On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:44:30 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/29/2012 9:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 10/29/2012 8:38 PM, Leon wrote:
...

Not saying that at all, just saying that the way the storm is being
described it is most likely over emphasized. It is a storm hitting the
US and this is news, make the most of the broadcast exposure as you can.
...

You can't know that a priori is the point. I don't think NOAA has over
emphasized the potential severity a bit...

I have never brought up NOAA. I am strictly talking national commercial
news. I bet nowhere has NOAA described this storm as a "Monster" and or
"Frankenstorm", and or storm of the century.

NOAA tells it like it is, the media does not.

The NOAA reports did not seem like any thing out of the ordinary for a
relatively minor tropical storm.

For all pratical purposes, a simple tropical depression that lingered
for 7~10 days would do far worse damage.

Yeah, and NOAA tells AGWK like it is, too, doesn't it? Praise be our
Saviour, the demiGod Hanson!

--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy
of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows;
in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt

Larry Jaques writes:


Yeah, and NOAA tells AGWK like it is, too, doesn't it? Praise be our
Saviour, the demiGod Hanson!

Your diatribe would have been better had Hanson actually worked for
NOAA. In fact, he works for NASA GISS. I think he crossed the line
from scientist to advocate many moons ago, but he has no connection
to NOAA.

On 10/30/2012 12:16 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 08:51:21 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/29/2012 9:47 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 21:14:25 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 10/29/2012 9:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 10/29/2012 8:38 PM, Leon wrote:
...

Not saying that at all, just saying that the way the storm is being
described it is most likely over emphasized. It is a storm hitting the
US and this is news, make the most of the broadcast exposure as you can.
...

You can't know that a priori is the point. I don't think NOAA has over
emphasized the potential severity a bit...

I've agreed the 24-hr media of all ilks tends to overblow stuff, but
that's true for everything from pop culture to politics and everything
in between.

If you yourself really mean only that instead of that you don't think
there's a thing to see here and that there's not a possibility of some
really serious consequences, that's something else.

Keep firmly in mind, while watching the TV coverage of this natural
event, that anyone hired based on the size of their tits, looks, or hair
style, is, at absolute best, only competent to _report_, not remark or
opine ...

You're kidding, right? Competent reporting? On teevee? chortle

Actually, competent reporting deciphering is an acquired talent.

Your see the idiot reporter standing in the wind and rain. He/she is
blabbing harder than the winds. He/she leans into the winds with his
rain slicker flapping a bit while curious tourists walk in the back
ground tossing the foot ball.

And picking up all the footprints on the desolate beach Clinton was
broadcasting from in France that one time. Someone recently linked to
an idiot newslady in a canoe that got shown up by another guy behind
her, -walking- around in the water. The deep and dangerous floodwaters
were nearly halfway up his shins. g

The canoe stunt was live on the Today show, I saw it as it was
happening, Mat Lauer immediately started kidding her about it while she
was in the canoe.

"Greg Guarino" wrote:

I'm happy to report that we (personally) came through almost without
a
scratch.
--------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.

Are you anywhere close to the fire in Queens?

Lew

On Oct 30, 5:13*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
"Greg Guarino" wrote:
I'm happy to report that we (personally) came through almost without
a

scratch.
--------------------------------------------------------
Congratulations.

Are you anywhere close to the fire in Queens?

Lew

If you mean the one in Breezy Point, no. While only maybe 8 miles as
the crow flies, it would probably take me a half hour to drive there.
Breezy Point is on the tip of the Rockaway peninsula, a very narrow
strip of sand. While technically part of Queens, you can most easily
access that area via a bridge from Brooklyn.

"Greg Guarino" wrote:

If you mean the one in Breezy Point, no. While only maybe 8 miles as
the crow flies, it would probably take me a half hour to drive there.
Breezy Point is on the tip of the Rockaway peninsula, a very narrow
strip of sand. While technically part of Queens, you can most easily
access that area via a bridge from Brooklyn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
All we got was some video showing a high-rise on fire identifying
the building as an apartment complex in Queens.

Lew

Something I can relate to.

Lake Erie is experiencing 10'-20' waves as a result of Sandy.

I've been sailing on Erie in 6'-8' waves.

Those were big enough to tighten the old sphincter.

Lew

On 10/30/2012 12:16 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:

I went one better. I disconnected from broadcast/cable TV entirely.
My TV set is used to watch DVDs (commercial free!) and the occasional
VHS movie. No radio, no television, no commercials, EVER!
Thank Crom.



+1

On Oct 30, 5:38*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
*"Greg Guarino" wrote:
If you mean the one in Breezy Point, no. While only maybe 8 miles as

the crow flies, it would probably take me a half hour to drive there.
Breezy Point is on the tip of the Rockaway peninsula, a very narrow
strip of sand. While technically part of Queens, you can most easily
access that area via a bridge from Brooklyn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
All we got was some video showing a high-rise on fire identifying
the building as an apartment complex in Queens.

Lew

I haven't heard about that. Queens is a pretty big place with just shy
of 2 million residents and lots of apartment complexes, so perhaps
that particular news bit got lost amid all the rest. My part of town
is almost entirely 1 and 2 family houses.

Swingman wrote:

Keep firmly in mind, while watching the TV coverage of this natural
event, that anyone hired based on the size of their tits, looks, or
hair style, is, at absolute best, only competent to _report_, not
remark or opine ...

