Exactly.
In my neighborhood, the criminals use kids going door to door asking for donations. When they find a house that looks empty under that pretense, the adults drive up and rob them. Several people have been robbed when they were gone for only twenty or thirty minutes shopping.
So clearly, we must protect ourselves by banning Google maps, pedestrians, girl scouts and automobiles.
And arresting naked toddlers on indecency and child pornography charges.
My mom’s street was actually one of the earlier ones added, and although she is in a reasonably-sized city, she’s on a residential side street a single block long, with no tourist attractions 50 blocks in any direction. For the record, she was tickled pink when she found out, and didn’t consider it troublesome at all.
I was able to figure out roughly when both the google satellite view and street view photos were taken by what cars were in my parents driveway
It was about three years ago
Actually, if you put my house address into Street View, you see… the rear of my house. The Google Van didn’t drive up the street in front of my house, which runs between a state route that bisects the southwest corner of PA from Ohio in the northwest almost all the way to WV in the southeast, and a major thruway that bisects the entire southern portion of Pittsburgh and out into the southern suburbs to the county line.
Instead, Google went up the street at the back of my house. It’s a full fledged street, but it is a strictly residential street with nothing of note on it (the front street is not only a major connector but is mixed use and has a few businesses and a couple of churches) but houses. And as it happens the photo shows the most vulnerable entry points for someone who was motivated to break into my home.
No, the question I have is why don’t you supply better information if you believe what another poster said is mistaken and you have better information. Why do you have to rudely and cryptically say “cite?”. That was my point.
Never mind. Carry on.
Well, here’s a decent shot of one of the cars Google sent out taking street view shots, as captured in the reflection from the Hancock Tower. I recall seeing them around town, and they had a pole on top with four digital cameras facing forward, backward, and to either side.
Also, just because I love pointing it out, here’s me in Street View.
Sycorax… forgive me, but I’m honestly just curious. Did you really think Google Maps, (particularly Street View) gave you real time video of all the roads? How would you think that woud be even remotely possible?
The point is that people can’t just make brazen claims and spout off at the mouth. If we were going to do that, we’d be in MPSIMS. I’m not the one making the claim, I don’t need to back anything up. It’s not my job to research somebody else’s statements. Kindly point out where I said the poster was mistaken or that I had better information. I don’t, and that’s why I was asking for the stated claim to be backed up. If that’s rude, then so is the scientific method.
Some photos of Google cars. It seems they get their fair share of traffic tickets.
Welcome gfanatic.com - Hostmonster.com
http://jalopnik.com/photogallery/googlecopsuk/1007626939
Captured on Google Street View in Germany today - Monty Metzger Digital FutureMonty Metzger Digital Future
Frankencamera the Open Source Camera
I am sometimes guilty of having little patience for questions which look stupid at first sight. Then I realize there are several factors in play. Often the person asking is quite young and naive and uniformed (or very old). Of course, thinking the question through just a bit would show that it is most likely impossible and the question would be framed as asking for confirmation of the impossibility but such people tend to lack confidence in their own deductive process. If your knowledge of the world is very limited then everything is like magic and anything and everything is possible. This is one reason many scams work. People lack basic knowledge about the world around them and they want to believe that some guy in Nigeria is going to help them get $$millions.
And all I am saying is that your “cite?” contributes nothing and it would have been nicer to gently correct the information with better information. That is all. I apologize for any distress my post may have caused you.
This is social interaction, not science. How does it go down if you say “cite?” in isolation to a person in real life?
Really? That’s interesting information. Where did you get it? It could be useful for my middle school math class (which I teach…I’m not a middle school student).
That is the exception to the rule. Anyway if you want to check the rear of a house all you need to do is log onto Google Earth and bring up the aerial views of a neighbourhood. That’s been going for a couple of years and I don’t think there has been any objections to that.
Well done. That’s more like it. 
You mean they take the pictures and then they wait several years before they put them up?
Yeah, I know some are years old but some are quite new.
Across the street from a hotel I stay in China, at 23.0385 N, 113.1168 E, you can see in GE a bare plot of land when in fact they started building a couple years ago and now there are some huge blocks of apartments.
Cite?!
Vulnerable entry points which anyone walking down that public road is allowed to scope out anyway if they wanted to.
This sorta ruins your fine state of outrage.
As does this:
GQ has its own culture and modes of social discourse. Questions are allowed to be naive, even unthinking. They are supposed to be politely and accurately answered, nonetheless. The OP is not attacked but - here’s the kicker - anyone posting wrong information is. It’s far more of a gaffe to post incorrect answers than to post a naive question. It’s even worse to be the first person to answer and then give out wrong information that has clearly not been checked with the easiest of Google searches.
Why? Because incorrect answers can make unthinking posters believe that even obvious nonsense is “quite plausible and reasonable.”
The onus is always on the person making the claim to back up that claim. That’s why these boards are known to be death on creationists and goldbugs and conspiracy theorists. That’s where "cite?’ was born. And why it is permissible to call groups of others idiots, as you yourself did.
Can “cite?” be overused, badly used, or misapplied? Sure. So what? It was used appropriately here. I’m sorry you’re embarrassed that you defended a piece of obviously wrong information. Even so, it was LSLGuy’s responsibility to get it right and to return to the thread to defend it or apologize. And it was your responsibility to read the cite you gave to defend that claim to ensure that it did indeed back it up rather than refute it. You compounded bad information. You can’t get out of that by pointing at someone else and screaming “Rudeness!”
It’s also polite to admit when one posts wrongly. That’s the part that people never seem to get right.
In real life, I’d say, “bullshit”. It happens all the time. I’m not going to say “bullshit” in a post in GQ.
I disagree. It does contribute, because calling bullshit is asking somebody to back up their claim. As I said, it’s not my job to prove other posters right or wrong. In order for me to correct somebody with better information, I’d have to have that information. I don’t, and a statement looked suspect, so I called bullshit.
No distress on my end, although I do tend to word things more strongly than usual at three in the morning, so I can see how it may have looked that way.