Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Space

"Google Satellite" To Be Launched This Week 280

Posted by kdawson
from the how-many-fingers dept.
Lord Satri writes "Well, almost. Google signed an exclusivity deal with GeoEye regarding GeoEye-1, the most advanced high-resolution, civil, remote-sensing satellite to date. This must be annoying for other high-resolution, remote-sensing data users since Google already has an exclusivity deal in place with DigitalGlobe, the other major civil satellite imagery provider. From the CNet article: 'Under the deal, Google is the exclusive online mapping site that may use the imagery... in its Google Maps and Google Earth product. And as a little icing on the cake, Google's logo is on the side of the rocket set to launch the 4,300-pound satellite in six days from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Terms of the deal weren't disclosed. GeoEye-1 will orbit 423 miles above Earth, but it will be able to gather imagery with details the size of 41 centimeters... Google, though, is permitted to use data only with a resolution of 50 cm because of the terms of GeoEye's license with the US government.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Google Satellite" To Be Launched This Week

Comments Filter:
  • Google Chrome and now GeoEye. Wow, I could have had Google Stock instead of all those V-8's ! I should have..

  • by plover (150551) * on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @05:55PM (#24851019) Homepage Journal
    Is a Google satellite evil or not evil? Discuss.
    • by The_Wilschon (782534) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:07PM (#24851263) Homepage
      Exclusivity agreements like this one are definitely quite nastily anti-competitive, which I would say is evil.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Arthur B. (806360)

        The only reason it's evil is because it ultimately relies on copyright law. This exclusivity agreement would be worthless if Google couldn't prosecute people using the images they display to provide a competing service.

      • by maxume (22995) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:39PM (#24851657)

        Google bought outer space?

      • by kestasjk (933987) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @08:29PM (#24852941) Homepage
        It all comes down to Google's stated goal: To index and make available all the worlds information.

        The less friendly side of their stated goal, which they don't state as explicitly, is that all the worlds information should be available only through them
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Joe Tie. (567096)
          I wish they'd provide a bit more focus. I can get more information about naruto than anyone could wish for, great. But I can't get access to primary sources with which to evaluate medical or scientific issues. I know there's a lot of problems involved with getting the public free access to journals, but google has a lot of clout and coudl make a big difference there.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Dun Malg (230075)

            I know there's a lot of problems involved with getting the public free access to journals, but google has a lot of clout and coudl make a big difference there.

            The publishing of scientific journals is a business. No amount of "clout" is sufficient to convince the folks that run these journals that they should give it all away free and go make money working at a hot dog stand or something.

      • by Gavagai80 (1275204) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @10:07PM (#24853863) Homepage
        So you think a company should invest huge wads of money in a satellite to give the data away and thus derive no better market position than without it? Good luck with that.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @10:09PM (#24853871)

        Contrariwise, there would be anti-competitive elements to an open agreement as well. There would be basically no opportunity for satellite competition, due to massive barrier to entry and smart pricing schemes by GeoEye. An exclusivity deal means lower resolution satellite data still has buyers, and google competitors could support the launching of another satellite.

        Honestly, it is hard to trade things like this without exclusivity. You wouldn't want to buy rights to have Michael Phelps on your cereal if he also said he would appear on every other brand of cereal for whatever price they were offering. It would be worth basically nothing to everyone, whereas, with exclusivity, it is at least worth something to someone. Likewise, there is no point in google or anyone else throwing billions at GeoEye to become the highest resolution online map service if GeoEye then licenses the same data to everyone. It may be that the value of the data in such a scenario is not even enough to finance the satellite launch, in which case, the possibility of exclusivity is definitely a beneficent aspect of the market--giving consumers a product that would simply not exist without it.

        Anyway, one really must debate the merit of anti-competitive policies concerning something google is giving away for free. It's not as though the market is going to drive down the price of "free."

    • by Plaid Phantom (818438) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:44PM (#24851735) Homepage
      Is there a death ray? It's the only way to be sure.
    • Evil if US Government has "shutter control"

      Not evil if anyone can buy imagery from anywhere on the globe for the same rate and that all purchased imagery is published on the web
    • by AmigaHeretic (991368) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @08:24PM (#24852865) Journal
      Is a Google satellite evil or not evil? Discuss.

      Do you mean.... Dr. Evil??



