Kennedy Space Center Braces For Hurricane Matthew (cbsnews.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kennedy Space Center Braces For Hurricane Matthew (cbsnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday October 6, 2016 @07:00PM from the brace-for-impact dept.

Hurricane Matthew, one of the most powerful storms to hit Florida's Space Coast in the last 50 years, is expected to pummel the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Thursday night and into Friday. "Kennedy Space Center is now in HurrCon 1 status, meaning a hurricane is imminent. Hurricane preparations at Kennedy were completed early last night, and remaining employees were then sent home," NASA spokesman George Diller said in a blog post today. CBS News reports: The National Hurricane Center is predicting heavy rain, dangerous storm surges and winds gusting up to 140 mph along Florida's east coast with the eye passing just off shore or directly over Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center. Satellite observations of Matthew show the hurricane features "a distinct eye surrounded by very deep convection," the National Hurricane Center reported in its 11 a.m. EDT update. "Data from an Air Force reconnaissance plane traversing the eye of the hurricane also indicate that Matthew has strengthened. Members of a 139-member "rideout" team will be stationed at various facilities across the space center to monitor critical systems "and report any significant events" to emergency operations personnel in the Complex 39 Launch Control Center where space shuttle launchings were once managed. "After the hurricane has passed, and winds have dropped below 50 knots, areas around KSC will be assessed and the damage assessment and recovery team will report for duty," said Diller. You can view satellite images of the storm here.

82 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it. The climate models predict more hurricanes and that hurricanes will be stronger. We're seeing just that with Matthew. With this in the news, set to hit the entire coastline of eastern Florida instead of small areas like past hurricanes such as Andrew, I can't understand how anyone would still deny global warming.
1. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  Global Warming is a far outdated and frankly idiotic term. The correct phrasing is Climate Change, because not only are we seeing storms like this and more of them we are seeing winters that are more harsh and much longer winter storms. Climate fluctuates, it is natural, if Global Warming was the only problem we wouldn't have winter let alone massive amounts of snow every year.
2. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:21 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Seriously? There has been a long lull in major hurricanes for at least a decade which has directly contradicted the prophecies of the global warming cultist priests made 20 years ago. Yet more proof of a yet another false apocalyptic end of the world cult.
3. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:37 · Score: -1
  
  Hillary Clinton already declared hurricane Matthew was caused by climate change. Man I am scared for the future. The climate, while degrading, is about to get a lot worse. What will hurricanes of the future be like?
4. Re:Global warming by EzInKy · 2016-10-06 19:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
5. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:29 · Score: -1
  
  Um, no, but thanks for playing.
6. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 21:27 · Score: 0
  
  read Bruce Sterling's novel "Heavy Weather". he called it.
7. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  Even a rough googling or wiki'ing proves that to be incorrect.
  Just the Atlantic, noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
  How about this cyclone, part of a weather system that kept the majority of QLD flooded for most of summer that year? The year I finally bought a generator, because I got tired of throwing away perishable food.
  Deaths are low these days because we see them coming, but they still smash infrastructure and leave economies limping for months or years.
8. Re:Global warming by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-10-06 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  What stronger? This is a Cat 3 storm. There are usually several every year.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
9. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 23:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, hurricanes never happened before evil humans got in their cars and started using electricity. Never. Not once. No hurricane has ever happened until now.
  Clearly the only solution to this is for all of humanity to die.
10. Re: Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-07 00:34 · Score: 2
  
  noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
  Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
11. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  "yet another false apocalyptic end of the world cult"
  Oh you mean like Space Nuttery that has been promising a Death Asteroid and The End Of The Species UNLESS WE COLONIZE MARS!!!!
  Since at least the 1970s...
12. Re: Global warming by CohibaVancouver · 2016-10-07 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Even a rough googling or wiki'ing proves that to be incorrect.
  He meant 'hurricanes that damaged property in the USA.'
  
