But, I'm not running windows. Do I cry too? Perhaps tears of joy?
vinnie mirchandani
· 1 year ago
Is it ok for us men to say we cry? I heard Tom Brokaw, ex-NBC anchor present last week on characters he wrote about in his book "The Greatest Generation" (the one that grew up in the Depression, then went to Second world war, then created the post-war economic boom even in countries we defeated) and I had tears at several points.
Gabe
· 1 year ago
Crashes when I start it. Gotta love that.
RBA
· 1 year ago
Robert, after playing with it for a few minutes, I think that the most remarkable feature (other than a nice interface design) is the "community" option. Not from what it can do - it really isn't clear - but from what I think it might be able to do.
The rest of features - again leaving aside a very nice interface - are already present in desktop software apps such as TheSky or the much fancier StarryNight (Pro Plus). For example, do a Image Google search on "starry night pro plus" to see some screenshots.
Of course I don't discount the fact that StarryNight hasn't done a thing to bring astronomy closer to people who otherwise wouldn't care, and WWT might do just that, and that is a *very good thing*.
Mark Hughes
· 1 year ago
So there's no screenshots, and the Mac-accessible videos only show people talking about it.
"I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take Google Sky from me."
Access Denied
· 1 year ago
Sadly at my work we use Websense content filtering. When I try to view the video (during my lunch break) I get:
Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time. Reason: The Websense category "Malicious Web Sites" is filtered.
Scoble, malicious? Surely not. I don't know what other content is hosted on twistage.com, but clearly Websense don't like it!
Diego
· 1 year ago
This "telescope" is what Microsoft is using to find a company that wants to be bought by the Borg?
Johnny Sutherland
· 1 year ago
I installed it just to see what made Robert Scoble cry. I think the space part of it is better than Google Earth's but I still think Google Earth 'on earth' is better.
Mike Cohen
· 1 year ago
I cried when I saw the Mac system requirements. Windows XP or Vista running in Boot Camp. Not even VMware or Parallels? What a cop-out. Is that how Microsoft is going to support the Mac in the future?
PXLated
· 1 year ago
John C... Tears of Joy...Good one :-)
Dr Wright
· 1 year ago
I love science, this I dont really get.
Curly
· 1 year ago
I think the Microsoft team is going to cry when Scoble won't install it because it doesn't include FiendFeed integration.
Pete
· 1 year ago
I guess you have to be in the field to fully appreciate it; though it has a much better UI than Google Sky.
On the other hand can't help but smile at all the "It doesn't work on Mac" people... Haven't you guys already notice that most software does not run on the Mac? Get used to it.
Jeff Putz
· 1 year ago
I'm not impressed. It's Google Earth for the stars, which show so few details on the in between that it's not nearly as interesting.
It's certainly not tear worthy.
jimconnolly
· 1 year ago
Hey Robert, After you Tweeted this, I took a look and it is stunning.
BUT THE BEST THING? Now, us geeks can see what the sky looks like - WITHOUT having to go outside! How cool is that? :)
Jim Connolly The Ideas Blog
Tyler
· 1 year ago
That's pretty awesome. My life is finally complete, thanks for the heads up Robert.
david parmet
· 1 year ago
get yourself a telescope. you can see the real thing(s) for yourself and there's no system requirements.
RBA
· 1 year ago
Jimconnolly, have you ever seen some really cool fireworks "live"? Have you seen them on TV? BIG difference, isn't it? :-)
Trust me, there's no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies - you won't even need a telescope! Try it sometime, then come back to your computer, stare at WWT or any other similar program, then you'll re-think what you just said :-) Also, next time you'll look up to the sky from your light polluted town (I'm assuming you don't live in the middle of nowhere), you'll look at it in a different way. Certainly from my city (Sunnyvale), going outside means little when it comes to look at the night sky.
BTW I think this project is really cool. Not because it does something that has never been done before, but because the more the merrier, plus Microsoft has a way to get it into the masses where other more dedicated projects didn't (and it wasn't their goal anyway).