      Johnson: [Noticing Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better have a look at this radar.
      Colonel: What is it, son?
      Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
      Jet Pilot: Dick.
      Dick: Yeah?
      Jet Pilot: Take a look out of starboard.
      Dick: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--
      Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.
      Bird-Watching Man: [raising binoculars] Ooh, Where?
      Bird-Watching Woman: Wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's--
      Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
      Baseball Umpire: Two balls.
      [looking up from game]
      Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous--
      Chinese Teacher: Wang, pay attention!
      Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying--
      Musician: Willie.
      Willie Nelson: Yeah?
      Musician: What's that?
      Willie Nelson: [squints] Well, that looks like a giant--
      Colonel: Johnson?!
      Johnson: Yes, sir?
      Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this.
  • by Lord Satri (609291) <alexandreleroux&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @05:55PM (#24851035) Homepage Journal

    Some precisions on my summary. DigitalGlobe is obviously not the only other remote sensing data provider, but it's GeoEye main competitor in civil high-resolution multispectral remote sensing. GeoEye is itself the merging of two other previous major players on the same playing field, OrbImage and Space Imaging [slashgeo.org].

    As for my claim of an agreement between DigitalGlobe and Google, see this two years old entry [slashgeo.org]. The original archive for the DG message is here [osdir.com] (the link on /geo does not work anymore).

    One of the obvious questions that comes to mind is to which extent these exclusivity deals have negative impacts on other remote sensing imagery customers, small or big.

    Another question is; does Google really needs such a deal to provide the best webmapping and virtual globes-related tools?

    • by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:53PM (#24851833) Homepage Journal

      I keep hoping that Google will start releaseing some of their data into the public domain/GPL/Creative Commons.
      That Google spy van must be gathering data like speed limits, which streets are one way. Maybe even which are paved and not.
      One place missing GPL application is a really good navigation system.

      • I keep hoping that Google will start releaseing some of their data into the public domain/GPL/Creative Commons.
        That Google spy van must be gathering data like speed limits, which streets are one way. Maybe even which are paved and not.

        You're right for StreetView (you can still use Google's StreetView data in OpenLayers.org [openlayers.org] for example), otherwise, Google Maps/Earth licenses data from others (Tele Atlas/NAVTEQ/DigitalGlobe/GeoEye/etc), so they are not the ultimate geodata owner (yet? ;-).

        One place missing GPL application is a really good navigation system.

        Yes but... do you really need this? When you'll buy your GPS-enabled navigation system (e.g. from Garmin, Magellan, TomTom, etc), you'll be given appropriate software that works with the hardware you just purchased (even the iPhone [slashgeo.org] has (in dev) it's turn

  • why the (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ionix5891 (1228718) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @05:59PM (#24851087)

    50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the 50cm restriction on resolution is a government restriction. Even though the satellites are capable of higher resolution shots, they'll have to shoot at slightly lower quality.
    • Re:why the (Score:5, Funny)

      by loshwomp (468955) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:05PM (#24851227)

      50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??

      Everyone knows WMDs are only 49cm across.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??

        Everyone knows WMDs are only 49cm across.

        I know a few gentlemen in my favorite streaming video web sites who should be worried that google can take pictures of 19 inch monster appendages :D

    • Re:why the (Score:4, Interesting)

      by schnikies79 (788746) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:06PM (#24851233)

      Do you really think that the difference between 41cm and 50cm, when it comes to satellite imagery, is going to hide that much?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by downhole (831621)

        I don't think that there's much of a difference, but if there's going to be a line in how high resolution they can distribute, they have to draw it somewhere. They can't let things go by just because it's "only a little bit better" than what's allowed, or else there might as well not be a line there at all.

      • Re:why the (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tibor the Hun (143056) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:30PM (#24851547)

        Hmm, I'd be inclined to bet that it will hide precisely 9cm!

      • by hedwards (940851)

        You'd be surprised, you're not going to hide an object like that.

        But if you're limited to 50cm, that means that you're not going to be able to accurately identify a number of things. You'd be able to pick out a book on a table, but you'd not know what it was. You might be able to tell that that lady is sunbathing in the nude, but not actually see anything.

        It also makes it more difficult to tell objects apart from each other.

        • Re:why the (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @07:14PM (#24852107)

          But if you're limited to 50cm, that means that you're not going to be able to accurately identify a number of things. You'd be able to pick out a book on a table, but you'd not know what it was. You might be able to tell that that lady is sunbathing in the nude, but not actually see anything.

          50cm is like half a meter. Most people are under 2 meters tall, and between 50cm and 100cm wide. So if you had a resolution of 50cm, you wouldn't see a 'lady sunbathing in the nude' you'd see 1x4 to 2x4 block of colored pixels. Try to draw a 'woman sunbathing in the nude' using 8 pixels. Now using 4-8 pixels draw each of 'borat wearing a g-string', a pig, a camel, a litter of cocker spaniels, a beige hammock, and a cardboard box and explain how to tell them apart.