  In his world, hurricanes, cyclones & typhoons that wreak havoc in 'other places' don't count.
13. Re: Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-07 01:46 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Seriously? There has been a long lull in major hurricanes for at least a decade which has directly contradicted the prophecies of the global warming cultist priests made 20 years ago. Yet more proof of a yet another false apocalyptic end of the world cult.
  AGW denialists only count the ones hitting the US, and even then, they know hurricanes are caused by gay marriage.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
14. Re: Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-07 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  noting the bits "Tied for third most active season on record" and " Tied for second most hurricanes in a season on record", for example. Sandy's in there.
  Or "Tied (with 1982) for fewest hurricanes since 1930".
  The only ones that count are the ones that hit the USA. All others are irrelevant.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
15. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-07 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  Though I believe the evidence of for global warming, this hurricane is not a part of it. Claims such as yours belong with those which claim that people not flying off into space is proof that the world is flat.
  It's pretty difficult to claim that any one day's weather is the result of the 800 terawatts of radiative forcing that humans have pumped into the air. You simply have to look at trends.
  As well, a lot of people forget the "global" part of AGW. It's the sort of thing that causes deniers to bray "So much for global warming!" As well, there are some folks who declare every hot day or weather related disaster on AGW.
  Both are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.
  Given that hurricanes and tornadoes and other storms are nature's way of dumping excess or imbalanced energy, and its obvious that we've always had these events, no one event can conclusively be laid at the feet of AGW. The nature of nature is that imbalances happen and need taken care of.
  The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale. To date, they've done nothing of the sort. This puts them squarely in bed with creationists. Otherwise all they have is looking out the window when its cold.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
16. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-07 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, hurricanes never happened before evil humans got in their cars and started using electricity. Never. Not once. No hurricane has ever happened until now.
  What a bizzare statement. The nature of a complex atmospheric system like the one on earth inherently leads to energy imbalances. So storms are just the way these imbalances try to even out
  Clearly the only solution to this is for all of humanity to die.
  Nooo! You are wrong and silly, but we need you around as long as possible, if just to have someone to laugh at. Live long and prosper, and buy mountain land.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
17. Re: Global warming by BundesSheep · 2016-10-07 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  I totally get that you don't think we're going to be living in a Buck Rogers-like interplanetary or interstellar civilization anytime soon if ever. But do you deny that "death asteroids" have impacted the earth in the past with very negative global consequences? Whether or not the "space nutters" are right about colonizing mars, wouldn't it be nice to have some means of detecting and possibly deflecting species extinction level asteroid impacts?
18. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  If you send money to the Clinton foundation, future hurricanes will skip over, dissipate, or deviate from your area. Otherwise, they'll category 5 your ass.
19. Re:Global warming by rickb928 · 2016-10-07 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
  If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
  For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
  Bring it on.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
20. Re: Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-07 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  All I can say is that I copy/pasted from the same column as the original AC a few years earlier.
21. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 07:23 · Score: 0
  
  Both of you are completely wrong.
  Here, let me do the heavy lifting for you:
  Here is the relevant data set. Notice that the record goes back to well before the industrial age, so if current climate change is having an effect, it should be noticeable.
  Go ahead, plot the columns. There's no noticeable change in storm or hurricane frequency. The only column that will show you an increase is the amount of damage caused. I'll give you a hint: that's not because the storms are stronger.
22. Re:Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-07 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
  
  And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
23. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-08 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  The problem for the denialists is that they have to come up with a proveable hypothesis of how the greenhouse effect fails on a global scale.
  And why is that a problem for the "denialists" and not for the people actually making the extraordinary claims without the extraordinary evidence?
  1. There are some extremely basic laws of physics going on here. It's like denying Ohm's Law I make the claim that the laws of physics hold true. You do not. You need to prove they don't. DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up. So you have to prove how the measurements are either incorrect, or don't hold up using real science, not way outdated denials.
  I point to the dat. You say it is wrong. You have th eextraordinary claim, you need to supply your proofs. And the proof isn't Michal Mann is an asshole, or long discredited (but unfindable on denialistwebsites - correlation between an Alabama university study and SAtellite data. If you are going to do that, you might as well pull out a T-O map, or claim that fossils are put there by Gawd to tempt people. It's in your court, and it is not my job to do your work for you. Good luck!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
24. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  "There are some extremely basic laws of physics going on here. It's like denying Ohm's Law ..."
  That the laws are basic doesn't mean that either data collection or the combination of many elements at once can't be complicated and ambiguous.
25. Re:Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-09 17:45 · Score: 1
  
  DEspite your protesttions to the negative, the measurements hold up.
  