I'm hoping that the social part of WWT is better exploited - that's where this project could really shine.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
RBA: Ok, wise guy. Show me a galaxy, even on a dark night, with even a $2,000 telescope. Simple: you can't see shit. You need to have a Hubble telescope out in space that costs billions of dollars to see such a thing with any level of detail.
That's completely different than a fireworks show.
Sometimes I really am disappointed in the idiocy I see in my comments sometimes. This is one of those times.
Fireworks looks better in live than on TV.
Astronomy looks better on TV than in live.
Your whole argument falls apart there.
RBA
· 1 year ago
Robert, calm down.
I said "There’s no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies". I repeat, Milky Way.
Yes, the Milky Way is a galaxy, but not the type of galaxy you're talking about. And to me, that view of the Milky Way beats any fireworks, and certainly the very best Hubble picture. But that's me.
Sure, most galaxies and nebulae look faint on a telescope, yet, it is a thrill - at least for me - to actually see them LIVE, even if they're faint (I can assure you however, that the Orion nebula even on just a 11" telescope" is anything but faint, and yes, it IS amazing to see it live, right there above your head. And how many wows and jaw droppings I've seen from people just by staring at Saturn "live" through a telescope the very first time? A lot.
I'm not a wise guy Robert, not by a mile. I'm a guy who loves astronomy. I enjy the Hubble pictures, I enjoy taking pictures myself, and I enjoy observing things "in site". What do I like best? Observing and taking photos myself. Please do not consider that as idiocy. I'm sure most amateur astronomers would agree with me, that's why we run out of the door anytime there's a new moon and no clouds, drive at least 50 miles to darker sites, and freeze in cold winter nights so we can observe and do "that thing we do". I wouldn't change any of that for the best picture from the Hubble. That doesn't make me a wise guy, just a guy who is passionate about this hobby. Something I think you also must be, just by reading the title of this post of yours.
BTW you know I've invited you countess times to spend an astrophotography session with me and the gang. And the invitation is still up. Wait til summer and come up to Fremont Peak when the fog rolls in and leave us up above the fog in complete darkness. You too might think different.
Having said that, under dark skies in the right season, you can even see the Andromeda galaxy with your bare eyes. Sure it might be just a blur, but what an amazing blur it is when you actually see it with your own eyes.
Astronomy may "look" better on TV, just lik ewatching a football game on TV you'll get closeups and follow the action without moving your neck, but nothing beats "live", whether it's a football game, a faint nebula, a concert, or simply staring at the summer Milky Way.
Robert Scoble
· 1 year ago
>And to me, that view of the Milky Way beats any fireworks, and certainly the very best Hubble picture. But that’s me.
Here's how I read your first comment, that looking at fireworks was better to the naked eye than watching on TV, even a really high end HDTV. I agree with that.
But I thought you were saying that looking at the sky with the naked eye beats seeing it through the WorldWide Telescope. That I can not agree with.
And how many people have access to a really dark sky? Not many. I'm lucky, cause I live down the street from a fairly dark area, but not many are so lucky. And even in my case haze and fog obscure the best stuff.
I totally disagree with you about astronomy being better "live." Yes, it's cool to look through a telescope and see things and look around the sky and have a personal experience but if you think that beats learning about the sky through the Hubble Telescope images, I think you've oversold the hobby.
Chris Howard
· 1 year ago
Well, it won't even download for me. Says the links is dud. So I thought it might be something to do with being on IE6 still, so tried to download IE from MS and its link also came up dud.
I'm running Windows in Parallels. Maybe MS doesn't like Parallels... :)
bluewaveted
· 1 year ago
I don't look at the stars much, but this has give me a whole new appreciation for them.
RBA
· 1 year ago
"Yes, it’s cool to look through a telescope and see things and look around the sky and have a personal experience"
And that's exactly what I was trying to encourage with my first comment, Robert, nothing more.
I agree I used an extreme example (fireworks), but that was mainly to amplify my point. I still think that 15 minutes staring at the Milky Way in really dark skies will be a memorable experience a "city" person will remember for the rest of their lives, while looking at a Hubble picture... chances are ithey won't. That was all I was trying to do with my first comment, Robert. And certainly I didn't get into what's best to learn the skies - for that, nothing beats something like the WWT or other software such as Starry Night, no question about that!!