          For comparison the 'mario' in the original Nintendo "Super Mario Brothers" was around 400 pixels. And they had to dedicate the entire top 3rd to his head just so that he'd have a discernable eye, nose, and moustache.

      • by imbaczek (690596)
        it's almost 20%, that's quite a lot I guess.
      • by LWATCDR (28044)

        Maybe the difference between an F-15D and and F-15E.
        My guess is that anything better is really too useful.

    • Re:why the (Score:5, Informative)

      by lgw (121541) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:29PM (#24851533) Journal

      50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??

      For once the government is protecting our pivacy (a side effect of portecting its own, no doubt). 50cm resolution hides the identity and activity of individuals, which is for the best.

    • Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)

      by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:38PM (#24851629)

      I don't know why you're marked troll. You shouldn't be.

      Anyway, above a certain threshold, it starts to get a military-grade function, and therefore it's not something they want the general public to have. The general public includes America's Enemies.

      It's the same reason why commercial GPS shuts down above 60,000 feet or faster than [can't remember the units].

      I'm sure an American will point out that their 2nd Amendment grant the citizens rights to GPS-equipped military hardware.

      • Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)

        by russotto (537200) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @07:41PM (#24852429) Journal

        It's the same reason why commercial GPS shuts down above 60,000 feet or faster than [can't remember the units].

        Although, oddly enough, the law is more permissive than that; the GPS can work above 60,000 feet or faster than that velocity, but not both at the same time.

        Not that there aren't firmware hacks to get around that, at least for older hardware.

        • Re:why the (Score:4, Informative)

          by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @09:46PM (#24853683)
          It's fairly easy to get around the limitations you pointed out if you're familiar with how GPS operates and have a solid electronics/programming background. The limitation stops only the least motivated.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by couchslug (175151)

      "50cm restriction? do they have something to hide??"

      Roseanne Barr's favorite nude beach.

  • Kewl (Score:4, Funny)

    by eclectro (227083) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:01PM (#24851133)

    Shiny new browser that can do everything and fancy new satellite. The only thing missing is my new RFID implant.

  • by LM741N (258038)

    Google starts plans for Moon base and Mars base, right after the space elevator is completed, and the new high power laser defense system the army is working on gets better than 19% efficiency. (to combat alien intruders) Oh, and they need the flying cars as well to round out the high tech glory.

    Plus new Mars and Moon search services will be launched. Find your future lost relatives on Mars or the Moon.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Monkey boy is yelling and smashing chairs against the wall again:

    "I'm gonna f**king KILL google!!!"

    • by bobdotorg (598873)

      Monkey boy is yelling and smashing chairs against the wall again:

      "I'm gonna f**king KILL google!!!"

      But now with this new satellite we'll actually be able to see the chair carcasses scattered across the Microsoft campus.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      for once - and only once - in my life, I am actually on monkey boy's side.

      google has too much power and this only worries me. I see no good coming from this.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:02PM (#24851169) Homepage Journal

    Within 1-2 years other countries will have civilian spy satellites that break 50cm, putting American companies at a disadvantage.

    The USA will have 3 choices:
    Shoot the birds down, literally.
    Shoot the birds down, politically - bully the other countries into imposing similar limits.
    Lower or eliminate the artificial limit.

    Anyone remember when encryption software was considered a munition? Apple and other companies had to go through hoops to export it, putting them at a distinct disadvantage over non-American companies.

    • 50cm? How about 10? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by camperdave (969942) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:36PM (#24851619) Journal
      My understanding is that at 50cm resolution, an object that is 50cm across would appear as a single pixel on the image. So, a manhole cover in the street might show up as a single pixel at that resolution. A car's hood might be four pixels, etc. Objects that are smaller than 50cm should not be detectible, especially if they are close to the same color as the background. However, if you zoom in on almost any American city to maximum resolution on google maps's satellite view, you will clearly see traffic lines. Traffic lines are roughly 10cm wide. Often these resolve to two pixels.

      So, either my understanding of satellite photo resolution is wrong, or Google can already go to 10cm, and possibly even 5cm resolution.
  • by AnswerIs42 (622520) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:15PM (#24851345) Homepage
    Though at the time.. it was just a April Fools [worldwindcentral.com] joke..
  • ...it will be able to gather imagery with details the size of 41 centimeters... Google, though, is permitted to use data only with a resolution of 50 cm...

    I'm not really sure how this breaks down in terms of what I can actually SEE. Since current imagery lets us sorta see people, I'd like to know how much further along are we to seeing _a person_.

    Can anyone provide a little more detail, maybe a good example.