  Do you understand these measurements well enough for that "holding up" to be relevant? From what I recall of your posting in the past, the answer is "no".
  
  Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority. I grant that there is global warming and that it is likely that most of it is human caused. That doesn't mean that I agree that we should do something about it. There is a remarkable inability of the climate change crowd to show that doing something about global warming is better than doing nothing, even if your only care is global warming. There is a remarkable counterproductive aspect to global warming mitigation which has nothing to do with basic laws of physics.
26. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Let me point out there is a huge gap between "basic laws of physics" and global warming is severe enough that we should consider it our only priority.
  Let me point out that I never said it should be our top priority.
  I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
  My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
  But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
27. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  If you have evidence that hurricane frequency or landfall is increasing, please share it with NOAA, for they have none.
  If your argument is that the intensity is somehow increasing, kindly share that data also.
  For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
  Bring it on.
  Challenge accepted.
  First, although altogether too many slashdot users claim strawmen when there was none, your claiming that AGW advocates are claiming that this hurricane is the result of global warming is a complete and total strawman. There are some assholes who might claim that, just the same as there are assholes who claim that the world was entering a new ice age back in the mid 1970's, but those are whacky outliers.
  Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon, and fueled by temperature gradients (read energy) brought about by the rotation of a spherical object (the earth) and it's changing insolation on various regions. The weather created is a way to bring the energy level into balance. The same happens with thunderstorms and snowstorms. Can we agree on that much?
  Next we have the energy retention properties of the atmosphere on earth. There are some chemical compounds that retain or lessen energy retention. Water vapor is a biggie. It's the most potent Greenhouse "gas" we have, generally. Carbon Dioxide is another. It's a lot weaker in terms of energy retention, but we've released a lot of it lately, from sequestered sources like coal and oil. Then there is methan, which is now being released as normally frozen areas warm. It's not clear at present how much of this will be released, but it is a pretty potent greenhouse gas. There are other greenhouse gases, most are not as important to the discussion.
  There are also anti-greenhouse gases, such as Sulfur Dioxide, which tend to allow the atmosphere shed energy much more quickly, so not as much buildup is possible.
  The effect of this increase of atmospheric energy is that there ia a general warming trend, and the possibility of a larger energy exchange during storms.
  No one storm is the result of this process. It is possible for damage to be increased when an area where sea level has risen when a storm surge of X feet ingresses X miles inland because of that rise. That might be attributable to AGW as a peripheral event, but the existence of the energy balancing effect AKA hurricane, is not. It's just a hurricane.
  Okay. There's the start. Ball's in your court now. Be aware however, name calling or silly pejoratives like libtard or wingnut is an automatic disqualification, as is personal attacks on researchers involved. I often use the term denialist. Its a descriptive, not a pejorative. But since we're talking about science, no need to say that anywhere. And strawmen are most definitely not allowed, so game on?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
28. Re: Global warming by rickb928 · 2016-10-11 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Somehow I missed your data.
  All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
  And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
29. Re: Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Somehow I missed your data.
  All else is indeed interesting discussion is analysis, without any hard analysis.
  And I cannot tell the a*holes from the sincere apologists.
  Which specific data do you want?
  And should I [present it in as concise a form as you have? Either answer the question, or decline the challenge.
  SO far, you have said:
  
  For like most of the Global Warming/Climate Change crew, you have no real data. All you have is manipulated or fabricated, and allegations based on what you would rather believe.
  Where do you want me to begin? The beginning with the retention of energy by substance? That the Coriois effect is th eprime mixer of atmospheric energy? I can go to elementary physics if you care, but you need to give me a level you want to operate at. Or you could at least say which exact data was manipulated. But I've discussed with your ilk before. You're getting challenged again. At this point, I'm calling you out as a true denialist, full of assertations and preciousl little to go on.
  What data has been manipulated? Talk the big boy talk - I will understand it.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
30. Re:Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-11 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
  We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
  
  My concerns at the moment, are that the rapid release of methane we've been experiencing lately are a wild card that wasn't mentioned nearly enough in the past several decades. While methane doesn't last as long in the atmosphere, it is much more powerful an energy retention substance then CO2.
  
