New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data

ckokotay writes "Here we go again. Apparently for-pay weather companies (specifically Accuweather) have lobbied Senator Rick Santorum to introduce a bill to ban the National Weather Service from 'competing.' The NOAA just made data available for free on the internet in XML format. Essentially, that means no more free data, and the possible elimination of the NOAA web presence all together. Nothing like being able to buy off a clueless Senator - lets hope the rest do not fall in line, as I for one, do not like to pay for my information twice." This debate picks up where the last one left off. According to the article, the bill's biggest critics are complaining of the bill's vague wording which makes it unclear what exactly is being banned.

Comments

Re:MODS - PARENT IS A TROLL

[ta bu shi da yu]

How amusing, the person posting here (I suspect) comes from the Stormfront forums (a Nazi website).

Terrorism Report Suppressed

[Umanity]

Yesterday there were news reports that the Bush administration is suppressing the generation of a report which would estimate the success of the War On Terror. Last years report was such an embarassment to the administration because the first release of the report indicated that Bush was completely triumphant in that world terrorism was reduced significantly. He ran with this news in the run up to the 2004 election. Shortly after the election a footnote appeared which explained that the results of that report were flawed, and that world terrorism has actually increased since Bush was in office. This was very, very embarassing for the dumb-fark Bush.

SOLUTION: Don't come out with the report this year. We don't want people to know the truth that America is losing the war on terrorism. Less information is good for the administration, because it becomes easier for them to lie to the people.

This is the worst damn administration and worst president EVER...

Michael

Link to story

Re:MODS - PARENT IS A TROLL

[cortana]

Even if that's true (which I doubt, you AC troll), how does that devalue his contribution to the discussion?

Re:Adminship

[InfiniteWisdom]

You may not agree with Nazi phoilosophy (I most certainly don't) but banning someone just because they are a Nazi is an abuse of editor privilages, IMO. Of course, if they had a persistent track record of making inflamatory and/or POV edits that's a different matter.

Of course, whether or not you abused privileges on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the validity of your post here.

Re:Adminship

[ta bu shi da yu]

Yep, I know. I said this already! It's a moot point, however, as I'm no longer an admin.