Hurricane T'meiqua?
Kevin Gowen
"The congressional newspaper the Hill reported this week that Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee (D-Texas) feels that the current names are too "lily white," and
is seeking to have better representation for names reflecting
African-Americans and other ethnic groups.
"All racial groups should be represented," Lee said, according to the Hill.
She hoped federal weather officials "would try to be inclusive of
African-American names."
A sampling of popular names that could be used include Keisha, Jamal and
Deshawn, according to the paper."
--
Kevin Gowen
From 1973 to 2002, the warmongering USA sold $200 million in arms to Iraq,
accounting for 1% of Iraqi arms imports for that period. During the same
period, peace-loving UN Security Council members Russia, France, and China
sold $25.145 billion (57%), $5.595 billion (13%), and $5.192 billion (12%)
in arms to Iraq, respectively.
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(Figures are trend-indicator values expressed in US dollars at constant
(1990) prices)
Darrien
>
> "The congressional newspaper the Hill reported this week that Rep. Sheila
> Jackson Lee (D-Texas) feels that the current names are too "lily white," and
> is seeking to have better representation for names reflecting
> African-Americans and other ethnic groups.
>
> "All racial groups should be represented," Lee said, according to the Hill.
> She hoped federal weather officials "would try to be inclusive of
> African-American names."
>
> A sampling of popular names that could be used include Keisha, Jamal and
> Deshawn, according to the paper."
>
Of course, you *know* that if we had done that before, they would be
complaining that we *DID* use black names for hurricanes.
Kevin Gowen
Oh yes, I can just hear it now....
"Why do hurricanes have black names?! Is it because they wreak havoc and
destruction on urban areas!? Hmm?"
Hurricanes used to be named for women because they are violent and
unpredictable. I don't know why we broke from that system. It's not like
women or hurricanes have changed in the past few decades.
Dave Fossett
> "The congressional newspaper the Hill reported this week that Rep. Sheila
> Jackson Lee (D-Texas) feels that the current names are too "lily white,"
and
> is seeking to have better representation for names reflecting
> African-Americans and other ethnic groups.
>
> "All racial groups should be represented," Lee said, according to the
Hill.
> She hoped federal weather officials "would try to be inclusive of
> African-American names."
Sounds reasonable enough. If you weren't already aware, the typhoon naming
system was changed a couple of years ago to reflect Asian names rather than
the American names previously used. Japan continues to use its numbering
system, which I also think is easier to understand.
--
Dave Fossett
Saitama, Japan
Rindler Sigurd
> system was changed a couple of years ago to reflect Asian names rather
than
> the American names previously used. Japan continues to use its numbering
> system, which I also think is easier to understand.
>
Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
Please provide some examples. I can't think of any in this bloody heat...
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Declan Murphy
>>Sounds reasonable enough. If you weren't already aware, the typhoon naming
>>system was changed a couple of years ago to reflect Asian names rather
> than
>>the American names previously used. Japan continues to use its numbering
>>system, which I also think is easier to understand.
>
> Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
You know 台風一号、台風二号、台風三号、、、 etc - what could be easier?
> Please provide some examples. I can't think of any in this bloody heat...
Doesn't your cafe have cold beer on tap?
--
"As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying
to kill me. They do not feel any enmity against me as an individual, nor
I against them. They are "only doing their duty", as the saying goes.
Most of them, I have no doubt, are kind-hearted law-abiding men who
would never dream of committing murder in private life. On the other
hand, if one of them succeeds in blowing me to pieces with a well-placed
bomb, he will never sleep any the worse for it. He is serving his
country, which has the power to absolve him from evil" - George Orwell,
England Your England, 1941
Eric Takabayashi
> Rindler Sigurd wrote:
> >>Sounds reasonable enough. If you weren't already aware, the typhoon naming
> >>system was changed a couple of years ago to reflect Asian names rather
> > than
> >>the American names previously used. Japan continues to use its numbering
> >>system, which I also think is easier to understand.
> >
> > Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
>
> You know 台風一号、台風二号、台風三号、、、 etc - what could be easier?
A little something like unique names (as earthquakes in Japan may have, for
example), to tell them apart by year or approximate era. People will recall the
Great Hanshin Earthquake or Great Kanto Earthquake for quite some time. Not so
Earthquake Number 51 (of 2003) or Typhoon Number 4 (of 2003).
--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by
far the best in the world."
- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA
Dave Fossett
> Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
> Please provide some examples. I can't think of any in this bloody heat...
Maybe the heat is getting to you... ;-)
I meant that the Japanese numbering system is easier to follow than the
unfamiliar-sounding (to me at least) Asian names. The new names aren't even
chosen in alphabetical order unlike the previous American system of "Andy,
Bob, Chris, Dave, etc."