If the talent switches over to an expert for the "opinion," well, that's
okay.

I, personally, have written to Fox News twice asking them to eliminate the
"crawl" at the bottom of their newscasts. It blocks my view of the anchor's
tits.

On 10/31/2012 5:38 AM, HeyBub wrote:
Swingman wrote:

Keep firmly in mind, while watching the TV coverage of this natural
event, that anyone hired based on the size of their tits, looks, or
hair style, is, at absolute best, only competent to _report_, not
remark or opine ...

If the talent switches over to an expert for the "opinion," well, that's
okay.

I, personally, have written to Fox News twice asking them to eliminate the
"crawl" at the bottom of their newscasts. It blocks my view of the anchor's
tits.

+1

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

Apparently underground utilities have their drawbacks, at least in
lower Manhattan!

Slowly recovering from 99 hrs of blackout. We were lucky that we got
power back Friday evening, some parts of town are still without,
expecting to get it back tonight.

Yes, underground has disadvantages, especially if (like the Manhattan
VA) you put emergency generators and electrical substations where flood
waters can reach them. The VA had a flood that got into the subbasement
some 2 or 3 decades ago (East River rose up and put the cars in the
parking lot underwater to over their hoods). That lesson wasn't heeded
when they put the new and improved emergency generators in the
subbasement ...

I would have thought that normally underground utilities (for
distribution) would be reasonably water proof.

The fairly rapid recovery in lower Manhattan proves that underground
utilities do work properly. Now if the expletive deleted will plan
better for proper placement of the essential equipment ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Oct 28, 8:23*pm, "Lew Hodgett" wrote:
For all you folks getting ready to crawl into a "huricane hole" and
wait Sandy out,
my thoughts are with you.

Best of luck.

Lew

We went to a Hallowe'en party of sorts last night, which was planned
well before the storm. The hosts asked that we transform the party
into a donation event for some colleagues that lived in the Rockaways
( a barrier peninsula). Apparently their houses survived, but the
contents were badly damaged and there is a tremendous amount of clean-
up to do. We were asked to bring cleaning supplies, canned goods,
etc.

My wife went this morning to help cart the donated items. As she was
leaving I tossed in a hand saw and a hammer, figuring they might come
in handy in a place likely to be out of electricity for a while. As a
novice woodworker, I don't really have the skill to use more than
three hammers at a time anyway.

Most IT generators are located on tops of buildings.
But most battery backup systems are in the basement due to weight.

Do you see a problem with salt water and batteries???

I worked at AT&T years ago, the NOC had the batteries 3 floors below...
just can't see that being bad where that building was located. But put
it closer to the shore and I can't see that being smart.



On 11/4/2012 11:07 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
eb.com:

Apparently underground utilities have their drawbacks, at least in
lower Manhattan!

Slowly recovering from 99 hrs of blackout. We were lucky that we got
power back Friday evening, some parts of town are still without,
expecting to get it back tonight.

Yes, underground has disadvantages, especially if (like the Manhattan
VA) you put emergency generators and electrical substations where flood
waters can reach them. The VA had a flood that got into the subbasement
some 2 or 3 decades ago (East River rose up and put the cars in the
parking lot underwater to over their hoods). That lesson wasn't heeded
when they put the new and improved emergency generators in the
subbasement ...

I would have thought that normally underground utilities (for
distribution) would be reasonably water proof.

The fairly rapid recovery in lower Manhattan proves that underground
utilities do work properly. Now if the expletive deleted will plan
better for proper placement of the essential equipment ...

tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote in news:-
:

Most IT generators are located on tops of buildings.
But most battery backup systems are in the basement due to weight.

Do you see a problem with salt water and batteries???

Ummm, salt water would only be a problem if it formed a path between
battery terminals or wiring. But that could indeed become a problem if the
pumps failed ...

I worked at AT&T years ago, the NOC had the batteries 3 floors below...
just can't see that being bad where that building was located. But put
it closer to the shore and I can't see that being smart.

You mean the old ATT building close to the Brooklyn bridge?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

No, in NJ...

I won't say where. Even though I don't work there any longer, they don't
like the NOC locations disclosed. Understandable especially in todays
times, and I left them in 9

On 11/4/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote in news:-
:

Most IT generators are located on tops of buildings.
But most battery backup systems are in the basement due to weight.

Do you see a problem with salt water and batteries???

Ummm, salt water would only be a problem if it formed a path between
battery terminals or wiring. But that could indeed become a problem if the
pumps failed ...

I worked at AT&T years ago, the NOC had the batteries 3 floors below...
just can't see that being bad where that building was located. But put
it closer to the shore and I can't see that being smart.

You mean the old ATT building close to the Brooklyn bridge?

tiredofspam nospam.nospam.com wrote in
:

No, in NJ...

I won't say where. Even though I don't work there any longer, they don't
like the NOC locations disclosed. Understandable especially in todays
times, and I left them in 9

Way back when Floyd hit us, an ATT station near Rochelle Park got flooded
and put out almost all phones in NE NJ ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:
...snipped...
Ummm, salt water would only be a problem if it formed a path between
battery terminals or wiring. But that could indeed become a problem if the
pumps failed ...

There are some types of lead-acid storage batteries that are sealed,
however, most are vented in some fashion.


--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org