My rant in my response to your comment is the result of you calling me a wise guy simply for considering that a live view of the Milky Way beats looking at any Hubble picture (I still think that way and I just explained why I think), for saying that all you saw in my original comment was idiocy, and for saying "you don't see shit", because honestly, then we amateur astronomers must be definitely a bunch of idiots for going through that much trouble to stare at "shit" :-/
In that long comment I might have oversold the hobby as you say, probably because I did feel that with your "don't see shit" comment you undersold it, so I went out of my way to "defend" it. Can you blame me? After all, many people think you're always overselling stuff: Facebook (before), FriendFeed (now) and even the WWT :-) Why? Because you're pasionate about it - that doesn't make you a "wise guy" nor an idiot. Same here, Robert. We don't stare at shit and we definitely like it "live" more than on TV (and yes, we also love it on TV :-)
BTW you don't need the Hubble to take amazing astro pictures. I invite you to see what your "cheap" Canon 5D can do :-) See? You can go out, "live" the experience, have fun, and take a really coooool souvenir home!! :-)
Mike
· 1 year ago
waiting for this to be renamed live maps space
Karen
· 1 year ago
I think this is very cool. Especially the "Guided Tours", since you don't have to even know what to look for, just sit back and enjoy the ride. :)
This may be the best .NET app I've seen (well, most "stunning", at least).
Harry Boner
· 1 year ago
Yeah, I dig "live" also.
This is cool, but the family and I would rather jump in the car, and head to the local astronomy club's observatory for the entire evening.
It's awesome to be totally surrounded by space on the Kansas plains. It focuses the mind.
All Comments
The rest of features - again leaving aside a very nice interface - are already present in desktop software apps such as TheSky or the much fancier StarryNight (Pro Plus). For example, do a Image Google search on "starry night pro plus" to see some screenshots.
Of course I don't discount the fact that StarryNight hasn't done a thing to bring astronomy closer to people who otherwise wouldn't care, and WWT might do just that, and that is a *very good thing*.
"I don't care, I'm still free, you can't take Google Sky from me."
Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time. Reason: The Websense category "Malicious Web Sites" is filtered.
Scoble, malicious? Surely not. I don't know what other content is hosted on twistage.com, but clearly Websense don't like it!
Tears of Joy...Good one :-)
On the other hand can't help but smile at all the "It doesn't work on Mac" people... Haven't you guys already notice that most software does not run on the Mac? Get used to it.
It's certainly not tear worthy.
After you Tweeted this, I took a look and it is stunning.
BUT THE BEST THING?
Now, us geeks can see what the sky looks like - WITHOUT having to go outside! How cool is that? :)
Jim Connolly
The Ideas Blog
Trust me, there's no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies - you won't even need a telescope! Try it sometime, then come back to your computer, stare at WWT or any other similar program, then you'll re-think what you just said :-) Also, next time you'll look up to the sky from your light polluted town (I'm assuming you don't live in the middle of nowhere), you'll look at it in a different way. Certainly from my city (Sunnyvale), going outside means little when it comes to look at the night sky.
BTW I think this project is really cool. Not because it does something that has never been done before, but because the more the merrier, plus Microsoft has a way to get it into the masses where other more dedicated projects didn't (and it wasn't their goal anyway).
I'm hoping that the social part of WWT is better exploited - that's where this project could really shine.
That's completely different than a fireworks show.
Sometimes I really am disappointed in the idiocy I see in my comments sometimes. This is one of those times.
Fireworks looks better in live than on TV.
Astronomy looks better on TV than in live.
Your whole argument falls apart there.
I said "There’s no better view of the sky than looking at the summer Milky Way under really dark skies". I repeat, Milky Way.
Yes, the Milky Way is a galaxy, but not the type of galaxy you're talking about. And to me, that view of the Milky Way beats any fireworks, and certainly the very best Hubble picture. But that's me.