Eric Takabayashi
> Rindler Sigurd wrote:
>
> > Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
> > Please provide some examples. I can't think of any in this bloody heat...
>
> Maybe the heat is getting to you... ;-)
> I meant that the Japanese numbering system is easier to follow than the
> unfamiliar-sounding (to me at least) Asian names.
So how do you tell apart Typhoon 4 of this year from that of any other year? I
won't forget the names Hurricanes Andrew, Iniki, Iwa or Dot for some time. And
Dot was in 1959.
> The new names aren't even chosen in alphabetical order
A minor problem, if people can tell them apart by name, which is better than
when having Typhoons 1-20 every year.
> unlike the previous American system of "Andy,
> Bob, Chris, Dave, etc."
--
Declan Murphy
> Declan Murphy wrote:
>
>>Rindler Sigurd wrote:
>>
>>>>Sounds reasonable enough. If you weren't already aware, the typhoon naming
>>>>system was changed a couple of years ago to reflect Asian names rather
>>>
>>>than
>>>
>>>>the American names previously used. Japan continues to use its numbering
>>>>system, which I also think is easier to understand.
>>>
>>>Easier than the Japanese numbering system???
>>
>>You know 台風一号、台風二号、台風三号、、、 etc - what could be easier?
>
> A little something like unique names (as earthquakes in Japan may have, for
> example), to tell them apart by year or approximate era. People will recall the
> Great Hanshin Earthquake or Great Kanto Earthquake for quite some time. Not so
> Earthquake Number 51 (of 2003) or Typhoon Number 4 (of 2003).
I understand what you are trying to say but I'm not so sure that it is a
problem. Ferinstance - Did earthquakes 1-50 wreck my house and business?
No. Did #51 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #51 in
2003 for quite some time. Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
for quite some time. People don't remember the Great Hanshin Earthquake
or Great Kanto Earthquake for any other reason.
> "This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by
> far the best in the world."
And the book was what?
Eric Takabayashi
> I understand what you are trying to say but I'm not so sure that it is a
> problem. Ferinstance - Did earthquakes 1-50 wreck my house and business?
> No. Did #51 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #51 in
> 2003 for quite some time.
And how will other people remember "Earthquake 51"? But they sure as hell remember
The Great Hanshin Earthquake or Great Kanto Earthquake, even if it has nothing to do
with them. I do not even know the names of the recent earthquakes in northern Japan,
but I would be able to recognize the names in an instant. Not so "Earthquake 51", in
uh, was it 2003.
> Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
> No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
> for quite some time.
And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
Also, it is much easier and more effective to stick "Hurricane [insert name here]"
instead of a number, particularly if one is unsure of the date or location.
> People don't remember the Great Hanshin Earthquake
> or Great Kanto Earthquake for any other reason.
So how come many more people in Japan and all around the world know about them, than
ever lived in the Hanshin or Kanto regions, despite having nothing at all to do with
them?
> > "This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by
> > far the best in the world."
>
> And the book was what?
At least if he were raving about Harry Potter, I'd understand.
--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far
the best in the world."
- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA
Declan Murphy
> Declan Murphy wrote:
>
>>I understand what you are trying to say but I'm not so sure that it is a
>>problem. Ferinstance - Did earthquakes 1-50 wreck my house and business?
>>No. Did #51 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #51 in
>>2003 for quite some time.
>
> And how will other people remember "Earthquake 51"? But they sure as hell remember
> The Great Hanshin Earthquake or Great Kanto Earthquake, even if it has nothing to do
> with them. I do not even know the names of the recent earthquakes in northern Japan,
> but I would be able to recognize the names in an instant. Not so "Earthquake 51", in
> uh, was it 2003.
So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
>>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
>>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
>>for quite some time.
>
> And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
> even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
> US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
its name - but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
Until something major happens, a number is sufficient.
> Also, it is much easier and more effective to stick "Hurricane [insert name here]"
> instead of a number, particularly if one is unsure of the date or location.
But if you are unsure of the date or location, then it probably isn't
worth talking about.
>>People don't remember the Great Hanshin Earthquake
>>or Great Kanto Earthquake for any other reason.
>
> So how come many more people in Japan and all around the world know about them, than
> ever lived in the Hanshin or Kanto regions, despite having nothing at all to do with
> them?
Because they were DAMN BIG GODDMAMMIT! Only if it is a big
earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name. Until then, a
number should suffice.
>>>"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by
>>>far the best in the world."