  What rapid release of methane? They've been measuring methane concentrations in atmosphere. While they are increasing, it's not a rapid release.
  
  But even then, we're going to witness whatever we've put in motion without being able to do much about it.
  Incorrect. We can still create a sophisticated, technologically advanced, global civilization capable of handling whatever climate change throws at us. That incidentally is the default, "no action" choice right there.
31. Re:Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty certain that the roller coaster ride has been set in motion, the amount of CO2 we've re-released will be there for a while. So while it behooves us to cut back on the amount we continue to release, as well as engage cleaner technologies, if for no other reason than the coal and oil ain't gonna last forever - the ride's been set in motion.
  We're all also going to die. I guess we better kill ourselves off now, the ride's been set in motion after all.
  You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
  Since it is not possible for you to comprehend what I wrote, it is this. Whatever is going to happen, is going to happen, and we are going to have to live with whatever happens. Shit happens. Go troll someone else, you bore me, kid.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
32. Re: Global warming by rickb928 · 2016-10-11 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  First, the temperature records are adjusted to somehow account for errors or influences. This leaves me suspicious.
  Then the siting of recording stations in the US seems to risk both urban heat island effects as well as a bias to urban locations, both as sprawl engulfed older stations, and as rural stations have fallen into disrepair or been lost.
  But the intentional manipulation of data, especially satellite data, leaves me questioning results.
  If you're as aware as you seem to claim, you know what I'm referring to.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
33. Re:Global warming by khallow · 2016-10-11 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  You just look for shit to make smartass comments about? Or are you intellectually challenged, in which case I pologize because my mamma taught me to not pick pn retarded people.
  
  No, I'm making a point which should be obvious. Just because something is inevitable doesn't mean it is a good idea to rush it. This again goes back to my observation that we have other priorities than just mitigating global warming. You say you agree, but where is that in your reasoning?
34. Re: Global warming by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  First, the temperature records are adjusted to somehow account for errors or influences. This leaves me suspicious.
  I asked for data.You have none.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
35. Re: Global warming by rickb928 · 2016-10-11 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  first, this
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Satellite Image of the Hurricane by Thorfinn.au · 2016-10-06 19:18 · Score: 4, Informative

hi the latest image is at http://www.goes.noaa.gov/brows...
1. Re:Satellite Image of the Hurricane by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  For those who haven't had their morning coffee yet: The hurricane does not go east. The satellite is called "Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite East" or short GOES East.
2. Re:Satellite Image of the Hurricane by Bruce+Perens · 2016-10-07 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  It actually looks (from this and other data, including barometric) as if the eye has just passed the cape offshore, and winds there got to 70 mph. That doesn't mean it's all over, but not quite as bad as foretold. We also don't know the extent of flooding. This is marsh right next to the ocean, so flooding could be very serious.
  
  --
  Bruce Perens.
HurrCon 1 status by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:22 · Score: 0

We call it "HurrCon 1 status", because we don't have time to say, "There's a goddamn hurricane coming, head for the hills".
1. Re:HurrCon 1 status by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  hur hur. Hurr.
2. Re: HurrCon 1 status by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  What hills? Our highest elavation is 19 feet above sea level.
Matthew is a dud by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 19:32 · Score: -1

I've been talking with people along the eastern coast of Florida (Melbourne, pt st lucie, jupiter) and they are saying Matthew was a dud and they've had thunderstorms worse than that. Ah well best to be overprepared anyway, is what I think.
1. Re: Matthew is a dud by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's because the eye and eyewalls of Matthew has stayed offshore. The outer eyewall will probably touch Cape Canaveral and it may actually make landfall in northern Florida, which will result in far worse conditions for those areas. The concentric eyewalls and the large outer eyewall help to keep the winds down a bit. The pressure isn't that low for a major hurricane, so any broadening of the low pressure will bring down the winds. I suspect that 120 mph may be a bit generous for the winds based on the data from the KMLB radar. Nonetheless, if the eyewall replacement completes and if the core can tighten up a bit, that could increase the winds. Also, if landfall occurs, that would bring the stronger winds onshore, though weakening the storm fairly quickly afterwards. Just because it didn't hit south Florida that hard doesn't mean it won't be quite a bit worse for northern Florida.
2. Re: Matthew is a dud by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for this explanation.
3. Re: Matthew is a dud by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-10-07 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Its not likely to shift westward as it moves up the coast. It is more likely hit up in South Carolina if anywhere, but should be significantly weakened by then.
Also by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-06 19:57 · Score: 4, Informative

