centre again and advance one frame.
Now you can see the Isuzu and Chevy SUVs on the left without adjusting the camera angle. Remember: these are BEFORE the underpass. Advance one frame.
The image goes dark as the Google car goes into the underpass. Advance.
Back out the other side. Advance 3 frames.
The camera is set back upright.
Conclusion: The driver stopped, lowered the camera, drove through the underpass, stopped again and raised the camera back up.
Score: 5
|Can't overly blame Angela (this time). 99% of the zillion sites reporting this all reported the same thing.
Score: 0
|The problem is that betanews has "news" in their title.
Score: 0
|