[BC] EAS

[Cowboy]

On Friday 14 October 2005 05:25 pm, Robert Meuser wrote:
>Cowboy wrote:

>> I don't shun GPS, but I do see it as over-kill.

>But most stations do not cover a single county, so you can unnecessary 
>warning for a region. GPS puts you into 2 FIPS codes at worst.

 That depends on the database management scheme.

 I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea,
 but on the surface it strikes me as overkill.

 Just like any system, periodic review is not a bad thing.
 which brings me to...

On Friday 14 October 2005 03:10 pm, Jerry Mathis wrote:
>Cowboy, do you think that maybe it's time to re-vist EAS on the regulatory 
>level? As we both seem to agree on, much has changed since EAS was first 
>implemented. There were the things EAS envisioned, and then there's the 
>reality, and ne'er the twain did meet.
>
>Maybe it's time to start on EAS ver. 2.0?

 Well, it's a safe bet the flaws in the system won't fix themselves.

 What I think I learned from the excercise, is that if the specifics are
 not mandated, then few will do much of anything.

 As others have commented, it would be a far better expenditure
 than the pork we get like it or not, but I don't see making
 EAS work as a good vote-getter for politicians who care
 little for anything else.

On Friday 14 October 2005 04:28 pm, Larry Fuss wrote:
>> the first draft was almost verbatim my ex-parte
>> comments, made after the reply period closed.
>
>Doesn't that violate the Administrative Procedures Act?

 Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
 Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
 I've said many times, I'm not a lawyer.

 The commisioners are not a jury, and there's no judge to
 instruct them to ignore facts even though people will die.
 What they chose to do with it was out of my control.

-- 
Cowboy

http://cowboys.homeip.net

E Pluribus Unix