hurricane watch or how I love to watch hurricanes

By Margaret -
I cannot express how happy it makes me to see all the channels in Miami broadcasting hurricane news instead of the Republican convention. Having several Weather Channel variety stations is heaven for a girl like me. My only complaint is that as the storms--and this is all storms--approach, the media show less and less satellite videotapes and more lame graphics. When I can see the satellite feed and water vapor and radar, I have a much better sense of what the storm is up to. The media people have the bad tendency of creating graphics that show the hurricane right on top of the station instead of where it's likely going to go. As they are discussing the scary graphic, they enjoy saying say things like "I don't want to scare you" and "this is just one possibility". Ugh. Just show me the satellite feed please. Why is that so difficult? That's what I want. Really.
From the bits I've seen on TV today, Frances is a really difficult storm to predict. A couple days ago it seemed like a straight shot to Savannah but now I'm not so sure. There aren't any features that will definitely steer the storm one way or the other so it really is up in the air.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more