|
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
Legislation has been introduced in the Senate that proposes to severely
hamper access to NWS data. The bill is S.786, The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005. I have a petition setup at.... http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS Please check this out and sign it! I plan to distribute the results to the responsible legislators. Thanks! Michael Harpe Sellersburg, IN |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
IMO this is clearly an attempt by a Senator from PA to line
the pockets of a well known private company in his state, at the expense of the public welfare. Has he no shame? Cheers, Russell |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
In article .com,
says... IMO this is clearly an attempt by a Senator from PA to line the pockets of a well known private company in his state, at the expense of the public welfare. Has he no shame? Given that he's previously brought up the subject of "man on dog" sex in an interview, I thought that question had already been answered. (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...4-23-santorum- excerpt_x.htm, near the bottom.) Harold -- Harold Brooks hebrooks87 hotmail.com |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
ROTFLOL
Cheers, Russell |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
I have just read the Senate bill at;
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Wu4LQQ:: And at no point does it restrict access to NWS data. What is does do, is curtail the from continuing to encroach on what had long been the arena for private meteorologist in the U.S., with more and more of their value-added products. As a creator of value added products, I must support such a measure to stem the out-going tide of my income. If I read the fine print correctly, it will also stop universities from posting value added products too (at least I hope that is what it says). David Salmon doing business as "Weather Derivatives"; deriving useful information for sound business decisions from weather data. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
David Salmon wrote:
I have just read the Senate bill at; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Wu4LQQ:: And at no point does it restrict access to NWS data. What is does do, is curtail the from continuing to encroach on what had long been the arena for private meteorologist in the U.S., with more and more of their value-added products. As a creator of value added products, I must support such a measure to stem the out-going tide of my income. If I read the fine print correctly, it will also stop universities from posting value added products too (at least I hope that is what it says). David Salmon doing business as "Weather Derivatives"; deriving useful information for sound business decisions from weather data. I believe the output on that site is dynamic, thus your link will not point anywhere. But if you go to thomas.loc.gov and enter National Weather Service as keywords, the bill pops up. Speaking as someone who works at a university that puts out value-added products (GOES cloud winds, for example), but who does not speak for that university, I'm not sure how curtailing our data stream would help anyone. Scott |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
So, you don't think this is a pure political ploy to line the pockets
of one of his state's companies? I have a bridge you'll want to buy, David. :-) And why shouldn't universities, or anyone else for that matter, have the right to post value added products? Are you suggesting that weather information should not fall under the free speech provisions of the Constitution? What ever happened to the entrepreneurial spirit in this country? Are you saying that private meteorologists can't beat the almost universally maligned lazy government bureaucrats or a bunch of ivory tower egghead professors and wet-behind-the-ears students at their own game. ;-) If your reading of the proposal is correct, it sounds like it would make it illegal for undergraduate students I know to operate their public service weather phone and e-mail forecast service, which gives them a chance to practice their forecasting skills. What punishments are in the proposal for them? sarcasm Yeah, let's jail some meteorology students for trying to learn, that will be good for the profession. Maybe give 'em the death penalty for daring to encroach on the domain of almightly dollar and the almighty free enterprise system. /sarcasm As you can see, I have little sympathy for such proposals. I say this as someone who has been on all sides of the public, academic, and private fences at various times in my career (sometimes on two sides at once), and as someone who desires the good of the profession, and also as someone who was around DC long enough to spot the signs of a political mugging. Cheers, Russell |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
Scott wrote:
David Salmon wrote: I have just read the Senate bill at; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Wu4LQQ:: And at no point does it restrict access to NWS data. What is does do, is curtail the from continuing to encroach on what had long been the arena for private meteorologist in the U.S., with more and more of their value-added products. As a creator of value added products, I must support such a measure to stem the out-going tide of my income. If I read the fine print correctly, it will also stop universities from posting value added products too (at least I hope that is what it says). David Salmon doing business as "Weather Derivatives"; deriving useful information for sound business decisions from weather data. I believe the output on that site is dynamic, thus your link will not point anywhere. But if you go to thomas.loc.gov and enter National Weather Service as keywords, the bill pops up. Speaking as someone who works at a university that puts out value-added products (GOES cloud winds, for example), but who does not speak for that university, I'm not sure how curtailing our data stream would help anyone. Scott I think you know, Scott. If universities are not allowed to do it, maybe someone will pay a private company to do it, which helps the private company. Whether this helps society as a whole or is good for the profession is questionable, IMO. Cheers, Russell -- All too often the study of data requires care. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
|
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
On 21 Apr 2005 10:53:19 -0700,
Mike Harpe , in .com wrote: + I have a petition setup at.... + + http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS + + Please check this out and sign it! I plan to distribute the results to + the responsible legislators. All well and good, but no substitue for writing a letter, on paper, complete with stamp and sending it to your representatives. If you do, be polite. Try to be grammatically and spelling correct. Point out the problem of having to pay twice for data. James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:12:23 -0500,