>>
>>And the book was what?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/j6kp
>
> At least if he were raving about Harry Potter, I'd understand.
Ah well, give him time. Though I think its kinda sad that a 12 year old
has only read one book in his life.
Eric Takabayashi
> So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
> Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
> Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
> of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
year with a simple number.
And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.
> >>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
> >>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
> >>for quite some time.
> >
> > And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
> > even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
> > US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
>
> You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
> its name -
How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
whatever, of the year.
> but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
> willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
Do big typhoons get names?
> Until something major happens, a number is sufficient.
>
> > Also, it is much easier and more effective to stick "Hurricane [insert name here]"
> > instead of a number, particularly if one is unsure of the date or location.
>
> But if you are unsure of the date or location, then it probably isn't
> worth talking about.
Simply untrue.
> >>People don't remember the Great Hanshin Earthquake
> >>or Great Kanto Earthquake for any other reason.
> >
> > So how come many more people in Japan and all around the world know about them, than
> > ever lived in the Hanshin or Kanto regions, despite having nothing at all to do with
> > them?
>
> Because they were DAMN BIG GODDMAMMIT!
Wasn't it so much better than calling them "Earthquake number 1,500" of year [fill in
blank]?
> Only if it is a big
> earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.
What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?
> Until then, a number should suffice.
Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.
--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far the
best in the world."
- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA
Declan Murphy
> Declan Murphy wrote:
>
>>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
>
> No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
> names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
Thats not true at all Eric. For example around here people still talk
about the 伊勢湾台風, and anybody who reads the newspaper automatically
remembers the date 1959/09/26 and that more than 5000 people were
killed. Even those who weren't here at the time (I wasn't even born)
learn about it as we see references to it in the paper each year. Every
bloody year as typhoons approach and I have to secure the company
premises etc, I get bombarded with reminders of the 伊勢湾台風. Prior to
it being *named* the 伊勢湾台風, it was just an ordinary garden variety
typhoon numbered 台風１５号. Excuse my provincialism, but you can read
about it at
http://www.chunichi.co.jp/saigai/isewan/
and I'm sure other regional newspapers (what is the standard deadtrees
read in Fukuyama?) will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".
>>Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
>>Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
>>of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
>
> Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
> the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
> doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
> year with a simple number.
Sure, but 20 or so typhoons come and go each year, but very few kill
even close to 5000 people or destroy extensive amounts of industrial and
social capital. But when they do, they get a name Eric. They always do.
> And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
> not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
> to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.
See above - you were misinformed.
>>>>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
>>>>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
>>>>for quite some time.
>>>
>>>And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
>>>even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
>>>US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
>>
>>You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
>>its name -
>
> How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
> whatever, of the year.
It is only remembered because it was big. Do you remember Hurricane
Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
it because it was called Tracy, we remember it because it wiped the city
of Darwin out more effectively than the Imperial Japanese Navy managed
to do.
>>but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
>>willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
>
> Do big typhoons get names?
Yes dammit.
>>Only if it is a big
>>earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.
>
> What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
> people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?
I don't think taking off your roof would be considered big. Given the
standard of housing construction, a garden variety typhoon can often
manage that.
>>Until then, a number should suffice.
>
> Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
> Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
> in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
> much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
> even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.
The inability of English speaking foreigners to differentiate between
one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
> >
> >>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
> >
> > No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
> > names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
>
> Thats not true at all Eric.
So why do typhoons have numbers, and the same numbers every year, instead of "names"?
> For example around here people still talk
> about the 伊勢湾台風, and anybody who reads the newspaper automatically
> remembers the date 1959/09/26 and that more than 5000 people were
> killed. Even those who weren't here at the time (I wasn't even born)
> learn about it as we see references to it in the paper each year. Every
> bloody year as typhoons approach and I have to secure the company
> premises etc, I get bombarded with reminders of the 伊勢湾台風. Prior to
> it being *named* the 伊勢湾台風, it was just an ordinary garden variety
> typhoon numbered 台風１５号. Excuse my provincialism, but you can read
> about it at
>
> http://www.chunichi.co.jp/saigai/isewan/
>
> and I'm sure other regional newspapers (what is the standard deadtrees
> read in Fukuyama?)
The national papers, as there is no Fukuyama or Hiroshima paper. Maybe the regional paper.
> will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
> flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
> short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
> destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".
Which is exactly what we are talking about. The fact typhoons do not get names.
> >>Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
> >>Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
> >>of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
> >
> > Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
> > the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
> > doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
> > year with a simple number.
>
> Sure, but 20 or so typhoons come and go each year, but very few kill
> even close to 5000 people or destroy extensive amounts of industrial and
> social capital. But when they do, they get a name Eric. They always do.
