| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/265901/210712) | From: gaal Wed, 30-May-2007 6:45 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I wonder, had it been facing the other way, if the snapshot could be used as evidence against the driver for illegal parking.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Wed, 30-May-2007 6:50 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
That's a fascinating insight you've had there. I can feel my mind expanding.
That would assume the driver is also the registered owner of the truck. If a citation was issued shortly after the picture was taken, the owner could probably say who the actual driver was. This picture could be taken anytime though, and there's no timestamp AFAIK. I think citations for these types of violations also need to be issued shortly (within 30 days?) after the actual infraction.
IANAL. ;)
Isn't the registered owner liable regardless?
Hmm. Somehow the ♥ got stripped from your sig...
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/62516080/4107341) | From: fnoo Wed, 30-May-2007 6:50 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
The maps thing didn't bug me much (or at all), but this kinda scares me a little.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/62516080/4107341) | From: fnoo Wed, 30-May-2007 7:17 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
What I'm really waiting for is the burglaries.
Man, if that's a buy, the residents of Golden Gate Park sure are dumb. In my neighborhood, it apppears that most folks are smart enough not to get caught on camera. Either that, or Google has some magical crackhead-removal software, in which case they'd better share.
The thing I love is that the old Valencia Gardens is still on the satellite images (and thus, now, their building footprints) but the new Valencia Gardens is in their streetscapes.
They tore down the old one in 2004.
It could be possible that the truck is no longer registered. The last year my car (4MZS095, I can't believe I still have that memorized) was registered and smogged in California was July 2002. 5 years ago, but that's really not too long ago. Anyway, no record of that either. Maybe they purge public records.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3907310/299078) | From: cetan Wed, 30-May-2007 11:23 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1600376/497361) | From: gfish Wed, 30-May-2007 5:31 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Yeah, but Amazon's interface was completely useless.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/3172828/584194) | From: elainegrey Wed, 30-May-2007 1:25 PM (UTC)
Not the point, but.. | (Link)
|
I suppose it's satellite imagery for a very loose definition of "satellite" -- but i think the stationary truck meets the definition of satellite better than the truck with the eleven cameras driving around town.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Wed, 30-May-2007 5:45 PM (UTC)
Re: Not the point, but.. | (Link)
|
If you think I was refering to the street-level photos as satellite imagery, uh, no.
And yes, I do know that most of the map photos are from low-flying planes, not from satellites. The button you click on the map window still says "Satellite" in it.
The Phase Two article needs more redesigned Starbucks logo.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Wed, 30-May-2007 5:40 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
"I have become unstuck in time!"
I think the corner view must be around 6-8pm, and the closer view must be around 2-4pm. I wonder if they were even taken on the same day.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/35626345/593179) | From: nightrider Wed, 30-May-2007 6:23 PM (UTC)
a bit more info... | (Link)
|
Pinched from InfoWorld: Google debuted Street View on Tuesday with major roads in San Francisco, New York, Las Vegas, Miami, and Denver and promises to add more cities "in the near future."
Meanwhile, Google also announced it is now possible to build lightweight applications so that users can mash them up with Google Maps. Called Mapplets, these gadget applications will be available in the Maps site for users to choose from and apply to their maps. Currently in preview mode, Mapplets can be found in a special version of Google Maps for users who want to try them out.
Mapplets take the concept of Google Maps mashups one step further, Google said. Previously, developers could build an application on top of Maps and make it available on a specific Web site. Now, those mashups can be packaged as a Mapplet so that several can be combined on a single Maps Web site.
Developers can find more information about creating these mapplets in this documentation page. To allow for the creation of Mapplets, Google merged two of its existing application programming interfaces: the Gadgets API and the Maps API.
Vegas? Well, that certainly throws a monkey wrench into their "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" motto. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of interesting captures being posted online in the immediate future. For one, I found what appears to be a test run they did on one random block of Newark, CA and this your tax dollars at work in Oakland.
What happens in Vegas stays in Google. And the Internets.
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of interesting captures being posted online in the immediate future.like the story of the sinister red minivan that keeps pursuing me on treasure island rd?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/4182511/493001) | From: cow Wed, 30-May-2007 5:46 PM (UTC)
the truck's license plate | (Link)
|
It's 4Y84899. (Yeah, I'm bored at work. My employer must love me.)
In that smog check system, it comes up as a Chevy C1500 pickup, so I'm pretty sure that's it.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Wed, 30-May-2007 5:52 PM (UTC)
Re: the truck's license plate | (Link)
|
I tried that one, but A) I don't believe that the third and fifth digits are the same (look at where the midpoint is), and B) that truck looks older than 1994.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/56025792/11652360) | From: nexus9 Wed, 30-May-2007 7:59 PM (UTC)
Re: the truck's license plate | (Link)
|
its 4Y84599. wouldnt bet my life on it, but from the angle it looks like a 5, based on the lack of dark pixels connecting the top-right to the middle of a would-be 8.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/34788683/661824) | From: ladykalessia Thu, 31-May-2007 9:58 AM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
I *still* say it's 4Y96699.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/56025792/11652360) | From: nexus9 Thu, 31-May-2007 3:14 PM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
...clearly on crack.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/34788683/661824) | From: ladykalessia Thu, 31-May-2007 7:05 PM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
Put 4Y96699 into the smog records finder.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/37171748/6963687) | From: reesesx Wed, 30-May-2007 7:49 PM (UTC)
That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
It looks like a 1970ish pickup. As of today, it's not necessary for a car that old to have smog checks, and it may always have been grandfathered in. You only need to smog check california-"native"[1] cars that are between a few years old and thirty years old, although I think they're switching to "made after 1975" for the last criterion.
Also, it looks commercial (yeah, I'm a quick one) and in the early 70s, one of the big differences between commercial and consumer versions of trucks was that the commercial versions lacked any sort of emission control. However, this would be a much stronger conclusion if it were badged GMC instead of Chevrolet.
[1] You'd need to smog check a more recent car when bringing it in from outside California if you wanted to register it here.
From: chudx Thu, 31-May-2007 5:59 PM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
that's a 67-68 chevy. never needed a smog.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/34788683/661824) | From: ladykalessia Thu, 31-May-2007 7:06 PM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
I'd say 76, personally.
From: chudx Thu, 31-May-2007 8:30 PM (UTC)
Re: That truck probably never needed a smog check | (Link)
|
Nope. 76 was a different body style and much different waffle type grill.
Aren't diesel vehicles exempt from smog checks?
From: adolf Thu, 31-May-2007 7:11 AM (UTC)
Alternative hilarity | (Link)
|
Better than the Timeless Orange Truck, is that DNA is displayed as an anonymous gray concrete bunker, completely devoid of any identifying marks. I know, I know. Signage is non-free, plus all the hassle of actually finding someone to make it, getting it installed, and so on. But: There's a sign company right next door. | |