David Salmon , in wrote: + If I read the fine print correctly, it will also stop universities from + posting value added products too (at least I hope that is what it says). So, David, are you going to start producing a surface wind product over the tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean basins? such as these? http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/RVSMDC/neww.../psv200503.gif http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/WOCE/SAC/fs...dn_mar2005.gif Or will you instead beg off and claim that they're "not economically feasible"? James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
|
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
On 22 Apr 2005 12:10:38 -0700, , in . com wrote: + Are you saying that private meteorologists can't beat the almost + universally maligned lazy government bureaucrats or a bunch of ivory + tower egghead professors and wet-behind-the-ears students at their + own game. Note the omitted ;-) in your quote of what I wrote. Cheers, Russell No. And for the same reason that proprietary software producers are feeling the Free Software pinch: for as many smart people you can hire and employ, there are 100 times as many out there that you *can't*. It's a matter of numbers, and they haven't got them. And there's a multiplicative factor if those 100x as many can collaborate together. If we can see a bit further than those that have come before us, it is because we stand on the shoulder (and not the necks) of giants. James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. -- Russell Martin R. L. Martin and Associates, Consultants in Science and Technology http://www.rmartin.com All too often the study of data requires care. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be
perfectly clear for you and anybody else; My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors! I have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private company is/can do it, it should be left to them. I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values, calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial" results/value-added portion. I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too. I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates' I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best. My day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling me how much precipitation has occurred! If they would do their jobs they have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s). David Salmon |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your
just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't worth the cost. -JATO http://jatobservatory.org On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:06:50 -0500, "David Salmon" wrote: James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be perfectly clear for you and anybody else; My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors! I have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private company is/can do it, it should be left to them. I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values, calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial" results/value-added portion. I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too. I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates' I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best. My day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling me how much precipitation has occurred! If they would do their jobs they have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s). David Salmon |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
David Salmon wrote:
James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be perfectly clear for you and anybody else; Let me be completely clear, if I have not been already. Santorum is trying to help a constituent by screwing the larger public. Some people would emphasize the former as proper constituent service provided by an elected official. I prefer to emphasize the latter. SMMV (Santorum's milage may vary :-) ). My interest in separating government/university forecasts from private forecasts is entirely for value-added products. Government (NWS) and universities can forecast the wind, forecast the temperature, forecast clouds, forecast the precipitation/type, but apart from life and limb forecast, stay away from producing "results" for commercial endeavors! How about "private" universities? Are they to be allowed to compete with "private" meteorologists in your world? What about about climatological and meteorological services provided by state extension services to agriculture? And why shouldn't students at universities be allowed to expand their horizons into the "value added" arena if it helps their educations? While the undergrads might not be interested in this, I can imagine that a graduate student project could produce results which impinge on what you would claim as your territory. Should the government be empowered to enforce prior restraint on the free speech rights of that person to present his/her results, free of charge if that person so chooses? I have no interest in producing a wind product for the Indian Ocean. If there is some commercial application of such a forecast, and where a private company is/can do it, it should be left to them. I do have considerable expertise in producing heating and cooling demand forecast for the U.S. with regional and national population-weighted values, calculated each business day. NWS had a tame, once-per-week version of that long ago and that was okay. However, more recently they began a daily product as well, and then they have added some derivatives to their otherwise generic 6- to 10-day product too; that I will contend, oversteps their bounds. I'm more than willing to go head-to-head with NWS or a university or any other private company on a generic 6- to 10-day (which I also do), but the public funded folks should stay out of the "commercial" results/value-added portion. Well, it depends on how one defines "value added". If you think the forecasters and other line staff are sitting around saying, "Gee, let's figure out what we can do to add to our heavy work load and screw our colleagues who work in the private sector, I say you're wrong. I could (now) tell you some stories about how some of these new products from NWS come about, but I won't (at least not here). I have considerable expertise in producing soil moisture products and other soil condition derivatives. NWS has gradually encroached on that arena too. I still believe my product to be superior to theirs (and to other privates' I have seen) especially as it relates to agriculture, but it is a hard sell when a potential customer can get something mediocre from NWS or a university for free vs. paying a modest price for the very best. Well, certain units of the NWS