>
> > And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
> > not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
> > to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.
>
> See above - you were misinformed.
So what number was that typhoon, and is that what people know? And I am not talking about just
in the region.
> >>>>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
> >>>>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
> >>>>for quite some time.
> >>>
> >>>And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
> >>>even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
> >>>US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
> >>
> >>You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
> >>its name -
> >
> > How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
> > whatever, of the year.
>
> It is only remembered because it was big.
No, it was remembered by name, because it always had a name.
> Do you remember Hurricane
> Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
> year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
> Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
> then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
> reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
> it because it was called Tracy,
So what number was it?
> we remember it because it wiped the city
> of Darwin out more effectively than the Imperial Japanese Navy managed
> to do.
>
> >>but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
> >>willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
> >
> > Do big typhoons get names?
>
> Yes dammit.
>
> >>Only if it is a big
> >>earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.
> >
> > What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
> > people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?
>
> I don't think taking off your roof would be considered big. Given the
> standard of housing construction, a garden variety typhoon can often
> manage that.
>
> >>Until then, a number should suffice.
> >
> > Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
> > Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
> > in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
> > much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
> > even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.
>
> The inability of English speaking foreigners
Only foreigners? Do Japanese know about Typhoon One last year?
> to differentiate between
> one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
> Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.
Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that serve other countries well
enough?
Declan Murphy
> Declan Murphy wrote:
>
>>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>
>>>Declan Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
>>>
>>>No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
>>>names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
>>
>>Thats not true at all Eric.
>
> So why do typhoons have numbers, and the same numbers every year, instead of "names"?
Do you actually bother to read a post and think before you reply? It
might make for a welcome change. This sub-thread began with the simple
premise that for Japan, numbers are easier, and for minor typhoons, they
are. For gaijenerous typhoons, they score a name. End of thread really.
Apart from being pedantic, exactly what is your problem? Aren't there
some nice axe cases for you to research and froth at the mouth over?
>>For example around here people still talk
>>about the 伊勢湾台風, and anybody who reads the newspaper automatically
>>remembers the date 1959/09/26 and that more than 5000 people were
>>killed. Even those who weren't here at the time (I wasn't even born)
>>learn about it as we see references to it in the paper each year. Every
>>bloody year as typhoons approach and I have to secure the company
>>premises etc, I get bombarded with reminders of the 伊勢湾台風. Prior to
>>it being *named* the 伊勢湾台風, it was just an ordinary garden variety
>>typhoon numbered 台風１５号. Excuse my provincialism, but you can read
>>about it at
>>
>>http://www.chunichi.co.jp/saigai/isewan/
>>
>>and I'm sure other regional newspapers (what is the standard deadtrees
>>read in Fukuyama?)
>
> The national papers, as there is no Fukuyama or Hiroshima paper. Maybe the regional paper.
For some reason I thought the chugoku area had a larger population.
>>will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
>>flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
>>short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
>>destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".
>
> Which is exactly what we are talking about. The fact typhoons do not get names.
No - that is not what *we* were talking about.
>>>>Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
>>>>Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
>>>>of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
>>>
>>>Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
>>>the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
>>>doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
>>>year with a simple number.
>>
>>Sure, but 20 or so typhoons come and go each year, but very few kill
>>even close to 5000 people or destroy extensive amounts of industrial and
>>social capital. But when they do, they get a name Eric. They always do.
>>
>>>And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
>>>not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
>>>to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.
>>
>>See above - you were misinformed.
>
> So what number was that typhoon, and is that what people know? And I am not talking about just
> in the region.
I just told you, it was number 15 that year. Didn't you bother reading
my post or the link?
>>>>>>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
>>>>>>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
>>>>>>for quite some time.
>>>>>
>>>>>And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
>>>>>even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
>>>>>US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
>>>>
>>>>You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
>>>>its name -
>>>
>>>How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
>>>whatever, of the year.
>>
>>It is only remembered because it was big.
>
> No, it was remembered by name, because it always had a name.
Whether it is remembered by name or number is not relevant - if it kills
5000 people, it will be remembered. Period.
>>Do you remember Hurricane
>>Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
>>year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
>>Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
>>then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
>>reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
>>it because it was called Tracy,
>
> So what number was it?
It was not a typhoon coming to Japan, so as far as I know it had no
Japanese number.
>>we remember it because it wiped the city
>>of Darwin out more effectively than the Imperial Japanese Navy managed
>>to do.
>>
>>>>but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
>>>>willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
>>>
>>>Do big typhoons get names?
>>
>>Yes dammit.
>>
>>>>Only if it is a big
>>>>earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.