On a related note, 300 people died in Haiti.
1. Re:Also by EzInKy · 2016-10-06 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure about your numbers, but you can rest assured that once the danger to US citizens pass all sorts of aid will be sent to Haiti.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
2. Re:Also by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-06 20:11 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
3. Re:Also by EzInKy · 2016-10-06 20:18 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Okay. But again, once the danger to US citizens has subsided help will be sent to Haiti.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
4. Re:Also by bazmail · 2016-10-06 20:41 · Score: 0
  
  Other countries are already helping. But thanks anyway.
5. Re:Also by BlackPignouf · 2016-10-06 20:42 · Score: 2
  
  In the meantime, it would be decent to at least mention them.
  10% of 9/11 victims, this deserves at least 2 years of bombing another country in the Middle East.
6. Re:Also by EzInKy · 2016-10-06 21:50 · Score: 1
  
  Haiti, and Bermuda, were both headline news here in the US. As for Middle East countries, we have admittedly not taken care of the true home of the culprits behind the attacks.
  
  --
  Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
7. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  The Clinton "Foundation" will be there soon to siphon off all that aid just like last time.
8. Re:Also by BitZtream · 2016-10-07 00:23 · Score: -1
  
  Yea, like the US aircraft carriers that were dispatched with supplies yesterday as quickly as the loading could be finished, right, thats what you mean, right?
  It takes a little while to drive around a hurricane
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
9. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Not to worry, their oil empire slow-motion imploding will take care of them.
10. Re: Also by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  yup, the clinton foundation will be right there on the front lines: one for you, two for me, one for you, four for me, one gor you, three for me, one for you, two for me...
11. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  It's bitztream, the autism-hating, ./-story-hating Slashdot troll!
12. Re:Also by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-08 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  Okay. But again, once the danger to US citizens has subsided help will be sent to Haiti.
  Why should the US, again and again, send aid to Haiti, when the government and people, again and again, refuse to invest in the infrastructure and education needed for disaster preparedness? I would argue that it is counter productive.
  It is a hard fact to realize, but every Haitian is one day going to die, and even with mountains of aid, many of their lives are going to be horrible. The current policies of continuous international aid and the emergency dumping of cash and supplies after every disaster just keeps the corrupt regimes in power and prevents Haiti from joining modern civilization. Those regimes are the reason the Haitian population is the least advanced in the Americas. Lack of aid is not.
I'm in Central Florida on the E. Coast by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:14 · Score: 1, Informative

And this storm has really been a whole lot of nothing (obviously I still have my power).
1. Re: I'm in Central Florida on the E. Coast by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Biggest power outages so far are far inland. The coastal areas seem well prepared. Google Duke energy outage map for florida.
2. Re: I'm in Central Florida on the E. Coast by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 00:04 · Score: 0
  
  At least one company is doing their job.
3. Re:I'm in Central Florida on the E. Coast by Solandri · 2016-10-07 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  We're fortunate the storm is grazing land along its left side (relative to the direction it's moving). The right side has the higher wind speeds and bigger storm surge.
go to hell mommy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:23 · Score: -1

putlocker.is is a tor hidden server for pedo of a bum shithead names lucas who escaped from a mental asylum from uruguay, changed his gender and now sell guns, pedo the shit stealing twitter accounts. e enfiaa filha da puta da helena no teu rabo. Tolo. hahaha
If you can make it to space by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:27 · Score: 0

You can make it through a little rain and wind. The postal service can do.
Over Preparation Pays Off by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 20:52 · Score: 0

Spent two days preparing, and lucked out... (I'll take it) Good luck to my neighbors up north.
Windy, and some scattered rain by the Beach
who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 22:58 · Score: 0