Sure, most galaxies and nebulae look faint on a telescope, yet, it is a thrill - at least for me - to actually see them LIVE, even if they're faint (I can assure you however, that the Orion nebula even on just a 11" telescope" is anything but faint, and yes, it IS amazing to see it live, right there above your head. And how many wows and jaw droppings I've seen from people just by staring at Saturn "live" through a telescope the very first time? A lot.
I'm not a wise guy Robert, not by a mile. I'm a guy who loves astronomy. I enjy the Hubble pictures, I enjoy taking pictures myself, and I enjoy observing things "in site". What do I like best? Observing and taking photos myself. Please do not consider that as idiocy. I'm sure most amateur astronomers would agree with me, that's why we run out of the door anytime there's a new moon and no clouds, drive at least 50 miles to darker sites, and freeze in cold winter nights so we can observe and do "that thing we do". I wouldn't change any of that for the best picture from the Hubble. That doesn't make me a wise guy, just a guy who is passionate about this hobby. Something I think you also must be, just by reading the title of this post of yours.
BTW you know I've invited you countess times to spend an astrophotography session with me and the gang. And the invitation is still up. Wait til summer and come up to Fremont Peak when the fog rolls in and leave us up above the fog in complete darkness. You too might think different.
Having said that, under dark skies in the right season, you can even see the Andromeda galaxy with your bare eyes. Sure it might be just a blur, but what an amazing blur it is when you actually see it with your own eyes.
Astronomy may "look" better on TV, just lik ewatching a football game on TV you'll get closeups and follow the action without moving your neck, but nothing beats "live", whether it's a football game, a faint nebula, a concert, or simply staring at the summer Milky Way.
Here's how I read your first comment, that looking at fireworks was better to the naked eye than watching on TV, even a really high end HDTV. I agree with that.
But I thought you were saying that looking at the sky with the naked eye beats seeing it through the WorldWide Telescope. That I can not agree with.
And how many people have access to a really dark sky? Not many. I'm lucky, cause I live down the street from a fairly dark area, but not many are so lucky. And even in my case haze and fog obscure the best stuff.
I totally disagree with you about astronomy being better "live." Yes, it's cool to look through a telescope and see things and look around the sky and have a personal experience but if you think that beats learning about the sky through the Hubble Telescope images, I think you've oversold the hobby.
I'm running Windows in Parallels. Maybe MS doesn't like Parallels... :)
And that's exactly what I was trying to encourage with my first comment, Robert, nothing more.
I agree I used an extreme example (fireworks), but that was mainly to amplify my point. I still think that 15 minutes staring at the Milky Way in really dark skies will be a memorable experience a "city" person will remember for the rest of their lives, while looking at a Hubble picture... chances are ithey won't. That was all I was trying to do with my first comment, Robert. And certainly I didn't get into what's best to learn the skies - for that, nothing beats something like the WWT or other software such as Starry Night, no question about that!!
My rant in my response to your comment is the result of you calling me a wise guy simply for considering that a live view of the Milky Way beats looking at any Hubble picture (I still think that way and I just explained why I think), for saying that all you saw in my original comment was idiocy, and for saying "you don't see shit", because honestly, then we amateur astronomers must be definitely a bunch of idiots for going through that much trouble to stare at "shit" :-/
In that long comment I might have oversold the hobby as you say, probably because I did feel that with your "don't see shit" comment you undersold it, so I went out of my way to "defend" it. Can you blame me? After all, many people think you're always overselling stuff: Facebook (before), FriendFeed (now) and even the WWT :-) Why? Because you're pasionate about it - that doesn't make you a "wise guy" nor an idiot. Same here, Robert. We don't stare at shit and we definitely like it "live" more than on TV (and yes, we also love it on TV :-)
BTW you don't need the Hubble to take amazing astro pictures. I invite you to see what your "cheap" Canon 5D can do :-) See? You can go out, "live" the experience, have fun, and take a really coooool souvenir home!! :-)
This may be the best .NET app I've seen (well, most "stunning", at least).
This is cool, but the family and I would rather jump in the car, and head to the local astronomy club's observatory for the entire evening.
It's awesome to be totally surrounded by space on the Kansas plains. It focuses the mind.