Is there a (P) in Remote Sensing?

Recently I attended a very informative lecture entitled Remote Sensing for the Environment hosted by CAST as part of the AmericaView Annual Conference. It was a pretty standard overview lecture of remote sensing with topics on the history and development, current application and future directions. What made it important was that Dr. John R. Jensen, a pioneer in remote sensing applications, presented it. Sure, some historical applications were presented that I was not aware of that were really interesting. For example, during the US Civil War, men would climb into a balloon and rise up to elevation not to far out of reach of surface weaponry. Their goal was to take aerial photographs of enemy troop infrastructure and offensive battle front lines. Not surprisingly, no aerial photographs from the Civil War exist – the photographers where probably all shot out of the balloon. Sometimes ideas that seem perfect are just not thought through with regard to consequences. We (the human race) still do this kind of “blinders on” planning. But it was not so much the past idiotic and overly daring applications that made me wonder. It was the some of the current applications – and more so the current resolutions – of remote sensing today and projected for tomorrow.
Let me start by saying I’m all for remote sensing. I think when used properly it has amazing benefits for many disciplines – environment, geography, geology, archaeology, etc. It’s no small secret that the development of remote sensing is primarily advanced in military applications until it becomes declassified and cost effective for civilian use. That’s just the way it goes and the way it will continue to proceed. But how far is too much? In the lecture Dr. Jensen was discussing satellites that currently have a resolution of 6 inches. At a resolution of 6 inches one could discern what kind of pizza (a large pizza – enough to get at least four data points) someone is eating from space. One part of me says, sweet.. applications in archaeology will really benefit from this high resolution. The other part says, what about privacy? It’s a tough dilemma. Here’s the topper. Currently, along political borders, a specttrophotometric X-ray that uses gamma rays to penetrate and bounce back based on densities of objects in order to create a 3D X-ray model – similar to ground penetrating radar - is often used. Its application along the border is used for the detection of contraband, of course. Certainly this is an applicable application. Currently, this technology is not airborne but as Dr. Jensen mentioned, developing the technology in an aerial capacity is in development - satellite X-ray to see into houses, buildings and under the ground. As I left the lecture, I am torn, confused and concerned. Seeing into the ground can have excellent applications in archaeology, but it can have serious ramifications to privacy. One could also speculate that if this X-ray technology is being used in a declassified manner (openly along borders), what level of classified developments exist that are currently being used in military applications?

Fixin to, Is it at, This data, Like

So, maybe growing up in central Texas didn’t help the fact that I picked up some regional grammatical errors throughout childhood. Like, I’m fixin’ to get the problem with that data where you are at.
Yes, I am constantly checking myself to avoid using phrases such as “fixin” or the ubiquitous use of “like” and those damn dangling prepositions (Where is it at?). Most recently, I am fighting with the proper usage of the word “data” in its correct plural form. Does this make me odd that I am trying to overcome these issues? I’m certainly not odd for having them.
One cannot converse it seems to a person without the reference to a third person as “like doing something” rather than just “doing something”. Or even better, “He was like, ‘I can’t believe it!’” rather than “He said, ‘I can’t believe it!’” The use of “like” I’m sure would make for an interesting linguistic study. Call me old, but I remember its use as a regional slang for a group of rich girls that lived in upscale San Fernando Valley – “Like totally... oh my God!” Popular culture allowed it spread and now 25 years later, it is “like totally” a grammatical virus (well, maybe not the totally part – that’s dated).
The dangling preposition is another often-misused phrasing that also makes me ask why. Is this because we are lazy? Is it easier to say, “Where is it at?” vs. “Where is it located?” Why not just drop it all together and simply ask, “Where is it?” When one says, “Where are you going to?” doesn’t that seem redundant? I don’t get it, but often it gets me and I have to correct myself.
Oh, and what about the use of words that are not words? Irregardless, for example. I remember in a senior level History of Anthropological Theory class where the professor (who typically presented himself as a know-it-all) used irregardless all the time! This is a person who talked constantly about his degree and studies in English/Writing and the numerous books he has written! Maybe he was just saying that to make everyone scared when it came time for us to write our papers.

Why am I thinking about this right now when I should be sleeping or better yet, working on things that are stacked up on my desk? I came across a short article in the recent AAA Anthropology News that discussed regional accents and the social biases that people might make because of a regional perception of “bad English” (not about Bad English, the “like totally” lame 80’s band). In the article was a web link to the Speech Accent Archive. On this site, individuals can submit a recording of themselves reading a common paragraph aloud, in English. Through this, one can realize that the accents are not the result of “bad English” or bad grammar but to understand the systematic linguistic components based on various regional dialects. I thought it was cool… and well, it got me to write this post of where my recent thoughts about grammar exist, at. No! Not him again!

He already has his own Web site.

It is fairly apparent that technology (the Internet) is changing western views about communication. More so, the rapid increase in digital "life" is challenging questions on privacy, plagiarism and moral conduct. The amazing thing is that much of these debates have only started to come to light in the last few years as tools (blogs, wiki and other forms of digital self expression) become more available and adopted by more people. Some people do not want to have an Internet presence while others have a digital “life” that is full of expression and reflection... for all to see. It could be assumed that others not partaking in this digital “revolution” (Childe, where are you?) could be concerned with privacy. Economics and access to technology surely plays a part in some instances of non-participation – especially when viewed globally. Or maybe people just don’t care. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how adoption to having a digital “life” develops and becomes more a part of western culture. The digital adoption is in motion and it is moving fast. It seems like once a week, someone who swore of creating a profile on Facebook or Myspace has created a profile (given in?) and become a new member of the online communication realm. Is a sudden participation in online communities analogous to the Nancy Reagan definition of a gateway drug? This article on parents choosing their children’s names on the availability of their kids to get a domain is but one salient example of a switch toward a rapid adoption of digital “life” and changes in family values. Are they addicted? I was named after my great grandfather and traditionally most children are named after a family relative to carry on the memories of a particular individual. However, these kids in the article are named because their parents felt it more important to provide them an avenue for a personal digital presence. Not a bad thing, just a change in ideology and it will only compound as these children move into adulthood and have their children with domain names and so on.. and so on.. and so on...