Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Day 1: cold as fuck
Day 2: cold as fuck
Day 3: cold as fuck
Day 4: cold as fuck
Day 5: cold as fuck
Day 6: cold as fuck
Day 7: cold as fuck
Day 8: cold as fuck
Day 365: cold as fuck
We joke about the ease of weather prognostication where it is hot all the time, too, yet we’re grateful for it.
Fortuitously, meteorologists are still of some value given their ability to predict damaging climatic events, like weather that might spin the roofs off our homes, or pose a threat to our electrical grids.
Extreme climatic events are today less fearful because of their predictability, but they’ve always happened. There was a hurricane in Galveston 123 years ago that caught beachgoers sitting in chairs near the water when a wall of incoming water 15+ feet high probably created a bemused look on their faces, for a few seconds.
Longer than the Titan passengers got to ponder their great good luck, but not by much.
We joke about the ease of weather prognostication
We joke about the ease of weather prognostication
Your and parent post made me think of the movie Groundhog Day [wikipedia.org] and Phil (Bill Murray):
There is no way that this winter is ever going to end as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any other way out. He’s got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.
You want a prediction about the weather? You’re asking the wrong Phil. I’m going to give you a prediction about this winter? It’s going to be cold, it’s going to be dark and it’s going to last you for the rest of your lives!
There is no way that this winter is ever going to end as long as this groundhog keeps seeing his shadow. I don’t see any other way out. He’s got to be stopped. And I have to stop him.
You want a prediction about the weather? You’re asking the wrong Phil. I’m going to give you a prediction about this winter? It’s going to be cold, it’s going to be dark and it’s going to last you for the rest of your lives!
Fairbanks right now is having high temperatures around 70F (21C), and lows in the mid-50s (~ 13C). Their record high is 88F (31C), according to teh intarwebs. Summer days are beautiful and wonderfully long (I’ve been in Alaska during the summer).
On the other hand, I remember a few years ago when it got so cold there that automobile tires basically broke. The record low there is -80F (-62C). So, yeah – it can get CAF.
Fairbanks here.
We got a two inch snow dump on 6/2.
We had a daily weather broadcast? I had no idea.
Add random days with blizzards.
The weather reports in Alaska are more important than weather reports in California.
Shortwave can cover vast distances for relatively little money.
With an inexpensive RTL-SDR dongle you can receive shortwave signals with your PC. With a bit of software you can decode those signals and render the results appropriately.
So if there’s something so damned important that all Alaskans need to access it… release an application, tell people to spend $20 on a USB device, and start your shortwave broadcast.
They could make the tourists pay for it. A tiny sales tax, less than a percent, in the tourist towns should easily cover it. If the locals bitch (they will) then allow for Alaskan residents to be exempt.
They could make the tourists pay for it. A tiny sales tax, less than a percent, in the tourist towns should easily cover it. If the locals bitch (they will) then allow for Alaskan residents to be exempt.
They could make the tourists pay for it. A tiny sales tax, less than a percent, in the tourist towns should easily cover it. If the locals bitch (they will) then allow for Alaskan residents to be exempt.
Ah yes.. The tiny tax.. That always seems to grow.. First comes the hotel tax at some reasonable number like 1%… Pretty soon it’s at 5%, then 10%… The solution to everything.. Tax MOAR!!.
Why not cut some funding for useless services? Why is the go-to always to tax people?
My own state continues to fund the emergency phones placed every few miles on state / county highways.. Because nearly everyone has a cell phone these days, and 911 service is available via ANY cell tower in range of your device,
Changing the speed limit to 20 miles an hour would be even more valuable to saving lives. Thank goodness “saving lives” is not the only metric we use.
Generally you look at the best next marginal gain; you don’t even consider doing X if you’re not doing Y and Y is more cost effective. For example suppose the societal cost to reduce the speed limit to 20 on some stretch of road is a million dollars, but we can save the same number of lives by installing better lighting at 1/10 of a million, it makes no sense to consider the speed limit change until you’ve done the lighting change *and every other thing that is more cost effective*.
