Now, if you want to talk "free market" how about disbanding the NWS all
together and make the for profit companies pay for their own observation
facilities? They would instantly be out of business.

But the government does have responsibility for providing essential services
for the public good and reasonably accurate weather forcasting is one of
those essential services so how about proposing that the commercial services
pay for the data. Say total up the cost of running the NWS and bill it to
the for profit services monthly prorata based on the number of bytes they
download.

Wanna bet on how loud they would howl?

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:59 -0400, DSK said:

Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not
at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?

Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed
populist
rhetoric.

Since this is rec.boats, you might go out on the water at some time. Do
you ever use the VHF weather to keep up with the weather while sailing?
Well, that would go away,as well as general aviation weather for pilots.
Ever call up the local radar on the internet when storms are about?
Gone unless you want to pay for a subscription service. You probably
don't go cruising, so you wouldn't miss the USCG WEFAX daily reports,
but I will, as will a great many cruisers. This IS NOT a good thing.
krj

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:59 -0400, DSK said:


Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at

all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?


Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed populist
rhetoric.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:58:49 -0700, Me wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Want to re-think your above statement?


Dave wrote:
Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.)

Ah so, taking your money is OK in this instance, but not in others
(f'r'instance Social Security taxes)? Your sense of fiscally
responsibile gov't is strangely flexible.


... Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser.

Really? How does one not show a profit when one receives a valuable
service for free, because other people have already paid for it, and
then sells that service to the other people who have already paid for it
but are now restrained by law from receiving it, except from you, at a
price you determine?

... "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed populist
rhetoric.

Well yeah, of course... except that it accurately describes the
situation. But hey, if a fact is embarassing to certain political
interests, then that fact becomes "liberal spin" and "empty-headed
populist rhetoric" doesn't it?

But y'know what? Water runs downhill.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

But y'know what? Water runs downhill.

DSK

Not on my sailboat, water is pumped up!

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."


Dave wrote:
On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the executive shouldn't be afraid to TRAMPLE the minority... and
also any members of his own party who are insufficiently inflexible,
doctrinaire, and ideology-driven.

The only way America can remain FREE is if we have an executive who rams
his choices down the throats of those who are charged by the
Constitution to review & approve.

And by all means, let's have more politics in *this* newsgroup too. Lots
of name calling, too. We just don't seem to have enough of it elsewhere.

DSK

Ah so, taking your money is OK in this instance, but not in others
(f'r'instance Social Security taxes)? Your sense of fiscally
responsibile gov't is strangely flexible.


Dave wrote:
Nothing strange about thinking my taxes should pay for some things and that
other things should be paid for by the recipient.

I don't have an argument with that, but I fail to see how it's relevant
in this case.

You seem to be unwilling to face the facts of this proposal, instead
wanting to insult others and say that the facts presented others are
"propaganda" and "empty-headed populist rhetoric."

Here's a suggestion: when you indulge in this kind of discussion, do it
on some of the other newsgroups that are already polluted. Let's try and
keep this one on topic, just a little bit.

DSK

Dave wrote:
INVLEXIBLE, DOCTRINAIRE AND IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN= what you call someone who sees
things differently from the way you see them.

No, that's it's called when you cannot accept facts contrary to your
opinions.

Ironically, the President is at this very moment talking about the new
Iraqi gov't respecting the rights of it's minorities.

However, this is the end of it as far as I'm concerned... I'd prefer to
not ruin this newsgroup the way others have been ruined. You can have
the last word.

DSK

On 28 Jun 2005 18:48:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:25:04 GMT, WaIIy said:

Frankly I can't get too worked up about it. I don't feel any more entitled
to feed at the public trough than the next guy just because I've got a boat.
Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

Huh?

Pray tell, who pays for it?

Wrong question. The question is who _should_ pay for it.

If we take this to the extreme, only people who's house is on fire should pay
for fire services...only people with kids should pay for education..on and on.
Can you assure me that if *all* services were fee-based, my taxes would go
to zero?

Society as a whole, and historically, has decided some essential services
should be "free"...meaning paid for via taxes...meaning we share in providing
for others even if we ourselves don't need a particular service. I, for one, can
live with that.

As to your Business 101 comment, you forgot one essential point...cost to produce
the product versus profit..otherwise known as margin. When you get the raw materials for free,
do a bit of value-added, then resell it, that's like making money out of dirt. In the weather
case, no inventory costs, not much in the way of distribution/transportation costs...heck,
10 people could probably cover the whole operation. Like that business model?

Another point...how would it be paid for? Do I call a 800 number when a storm comes up?
Do I "subscribe" to a service I may or may not use? If I don't have a credit card, am I locked out?
When people get wiped out because they couldn'r afford to pay for hurricane warning, is that
a good thing?

The more I type, the angrier I get at the Dave's of the world.

Norm B

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:58:27 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


Brian Whatcott wrote:


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:



Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield


In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

And don't forget, they have to *pay* for the property, usually more than
it's worth.

Some of you should try living in some other countries so you can learn
how good the one you're in is.

Stephen


Uhhhhhh........ why don't *they* live here for a while and go back and
make theirs better?

Anyway, your statement is absurd. We see more and more government
control and legislation by the bench these days and are highly ****ed.

Dude, what matters is what actually happens, not what is written on some
paper. What's absurd is living in fear of paper. In real life I have had
exactly zero increase in any government control in anything I do or want
to do. They leave me entirely alone. How can it be any better? Where is
the increase in control?

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people. "

The Tenth Amendment has been shot to hell along with much more.

It frosts me to my core.


Seems you need to look out your window. Any govment agents? I didn't
think so. Mellow out, no one is after you. You live in the best and most
free country in the world.

--
Stephen

-------

For any proposition there is always some sufficiently narrow
interpretation of its terms, such that it turns out true, and
some sufficiently wide interpretation such that it turns out
false...concept stretching will refute *any* statement, and will
leave no true statement whatsoever.
-- Imre Lakatos