Any chance of keeping dialogue on the ldm user list focused on ldm
specific issues? Gilbert, I don't know who you are but I'm going to have
to file for workers comp to fix my sore thumb from deleting all of the
emails that I receive from you. ;)
Chris
===============================
Ohio State ASP Web Staff
Chris Hennon
aspweb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
===============================
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, David Wojtowicz wrote:
>
> >
> > Those of us in the US academic community are quite blessed at the wealth
> > of data delivered to our doorsteps for practically no cost to us at all,
> > through the efforts of Unidata and the cooperation of the NWS. The
> > addition of NNEXRAD will be another great benefit. Where else in the
> > world does such a dense network of radars with unprecedented
> > accessiblility of the data exist?
>
> This is true. And...
>
> > Keep in mind that in many countries few people if anyone has access to
> > internal data outside that country's equivalent of NWS. This is in spite
> > of that fact that they pay even more taxes than we do in support of
> > producing that data.
>
> England comes to mind immediately.
>
> > Sure, we're all anxious to get the data, but flaming the NWS is quite
> > counter-productive. It will only serve to discourage them from reaching
> > out to our community with ready access to their data sources. They don't
> > want to have to put up with all the whining and griping. This was one of
> > the main reasons they entered into the initial NIDS contracts with the
> > vendors in the first place. They did not want the hassles of dealing
> > directly with outside end users of the data. It is a very thankless
> > business to be in.
>
> True.
>
> > It'd be different if we were paying big bucks for the data...then the
> > provider has an obligation to make sure it nearly always works as promised
> > and the customer has a right to gripe when it doesn't. But we're not
> > paying anything. (aside from the tiny percentage of our taxes that go
> > into the program... and it is a very tiny percentage compared to the gobs
> > of other things our taxes go into that we get no direct benefit from in
> > return)
> See below.
>
> > Also, the data distributed through Unidata is primarily intended for
> > research, educational and other acedemic use rather than for primarily
> > operation use. It occurred to me that one of the most vocal people in our
> > community concerning NWS is using for purely operational use. If it is
> > that critical, they should be paying for the data through a vendor to
> > ensure access and reliability.
>
> Definitely not solely, and yes, we do pay external vendors outside of
> the UNIDATA program for access and reliability. But after thinking about
> that this weekend, you are correct. I repent! And I do reiterate that,
> although, the NWS does make boo-boos, I am very happy overall with
> NOAAport. I got frustrated because it pains me to see one of the best run
> government organizations by far (sure, it has problems, but it still is
> awesome), make a mistake like that. But, I went way overboard in my
> comments. I'll learn from that and move on.
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Gilbert Sebenste ********
> Internet: gilbert@xxxxxxx (My opinions only!) ******
> Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University ****
> E-mail: sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ***
> web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu **
> Work phone: 815-753-5492 *
> *******************************************************************************
>
>
