New Senate Bill to Ban NWS from offering free weather data

[Forkboy2 27]

This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a while. Hopefully will get defeated. Looks like it could pretty much shut down the National Weather Service web site.http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/...1a_wx_0421.htmlMatt

[KERNEL32 497]

SENSORSHIP? Nahhhhh- can't be! Not in TODAY'S society, in the USA? Soon enough the R's will have us all walking around like ROBOTS bumping into each other, whoops better correct that too- can't have robots bumping into each other, that is NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT!

[Guest Armstrang]

Dumb ideas come from all sides.

[Guest]

Why should I (were I a US citizen) be forced to pay federal taxes to get someone a few thousand miles away a weather forecast telling him whether he needs an umbrella or not to walk to the bus stop?

[imoore 1]

It's not censorship. It's not saying that you are not allowed to discuss the weather any longer. It's hardly censorship when the government promotes private and independant companies to provide the information to the public rather than them. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessi...=lc04a&method=8Not to mention this is not a subject that concerns FS2004 nor should shots at any party be brought into a nonpartisan forum.

[kerosene31 349]

Do you think that Senator sponsoring the bill gets any money from the commercial weather special interest groups? This just makes me sick. The weather is not something that should be private sector only. It is information vital to everyday life. My big problem is that for-profit weather agencies tend to exaggerate things sometimes, as their primary goal is ratings.

[Guest Slacktide]

>Not to mention this is not a subject that concerns FS2004 nor>should shots at any party be brought into a nonpartisan>forum.You think that this subject does not concern FS2004? Say goodby to ActiveSky if this bill is passed.Dan

[Guest Slacktide]

>Why should I (were I a US citizen) be forced to pay federal>taxes to get someone a few thousand miles away a weather>forecast telling him whether he needs an umbrella or not to>walk to the bus stop?Here's the deal. We're still going to be paying for the weather and climate to be researched and forecasted. It's just that we, the people who paid for this data to be collected and interpreted, will not be allowed to see the data that we have already paid for, unless whe give money to a private company, who gets the data from the government for free!

[Sonar5 3]

>This is the stupidest thing I've seen in a while. Hopefully>will get defeated. Looks like it could pretty much shut down>the National Weather Service web site.>>http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/...1a_wx_0421.html>>MattHi Matt,Actually you have no clue, IMHO, what this bill does, or why it was even issued. I suggest next time, quit believing what some moronic press report says and do some research on your own. You will learn quite a lot, and be better for it too. :-)Please....Read the bills, the Code references, house bills, and reasons first.You could list the Sponsor of the bill, (Santorum R-Pa) and co-sponsors, (NONE). BTW - I don't think this will even pass, from what I have read.Right now the NWS is also complaining about their budget, so this is actually part of that process, IMHO, along with NOAA cowboy stunts.It was referred to committee, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, where it will die, IMHO. It doesn't even have one single co-sponsor.Not only that, but I don't think the Sponsor (Santorum) even serves on the Committee that will decide if this even goes to the floor or dies.Furthermore, if anyone bothered to read the whole bill, and see the reference to 44720 of title 49, United States Code, you might have realized what will still be offered, and what must be offered.Also, did the House even offer a similar bill yet? NO. It does take both houses before this is accomplished.For example, one aspect of the bill states:From:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.786:"(D) The provision of reports, forecasts, warnings, and other advice to the Secretary of Transportation and other persons pursuant to section 44720 of title 49, United States Code."And from that, we gain this:http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...20----000-.html"

[Sonar5 3]

Wrong, IMHO.

[Forkboy2 27]

>>Hi Matt,>>Actually you have no clue, IMHO, what this bill does, or why>it was even issued. I suggest next time, quit believing what>some moronic press report says and do some research on your>own. You will learn quite a lot, and be better for it too. >:-)>>Please....Read the bills, the Code references, house bills,>and reasons first.>Thanks for the details.I never claimed to have a clue about the details of the bill. Was just trying to raise awareness.BTW, the quotes in the article indicate the major parties involved aren't even sure what the consequences of the bill would be, if passed.Matt

[Sonar5 3]

That's because, IMHO, this is more of a message than a Bill, hence no sponsors, vague language, etc.....He's trying to tell NOAA to go back to what they were doing before. NOAA can't complain about budget on one hand and then branch out to already supplied services on the other.You also have to connect the dots a little on the source. Plam Beach, Hurrican country, all the press has access to weather folks. Some yahoo in a back room, comes across the bill, and calls his press buddies. This is a budget thing, nothing more, IMHO.Hope that clears it up for you. Regards,JoeGrab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[Sonar5 3]

Oh please, stop overreacting, and read the actual bill, and reference info.The Sky is not falling here, folks, even though some are willing to jump off buildings anyway. ;-) Grab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]

[Guest Slacktide]

>Wrong, IMHO.Well, of course YOU would agree with Senator Santorum. Ever google on that guy's views?Dan

[Sonar5 3]

>>Wrong, IMHO.>>Well, of course YOU would agree with Senator Santorum. Ever>google on that guy's views?>>DanAgree with him?????Please..... I NEVER SAID any such thing. Now you are making things up. :-lol :-lolI never said I agreed with the bill, or its merits. I said I didn't think the bill would pass.Sheesh, I'm not defending Santorum here, not at all, I think the bill doesn't stand a chance.Seems like you just want to bash him instead of looking at the actual bill and what it means. Hint - IT's ABOUT WEATHER.Please go back and read the whole thread again, and what I wrote below, and try to stick to weather instead of where you are attempting to drag this non-issue, IMHO.Funny stuff... :-lolGrab My FREEWARE Voice recognition Profiles here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=58334]Cessna 172 Voice Profile[/a][a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=fs2004misc&DLID=60740]FSD Avanti Voice Profile[/a].You will need the main FREEWARE Flight Assistant program to use it, get it here:[a href=http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID=genutils&DLID=39661]Flight Assistant 2.2[/a]