Understanding this makes
If only one of the 1000 calls resulted in saving someone’s life (and someone in a vehicle passing by wouldn’t of reported it on their cell phone quickly), that would be $14,000,000 per life saved. I’m fairly certain that the 1 life saved for $14,000,000 is closer to reality than your math which assumes every one of the ~1,000 calls saved one life on the average.
$14,000,000 a year spent on more police to detect and drunk drivers would likely save more lives.
1000 calls actually still seems significant for $14M in cost. There are more expensive services that see less use. What does it cost to implement and maintain an amber alert system? In Canada, in 2022, we had 15 amber alerts. In ALL of Canada.
https://www.canadasmissing.ca/… [canadasmissing.ca]
It’s not easy to find, probably because it rolls up into a larger emergency alerting network, but if you allocated the costing to the amber alert category, the price per alert wouldn’t be great.
The day a school bus gets stuck in a blizzard killing everyone on board someone might consider that a weather report might actually be a good idea.
One would hope that school districts operating school buses would maybe have some form of communication with the outside world other than a half-hour “receive only radio” broadcast once a day and wouldn’t send out buses if that form of communication led them to believe that doing so was unsafe.
Suppose the bus just broke down in bad weather (this is Alaska) for reasons other than a blizzard. Surely there is some way for the driver to contact someone for help or the tracking of the bus will reveal it has stop
…Yeah, it’s probably a useful service. Yes, it sucks that there’s no funding.. So, what? Raise taxes? Borrow? Print? What’s your solution?
…Yeah, it’s probably a useful service. Yes, it sucks that there’s no funding.. So, what? Raise taxes? Borrow? Print? What’s your solution?
Considering damn near every resident in Alaska qualifies to be paid to live there out of a fund that has existed since 1982 (over $3000 a citizen in 2022), and this broadcast service has been going on for decades, maybe residents should ask WHY there’s suddenly a lack of “funding”?
And yeah, I’d agree that you can be in a “world of hurt” in Alaska without good weather intel. However, residents have survived there for a damn long time without internet so to use “spotty internet service” as a threat to surviv
“(source: lived in North Pole for years well before the WWW existed”
So you lived on an ice flow for years? There is no land mass at the “north pole”
Perhaps you meant north of the arctic circle?
“(source: lived in North Pole for years well before the WWW existed”
So you lived on an ice flow for years? There is no land mass at the “north pole”
Perhaps you meant north of the arctic circle?
Perhaps, just maybe, when he says lived “in” North Pole, he’s referring to the city…North Pole, AK. Smart ass.
True.
There’s a big difference between living “ at the North Pole” and “ in North Pole [Alaska]” – with the latter being a long way from the former.
I suspect the problem is that this is federally funded, and many are opposed to the feds using tax dollars for literally anything. Alaskans on the other hand have very long been reliant on broadcasting into remote areas, and despite being conservative were very much in favor of public broadcasting in general. So the state needs to step up and provide a replacement service.
The thing is, this service was inexpensive. It’s also something that the commercial world won’t touch because it’s not a profit maker.
For anyone who doesn’t already know, the antenna makes a huge difference. The little telescoping things that those tend to come with are just about worthless for shortwave listening. A 100′ sloper is easy to make and will dramatically improve your experience.
Since Alaska is GOP and the GOP cut the funds and believe in “States Rights”, how about the Alasaka State Gov pay for it ?
People in other states should not fund this. That is the GOP motto. Oh wait, I guess the GOP only wants to get the benefits and cut benefits for others. TFB Alaska, your GOP officials did this, live with it.
The stupidity of this is that the cost of maintaining the broadcast is $0.50/year per Alaskan. Really, which is a better investment?
General, aviation, and maritime forecast segments will remain available online only, via YouTube.
General, aviation, and maritime forecast segments will remain available online only, via YouTube.
With all of the requisite advertisements [slashdot.org], of course. Just be thankful you don’t want weather information in Canada [slashdot.org].
In Canada we have Weather Radio in about 90% of the country. Which, given just how much of the country is uninhabited wilderness is actually pretty damn impressive.
