On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/2/13 1:11 PM, iBoaterer wrote:

In article , says...



On 10/2/13 12:12 PM, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:50:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



On 10/2/13 11:48 AM, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:53:25 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:



On Wed, 2 Oct 2013 05:36:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I don't think you know squat about this. Server electrical costs that

will be billed to the government, hosting costs and line rental fees

that will be billed to the government. Contractors who run those

websites furloughed.

Nobody around to monitor for hacks.

etc, etc.







The new, alternate website took money to create, electricity to host, and has to be monitored for hacks. You didn't know that?



Your argument falls apart.



===



Yes, and you can bet that the original web site is up and running with

back door access available to USCG, US Customs and other law

enforcement agencies..



The weather pages are still up

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mob/



http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/?atlc







Well, I think it would be a terrific public service if you and W'hine

spend your time keeping track of all the federal government websites,

and let us know which are or are not working at a given moment.



Unlike the people up north, we watch storms and prepare BEFORE they

come kick our ass.



Yeah, right. Sure. I was in SE Florida the day after Andrew, taking

photos, doing interviews, and helping in the preparation of a report

about what sorts of buildings failed and why. Not much preparation was

evident.



You sure didn't look for evidence of preparation then!







The lack of preparation was obvious. No ties or not enough ties holding

roofs to frames, CMU walls without enough tied together steel, not

enough ties holding frames to foundations, no storm shutters on windows,

huge glass areas on houses, not enough ties on tilt-up buildings, et

cetera.

You don't have the education or knowledge to be able to make those statements.