need soil moisture for their work, most or all of which (like drought monitoring) IMO are valid NWS activities. Now the question arises: if this information has been gathered with tax payer money, why shouldn't the tax payers get to look at at? This is a valid area for debate, IMO. As a tax payer, I want what I paid for. IMO that's completely understandable. Of course, you would like me to pay you for it, or something like it, because you get more money. That's completely understandable. IMO my position is the more reasonable. My day-to-day efforts in deriving my soil products would be so much easier if NWS (and their little buddies at the FAA) would just concentrate on telling me how much precipitation has occurred! http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/product...s_precip.shtml isn't good enough? If they would do their jobs they have been given, they would have some much time on their hands to dream up ways of cutting my (and my fellow private meteorologists') throat(s). David Salmon David, you're talking through your hat, as my mom would say. I still have tingling in my fingers from my time working for the NWS, from sitting for hours at a stretch without a break using mouse and keyboard to make forecasts and get them out on schedule. The line forecasters don't have time to figure out ways to cut your throat and as I said, in my experience they have no desire to. Cheers, Russell -- All too often the study of data requires care. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
JATO
I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't worth the cost. Would be nice if this were always true, but quite often people do pay for an inferior product and don't want one that is better. It also depends to some extent who is providing the product, who endorses it, etc. People will assume something is good from a certain source, but if you actually verify the forecasts, you may find otherwise. People are told something is good or bad enough times, and they generally become convinced of that. I see pros and cons to David's argument, and he probably sees enough of his and others forecasts to make an honest evaluation of their accuracy. Yet proving his is more accurate with verifications would make a better argument. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:16:07 GMT, Joseph Bartlo
wrote: JATO I am glad the government is producing the forecasts. Sounds to me like your just ****ed because they are giving tax payers something for free that you want to charge them for. If your product is so much better and someone has a real need for it, they will buy it. If not I guess the product isn't worth the cost. Would be nice if this were always true, but quite often people do pay for an inferior product and don't want one that is better. It also depends to some extent who is providing the product, who endorses it, etc. People will assume something is good from a certain source, but if you actually verify the forecasts, you may find otherwise. People are told something is good or bad enough times, and they generally become convinced of that. I see pros and cons to David's argument, and he probably sees enough of his and others forecasts to make an honest evaluation of their accuracy. Yet proving his is more accurate with verifications would make a better argument. Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by comparison. I believe a good product sells itself. I also hate whiners and it sound to me like the guy is just whining. But that is just my opinion. -JATO |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
I think he has a point. IMO it isn't good for the government to do
everything, just as it isn't good for private enterprise to do everything. I think that the balance should be determined largely by knowledgeable people, like professionals in the field. But that's just my opinion. Cheers, Russell |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
JATO
Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by comparison. I believe a good product sells itself. I agree that is true to some extent, but for example suppose someone says he likes Osama Bin Laden and makes the most accurate forecasts. Do you really think he'll be hired by many people in our country? Suppose a person makes crummy forecasts and has a name like AccuWeather behind him or the endorsement of many of his peers, is friends with people high on the proverbial meteorological totem pole. I've been in the science long enough to realize that it is to some extent not what you know but who you know - sort of like a network of a bunch of people of like mind patting each other on the back and leading themselves into wherever. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:53:02 GMT, Joseph Bartlo
wrote: JATO Well there is an old saying you get what you pay for. If someone in the private sector can produce data that are so much better than the free service the government provides, then the knowledgable people who need these accurate forecasts would be able to tell the difference by comparison. I believe a good product sells itself. I agree that is true to some extent, but for example suppose someone says he likes Osama Bin Laden and makes the most accurate forecasts. Do you really think he'll be hired by many people in our country? Suppose a person makes crummy forecasts and has a name like AccuWeather behind him or the endorsement of many of his peers, is friends with people high on the proverbial meteorological totem pole. I've been in the science long enough to realize that it is to some extent not what you know but who you know - sort of like a network of a bunch of people of like mind patting each other on the back and leading themselves into wherever. I've been around long enough to know you do your homework and choose your vendors based on who provides the best product. If you choose someone as a vendor just because of popularity verses the quality of their product, then you deserve what you get. I like choices. If I have a need for a high end product and the Gov product can't product that, then I would go with the vendor that could. Pretty simple and straight forward. It's not rocket science. |
National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005...Call To Action!
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:06:50 -0500,
David Salmon , in wrote: + James, it so hard to tell what you are rambling about, but let me be + perfectly clear for you and anybody else; That's perfectly clear. Let me be equally clear: why should I pay taxes to provide you data for *free*, then turn around and have to pay *you* for your value-added products? When you start paying for data - and I mean paying for the actual data, and not the delivery thereof - then I might start thinking it's all equal. James -- Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good, either. I am BOFH. Resistance is futile. Your network will be assimilated. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 WeatherBanter.co.uk