The receiver costs less than CAD 100.
We have something similar. NOAA weather radio [weather.gov]. Unfortunately, the coverage in Alaska sucks.*
*Why they went with a Television-based reporting system instead of radio, I can’t figure. A couple of long-wave AM repeaters could probably cover the state.
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
How about XM Weather? That’s what general aviation pilots use.
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
if you read the summary, most of Alaska has subpar Internet. It is far cheaper and easier to broadcast a TV signal than to install Internet to everyone’s home in Alaska.
How about XM Weather?
How about XM Weather?
I am fairly certain that free TV weather reports cost less than XM weather. Many issues in life can be solved if you have enough money except for the part when people do not have enough money.
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
if you read the summary, most of Alaska has subpar Internet. It is far cheaper and easier to broadcast a TV signal than to install Internet to everyone’s home in Alaska.
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
They have good TV reception, but not Internet?
if you read the summary, most of Alaska has subpar Internet. It is far cheaper and easier to broadcast a TV signal than to install Internet to everyone’s home in Alaska.
I am wondering about it from a technical point of view. TV signals do not propagate easily or very far. The places where you “can’t get Internet” in Alaska seem like places you can’t get TV, either.
Considering satellite Internet, then it would generally be the case that in Alaska it would be the other way around: very easy to get Internet, but impossible to get TV.
You don’t have to have expensive Starlink or whatever, either. Just the same kind of dish I had in the 1990s that cost about $40/month. And for t
I am wondering about it from a technical point of view. TV signals do not propagate easily or very far. The places where you “can’t get Internet” in Alaska seem like places you can’t get TV, either.
I am wondering about it from a technical point of view. TV signals do not propagate easily or very far. The places where you “can’t get Internet” in Alaska seem like places you can’t get TV, either.
And why would you think that? A TV signal can reach 60 miles. What is the range of a 5G? maybe 3 miles. And wired internet to rural anywhere is known as the last mile problem. [techopedia.com]
It was not “free”, really, since they were paying for it in taxes. .
It was not “free”, really, since they were paying for it in taxes. .
While taxes were ultimately paying for it, you do know that the Alaskan receiving the weather report did not have to pay a subscription to receive it, right? That is unlike XM.
All for a 30 minute show that’s doing nothing more than reciting information already available (for free).
All for a 30 minute show that’s doing nothing more than reciting information already available (for free).
What part of most of Alaskan has subpar Internet is unclear to you? Yes the information could have been obtained free through the Internet but again Internet is
At a former job, we helped independent (mostly rural) telephone and electric companies deliver Internet, and that included the companies that ran Internet on the North Slope and out to Adak. There’s no ground connectivity, so it’s satellite, and at that latitude, even that is not great. Most of the sats are focused on the lower latitudes – they don’t want to spend their limited energy budget for a small number of people. So what Internet connectivity they do have is slow and heavily throttled.
Specifically,
A quick search online says XM Weather is spotty at best in southeast Alaska, especially with a recent satellite retirement: https://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/sirius-xm-southeast-alaska-63933.html [trawlerforum.com]. A poster got a coverage map from SiriusXM that excludes the rest of the state.
Apparently the state of Alaska sued SiriusXM in 2014 [alaska.gov] specifically for selling subscriptions to Alaska residents, knowing that they were too far north to get a reliable signal.
Is what the articles say it cost annually to produce. Alaska has a population of 732K, so maybe
Either this really isn’t as useful as it’s made out to be and the majority of people didn’t care based on how they vote or this is cynical “small government” showmanship and some real “leopards eating faces”.
I’m leaning the latter as I’ve seen and heard the right wing attacks on public media my whole life.
“Small Government” pays each Alaska resident a couple thousand a year. ~$2600 in 2022.
“Small Government” pays each Alaska resident a couple thousand a year. ~$2600 in 2022.
It would appear that in 2022 the PFD amount was $2,622 along with an additional $662 energy rebate making for a $3,284 total payout.