Millions of human beings are going to be impacted. Multiple countries are being hit hard. Why give focus to just one small piece of what lays on the storm's path?
HIllary Has Spoken by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 22:58 · Score: 0

She blames it on Global Warming. You knew that was coming from some Asshat. I'm a bit surprised it was her because she presumably has smart people on her team...but not that surprised. After all, never let a crises go to waste...ya know?
A slow day there by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-06 23:26 · Score: 0

If not for the storm, it would have been double that.
As a Matthew, by sabbede · 2016-10-06 23:32 · Score: 4, Funny

I've really been enjoying this. It's like the news is all abuzz about me being such a badass that people flee as I approach.
1. Re:As a Matthew, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  How about: "Matthew blows the east coast"
2. Re:As a Matthew, by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  It gets worse, I have a brother named Andrew, as well. It's looking like we'll both end up sharing names with famous hurricanes.
Of the strongest hurricanes in 50 years? by BitZtream · 2016-10-06 23:51 · Score: -1

Hurricane Matthew, one of the most powerful storms to hit Florida's Space Coast in the last 50 years
Sensationalize, sensationalize, sensationalize ...
Matthew is a Cat3, Florida gets hit with a cat 3 about once a year or every other year.
Andrew was powerful, Matthew is just another one.
Yes, they prepared for it to hit by taking apart theme parks and launch pads, this is routine for Floridians. Disney World can deconstruct itself to a safe state in less than 24 hours.
Having grown up in Florida I can tell you that unless you're on the cost, Matthew just means its time to have a storm party. Beachfront property is fucked, but thats known well in advance. You don't find 'old' beachfront buildings in Florida, nor do you find particularly well constructed ones ... why? Because within 5-10 years theres a very high probability that the ocean is going to erase it from existence in conjunction with a hurricane.
Finally, WTF is this on slashdot for? Just cause KSC? Might as well have a story about how its beating up the Oracle offices in Orlando too then, and the thousands of other 'tech' businesses there, if thats how low this sites shitty standards have fallen.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
1. Re: Of the strongest hurricanes in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  maybe it washes Citrix away? we can hope
2. Re:Of the strongest hurricanes in 50 years? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  It's bitztream, the autism-hating, Slashdot-story-hating Slashdot troll!
Employees were sent home? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 00:40 · Score: 0

I understand the importance of getting everything locked down but if they were sending the employees home last night that's going to delay their evacuation and make it a lot more difficult (gas stations frequently sell out of gas during evacuations, etc). I'd think NASA management would tell families to go somewhere safe (inland Air Force base maybe?) and then fly the employees who weren't riding it out there.

On a side note I had an ex who was a lifeguard at Disney world, I went to help her when they were prepping for a hurricane one year and I admired they way they secured the pool furniture so it wouldn't blow away. They just threw it all in the pools, sometimes the simple solutions are the best ones.
Movie premise by RogueWarrior65 · 2016-10-07 02:34 · Score: 1

This would make for an interesting thriller movie premise. There's a murderer among the ride-out team picking off the other members one by one.
1. Re:Movie premise by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  Sharknado 5. It's perfect. Send it in.
2. Re: Movie premise by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Tera Reid looks like a god damn drug addict now. What happen to Tera from American Pie. Blowing her boyfriend at parties then spitting it in Stifflers beer Tera. I miss the old Tera.
This cartoon predicted your posting. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-10-07 06:44 · Score: 1

With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:This cartoon predicted your posting. by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-10-11 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  With storms like Matthew happening now, it's truly remarkable to me that anyone can deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
  Looks to me like, though Global Warming / Climate Change disaster theory has not done a very good job at predicting weather problems, this editorial cartoon was dead-on at predictimg your posting.
  As a person who has great confidence that AGW exists, the same as I have confidence in the speed of light, or any other scientific law, the existence of Hurricane Andrew has nothing to do with AGW.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Rest assured that... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-07 07:42 · Score: 0

Not sure about your numbers, but you can rest assured that once the danger to US citizens pass all sorts of aid will be sent to Haiti.
...none of it will likely reach any of the needy victims.
Haiti.