    And please - no examples using libraries of congress worth of hogsheads of dat tape traveling in the back of station wagons or any somesuch..! ;)

    • by rcw-home (122017) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:24PM (#24851461)

      I'm not really sure how this breaks down in terms of what I can actually SEE. Since current imagery lets us sorta see people

      It means a car shows up as 4 pixels by 12 pixels. The top of your head is part of a single pixel along with a square foot of sidewalk.

      Google already has higher-res data for populated areas of several countries from aircraft reconnaisance. The satellites are for everything else.

      Unfortunately, there is a physical limit [wikipedia.org] to how good an image taken from 400 miles away can be.

      • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:54PM (#24851843)

        the diffraction effect is not the only issue; but its worked-around.

        recently, there were 'multiple exposure' (roughly) algorithms being used to 'look thru' the heat, pollution and general waviness of the sky, in plotting out celestial objects.

        and even *with* diffraction, you can overcome it with sharpening. I often shoot my photos 'with too high an f-stop' according to common theory; but my post-processing overcomes the diffraction issues in practice; and I get the nice large depth-of-field that I was after with quite good sharpness, as well.

        if you get multiple shots, exposures or angles of a subject, you can 'subtract out' quite a lot of noise and distortion. single shots can't do this but multiple ('high dyn range' or HDR) shooting can.

    • Afaict all the google earth images where you can make out individual people are aerial photographs not sattalite images (google earth uses aerial photographs where they are available and sattalite imageary where they are not).

      I think with this new satalite you might see a slight difference in pixel color where a person was standing if the background was even but you wouldn't be able to tell it was a person. Another order of magnitude improvement and it would probablly be comparable to the aerial photographs

      • by caluml (551744)

        and sattalite imageary where they are not).

        I think with this new satalite you might

        You managed to spell satellite in two different ways in your post, both of them wrong.
        Nothing wrong with having trouble spelling, especially if English isn't your first language - but Firefox does have a built in spell-checker these days...

    • by Cliff Stoll (242915) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:49PM (#24851785) Homepage

      Defining optical resolution from space is a bit tricky, as several generations of optical engineers have discovered.

      The main criterion is the telescope's point spread function - this is roughly the angular diameter that a pinpoint star appears to be, as seen through the telescope. We want the smallest point spread function, and it should map onto about one to three sensor pixels. (arguments go here about over/undersampling).

      The Fourier Transform of the point spread function is the Optical Transfer Function, which is a graph of the spatial frequencies response of the telescope. It's analogous to a hifi's frequency response ... it's an engineering challenge to prevent high frequencies from getting rolled off.

      The main limit for high resolution is the diameter of the primary mirror (All mirrors and optical elements, no matter how perfect, have diffraction effects which spread out the light and reduce resolution. The bigger the entrance pupil, the greater the resolution) For the GeoEye, orbiting at 684Km and a resolution of 0.4m, I roughly calculate the primary mirror is somewhere around a half-meter diameter or so, depending on the wavelength of light it's optimized for.

      Other things limit resolution - scattering of light in clear air (Rayleigh scattering) screws up the image, especially in the blue. Dust, haze, clouds and urban pollution are a bother, but not as much as you might think. Naturally, there's lots of image processing software ... quite compute intensive.

      A typical human, seen from above and not casting a shadow, is about 20 to 60 cm across. So someone walking down the street should appear on a few (1 to 5) pixels. Not enough to recognize someone, especially since you're looking down on 'em.

      Generally, images taken from aircraft have better resolution (they're closer, and there's less Rayleigh scattering). Perhaps airlines will attach automated, downward looking hires cameras to their daily flights.

  • by Brett Johnson (649584) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:16PM (#24851367)

    GeoEye-1 is scheduled to launch aboard a Delta II rocket from Vandenberg AFB Sep 4 11:50am PDT. However, unconfirmed reports state that the launch may be delayed because Hurricane Hanna has grounded east coast support personnel.

    • I wonder if it will be visible from the Los Angeles area. I've seen rockets from Vandenberg in the sky, but they were night launches, so very easily seen.

      • I live about 50 miles north of Vandenberg and can see most daylight, night, and evening launches. The evening launches are spectacular, although I have only seen one. Its pretty cloudy outside right now. I hope it is clear on Thursday.

  • by rbarreira (836272) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:20PM (#24851421) Homepage

    Guy comes out of bar holding a girl's hand while walking home. Suddenly, a targeted ad for condoms is projected on the ground in front of them.

    • by evilviper (135110)

      Suddenly, a targeted ad for condoms is projected on the ground in front of them.