Perhaps the additional rebate was the downfall of this weather service, but I kind of doubt it.
This assumes Republican voters actually quantify what the outcomes of “small government” policies are which in my opinion most do not. They just want to cut the things they don’t like (or been told to not like, ie, public media) and fund the things they do like no matter the idealogical conflicts (like the state annual payout, military, police, etc)
Is what the articles say it cost annually to produce. Alaska has a population of 732K, so maybe
Either this really isn’t as useful as it’s made out to be and the majority of people didn’t care based on how they vote or this is cynical “small government” showmanship and some real “leopards eating faces”.
I’m leaning the latter as I’ve seen and heard the right wing attacks on public media my whole life.
Is what the articles say it cost annually to produce. Alaska has a population of 732K, so maybe
Either this really isn’t as useful as it’s made out to be and the majority of people didn’t care based on how they vote or this is cynical “small government” showmanship and some real “leopards eating faces”.
I’m leaning the latter as I’ve seen and heard the right wing attacks on public media my whole life.
In 2022, Alaskan residents (as in almost all of them) qualified for a total of over $3200 to be paid to each resident one time per year out of a fund that has existed since 1982 (the PFD). This included an additional $662 energy rebate.
Perhaps funds were stripped away from this broadcast to pay out the additional energy rebate, but I’d more question why this service is suddenly stopping since the state clearly has funds. (The $3200 was considerably larger than normal)
Either this really isn’t as useful as it’s made out to be and the majority of people didn’t care based on how they vote
Could be the same kind of phenomenon that happens in a lot of states: the majority of the population – and so a lot of the political power – lives in cities, and either don’t realize or don’t care about services for the rural parts of their state (even as they romanticize the quiet small town life, farming, and “simpler times”).
You can see this dynamic playing out in, say, Washington s
It is possible that current Alaskans somehow forgot about sparsely populated Alaska is, but considering it is such a part of the history and culture, I doubt it
Roughly half of Alaska’s population lives in Anchorage which, even if they fancy themselves some hinky frontier town, is a modern city of ~300k, little different than a bunch of other cities along the Pacific coast.
I think this is accurate but I feel that usually plays out with the populous cities voting in Democratic representatives and thus passing those laws, like in your examples Washington is a pretty solidly blue legislature and governor.
In this case Alaska, much like Texas, currently is pretty solidly Republican with an R governor and a majority R legislature so the rural folks are over-represented in comparison so the city dwellers (if we take the simplistic view of rural = R and city = D)
In this case I wonder
and watch the weather reports on their russian neighbours tv.
And get their news by reading “all the them” [google.com].
Alaska still has 52 NOAA radio broadcast stations covering the entire state. Those should provide all the same information (without the visuals of course), and is better because the forecasts are much more localized than a TV broadcast covering the entire massive state.
https://www.weather.gov/nwr/st… [weather.gov]
Here’s an example TV broadcast from a few days ago. The YouTube video has 23 views at this time. It’s very likely that the NWS and Alaska Public Media know the TV viewership was very, very low as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?… [youtube.com]
Why do you want to see television (or a video). If you want serious weather information, surely a nice web page with a couple of graphics is better? Fast access to dense information: temperatures, precipitation, wind. More: a simple web page doesn’t require “good internet connectivity” – any old connection will do.
General, aviation, and maritime forecast segments will remain available online only, via YouTube.
General, aviation, and maritime forecast segments will remain available online only, via YouTube.
Again, why video?
Emergency alerts…will be relegated to…radio broadcasts, which don’t cover the whole state.
Emergency alerts…will be relegated to…radio broadcasts, which don’t cover the whole state.
Television coverage is better than radio coverage? Sure…wanna buy a bridge?
Alaska now joins 14 other states that don’t fund public media.
Alaska now joins 14 other states that don’t fund public media.
Ah, we finally get to the real point. Should government fund public radio and/or television? Apparentl
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Why the Internet’s Going Wild For a ‘Fish Doorbell’
Meta Is Planning To Let People In the EU Download Apps Through Facebook
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. — James F. Byrnes