>>>
>>>What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
>>>people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?
>>
>>I don't think taking off your roof would be considered big. Given the
>>standard of housing construction, a garden variety typhoon can often
>>manage that.
>>
>>>>Until then, a number should suffice.
>>>
>>>Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
>>>Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
>>>in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
>>>much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
>>>even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.
>>
>>The inability of English speaking foreigners
>
> Only foreigners? Do Japanese know about Typhoon One last year?
Did it kill 5000 of them? If not, what is there to know about it?
>>to differentiate between
>>one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
>>Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.
>
> Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that serve other countries well
> enough?
Because it is not an issue. Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese
meteorologists seem to be getting along with the current system just fine.
Kevin Gowen
Japanese unilateralism in deciding its typhoon naming policy is a danger to
our planet. Get Kofi on the phone at once.
--
Kevin Gowen
"If it were before me today I would vote against it, because it doesn't
have environmental or labor standards in it."
- Sen. John Kerry, explaining to the AFL-CIO how he would vote on the
North American Free Trade Agreement. Senator Kerry voted to ratify
NAFTA in 1993.
Declan Murphy
> Monsieur Eric Takabayashi wrote:
>>Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that
>>serve other countries well enough?
>
> Japanese unilateralism in deciding its typhoon naming policy is a danger to
> our planet. Get Kofi on the phone at once.
Terrible isn't it. Though at least Japan's typhoon naming unilateralism
hasn't led to the deaths of nearly 300 of its serving meterologists
either - not yet anyways. Perhaps the weathermen even have an exit strategy.
Eric Takabayashi
> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
> >
> >>Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> >>
> >>>Declan Murphy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
> >>>
> >>>No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
> >>>names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
> >>
> >>Thats not true at all Eric.
> >
> > So why do typhoons have numbers, and the same numbers every year, instead of "names"?
>
> Do you actually bother to read a post and think before you reply?
Yep. Typhoons in Japan get numbers, and the same numbers, every year.
> It might make for a welcome change.
Irrelevant to the fact typhoons are given numbers by Japan.
> This sub-thread began with the simple
> premise that for Japan, numbers are easier,
Not Japan only. It was claimed numbers were easier, or even easiest, period.
> and for minor typhoons, they are. For gaijenerous typhoons, they score a name. End of thread
> really.
It was your stepping in that prevented it from being the end.
> Apart from being pedantic, exactly what is your problem?
The fact that names are better for telling them apart.
> For some reason I thought the chugoku area had a larger population.
An island of a few thousand in Hawaii will have a daily paper of considerably more than 24 pages.
Somehow millions of Japanese are satisfied by not knowing what is happening all around them every
day. Such Japanese apathy shouldn't be a surprise, actually.
> >>will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
> >>flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
> >>short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
> >>destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".
> >
> > Which is exactly what we are talking about. The fact typhoons do not get names.
>
> No - that is not what *we* were talking about.
Yes, it is.
> >>See above - you were misinformed.
> >
> > So what number was that typhoon, and is that what people know? And I am not talking about just
> > in the region.
>
> I just told you, it was number 15 that year. Didn't you bother reading
> my post or the link?
Not your link. Maybe I'll go see how many people know about and remember "Typhoon 15". Most don't
seem to know about "Typhoon 10" right now.
> >>It is only remembered because it was big.
> >
> > No, it was remembered by name, because it always had a name.
>
> Whether it is remembered by name or number is not relevant - if it kills
> 5000 people, it will be remembered. Period.
And particular or unique names are better. Even "tropical depressions" may get names, with no
damage done whatsoever. How much more convenient to look that name up.
> >>Do you remember Hurricane
> >>Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
> >>year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
> >>Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
> >>then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
> >>reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
> >>it because it was called Tracy,
> >
> > So what number was it?
>
> It was not a typhoon coming to Japan, so as far as I know it had no
> Japanese number.
Not a "Japanese number". What number was it of the year?
> >>The inability of English speaking foreigners
> >
> > Only foreigners? Do Japanese know about Typhoon One last year?
>
> Did it kill 5000 of them? If not, what is there to know about it?
Anything anybody would care to know, including an easier way than sifting through every hit on
"Typhoon Number One" in Japanese if they aren't sure of the year or location. Why does it need to
kill many people before it is worthy of the "privilege" being named or known about?
> >>to differentiate between
> >>one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
> >>Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.
> >
> > Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that serve other countries well
> > enough?
>
> Because it is not an issue.
You mean, not to you. Other nations use names, even if hurricanes affect them not at all and kill
no one.
> Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese
> meteorologists seem to be getting along with the current system just fine.
So what?