      ... of course they can't make it out, because of all the other ads already painted on the ground, the walls, the streets, and every other free bit of space there is...

  • resolution of 50 cm?

    What's up with that?

    Top secret military sites?

  • I'll be honest and admit I am no expert, but a 4300 satellite must be very expensive to launch to that altitude.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Chineseyes (691744)
      It could cost anywhere from 2K to 6K per pound. So on the high end you are looking at 26 million.

      A drop in the bucket for a company worth 150+ billion.
  • Is that anything like pirate eye?

  • by GRW (63655) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @06:51PM (#24851807) Homepage Journal
    This is good news. Google Earth is one of my favorite applications, but I have been frustrated by the resolution of many areas outside of cities. I will have to do better at hiding my secret nuclear missile silo though. :-)
  • Which Orbit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smilinggoat (443212) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @07:00PM (#24851949) Homepage Journal

    I did RTFA but nowhere did I see any information about which orbit they're going to use.

    It can't be geosynchronous because that wouldn't allow them to photograph all of the country at once. In order to cover the whole US, they'll need to have an orbit that passes the satellite over different parts of the country at different times.

    The interesting thing is that in order to get such an orbit, it has to pass over other countries. Will Google take footage of other countries? If so, will it use that footage? That would probably require some intense international negotiations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by WUNHJazz (761316)
      Given the orbital height of 423 miles above the surface, this satellite will have a near-polar sun-synchronous orbit similar to other land imaging satellites (the Landsats, IKONOS, etc).
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by usul294 (1163169)
      423 miles is stated in the summary which implies Low-earth orbit, most likely. The word choice doesn't seem to support it, but it could be on an elliptical orbit that takes it out to 423 miles, which increases the exposure time on the given spot. But to do that it would have to dip pretty low, causing small(but significant over months/years) drag. Also, I'm commenting on the new Google Satellite while test driving the new Google Browser
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      The interesting thing is that in order to get such an orbit, it has to pass over other countries. Will Google take footage of other countries? If so, will it use that footage? That would probably require some intense international negotiations.

      What?
      Of course they'll use those pictures (footage is for video).

      If other countries do not want Google to put them online, they'll have to come and say so.
      Google has already been asked/told by various countries to lower the resolution of sensitive military installations, because Google didn't do so for non-US/Euro countries.

      Long story short: If you don't want something to be visible in satellite photos, cover it up or put it underground. Governments know to do this by now.

    • Re:Which Orbit? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cyclone96 (129449) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @07:52PM (#24852561)

      The interesting thing is that in order to get such an orbit, it has to pass over other countries. Will Google take footage of other countries? If so, will it use that footage? That would probably require some intense international negotiations.

      Actually, it will not. I'm not sure if it's codified anywhere in international law or just by historical precedent, but a nation's airspace does not extend into space. A satellite can legally take photos of anything it can see, and there's little a country can do about it except hide things under cover or shoot it down (which likely would be considered an act of war).

      Some countries (like the US) can exert control in limited ways by restricting operations if the imaging company does business in the country, but that's it.

      Google has quite detailed satellite photos of Pyongyang, North Korea - I'm sure they didn't really agree to that.

    • by Cliff Stoll (242915) on Tuesday September 02, 2008 @09:27PM (#24853505) Homepage

      Most satellites for earth observation use sun-synchronous orbits. These orbits let the satellite's cameras take pictures ob objects at the same solar time. This means that it will pass overhead at the same local time every day ... so the images will have the same shadow characteristics.

      You accomplish this by making the orbit precess exactly 360 degrees per solar year.

      These orbits are typically nearly circular, but needn't be; you can put a spy satellite into a sun-synchronous elliptical orbit, so it'll swoops down and photograph near perigee, then waste a lot of time around apogee.

      Since this orbit is around 684 Km, it can be shown that it must be pretty close to circular, has an orbital period of around 100 minutes, and its inclination is probably about 96 to 100 degrees (meaning that the satellite is slightly retrograde - 90 degrees inclination is polar, zero degrees is equatorial) In turn, this means that pretty much all of earth will be seen by the satellite, except for 8 degree circles around the poles.

      A 96 minute period means that each successive orbit will look down on a place 15 degrees west ... one time zone to the west.

      Geosynchronous orbits are pretty useless for this type of work, since they're so far away (you need really big telescopes to get much resolution). Also, you'd only see one hemisphere, and half the year it'd be nighttime over the areas you want to see.

  • by B3ryllium (571199)

    *tags it as theunblinkingeyeofgoogle*

    I was just referring to the Chrome logo as that - and then this happened. Serendipity, I say. Heh. Or, at least, synergy.

There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.

Working...