text:
To be useful to policy makers, an evaluation of methods for determining the visibility effects of sources and for assessing alternative control measures must take account of the legal and institutional framework within which the methods will be implemented. This chapter describes that framework, as well as the history of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state efforts to use the Clean Air Act to protect and enhance visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are intended to lead to an augmented program of visibility protection; this chapter describes various approaches such a program could take. Using this chapter in conjunction with Chapter 5, decision makers will be able to judge the compatibility of these techniques with one or more approaches.
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401–7671q) authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at levels that protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary standards) and protect the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (secondary standards). NAAQS currently exist for
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Legal and Institutional Context
To be useful to policy makers, an evaluation of methods for determining the visibility effects of sources and for assessing alternative control measures must take account of the legal and institutional framework within which the methods will be implemented. This chapter describes that framework, as well as the history of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state efforts to use the Clean Air Act to protect and enhance visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are intended to lead to an augmented program of visibility protection; this chapter describes various approaches such a program could take. Using this chapter in conjunction with Chapter 5, decision makers will be able to judge the compatibility of these techniques with one or more approaches.
The Clean Air Act
Relevant Provisions
The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §7401–7671q) authorizes the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at levels that protect public health with an adequate margin of safety (primary standards) and protect the public welfare from known or anticipated adverse effects (secondary standards). NAAQS currently exist for
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter with a diameter of 10 µm or less (known as PM10) and sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide).
The act establishes an array of programs intended to ensure that the standards are attained and maintained and that air quality superior to the standards is protected.
Each state must submit to EPA a state implementation plan (SIP) that demonstrates that primary NAAQS will be attained by the statutory deadlines and that secondary NAAQS will be attained as expeditiously as practicable. If a state does not do so, then EPA must prepare a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the state.
SIPs usually concentrate on existing sources in or near nonattainment areas—areas that violate one or more NAAQS. For many types of new sources, SIPs are supplemented by federal regulations that apply to clean air as well as nonattainment areas. For instance, EPA may promulgate new source performance standards for categories of stationary sources that contribute to air pollution. These standards require the use of the best demonstrated technology by new and modified sources in the category. Similarly, the act establishes emissions standards for new mobile sources and standards for fuel content; the act also authorizes EPA to establish additional regulations on those subjects.
Two programs under the act are concerned specifically with visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. One of these, the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program (§160–169), is directed primarily at new sources; the other, the visibility program (§169A–B), is aimed primarily at existing sources.
The PSD program requires that each applicant for a new or modified major emitting facility seeking to locate in a clean-air area (an area in which the NAAQS are met for one or more air pollutants) show that the facility will use the best available control technology (BACT) to minimize additional air pollution. (Every area meets the NAAQS for at least one pollutant; therefore, the PSD program applies nationwide.) BACT is defined as the maximum achievable degree of emission reduction, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic effects and other costs. It is determined on a case-by-case basis, but must be at least as stringent as any new source performance standard that applies to the facility's category.
The applicant must also demonstrate that the proposed new or expanded source will comply with air-quality "increments" that limit increases
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
in air pollution. These increments specify the maximum permissible cumulative increases of several pollutants over the pre-existing baseline concentrations in each clean-air area. Increments currently apply to nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and total suspended particles. (EPA is converting the increments for particulate matter so that, as with the ambient standards, only PM10 will be covered (EPA, 1989a)). The sizes of the increments vary with the area's classification; Class I increments are the smallest and Class III the largest. This system discourages sources from locating in areas that have restrictive increments (i.e. Class I areas) or that have almost used up their increments; it also encourages permit-writers to be strict in prescribing control technology to allow as much development as possible within the increments.1
The act classifies most clean air areas in the moderate-growth Class II category and gives states and Indian tribes the authority to redesignate these areas as desired. Few areas have been redesignated as Class I, and none as Class III.
Some parklands receive special protection: Large national parks and wilderness areas in existence when the PSD program was codified in 1977 are designated by Section 162(a) as mandatory Class I areas that may not be reclassified. This designation also covers additions to those areas made after 1977. Most of the 158 mandatory Class I areas are west of the Mississippi; nearly one-quarter of them are located in Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico (Oren, 1989). Section 164(a) places other parklands in the intermediate category of ''Class II floor areas''; these are initially classified Class II and can be redesignated Class I, but not Class III. Since no Class II area has been reclassified Class III, Section 164(a) has thus far been of little importance.
The PSD program includes a special air quality related values
The above discussion focuses on the requirements that PSD imposes on new and modified major emitting facilities. The program can also potentially affect other sources. Once the first application for a PSD permit is received in an area, growth in non-major sources begins to count against the increment. If an increment violation occurs, the state must correct it. This could involve imposing controls on existing sources as well as on growth in sources not subject to the PSD program. There is, though, no known case to date in which an increment violation has occurred due to the interaction of growth of existing sources with permits to new and modified sources (see Oren, 1989). Thus minor and existing sources have been largely exempt.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
(AQRV) test for evaluating a major emitting facility that might affect a Class I area. Section 165(d) charges the federal land manager (either the secretary of the interior, for lands managed through the National Park Service (NPS) or the Fish and Wildlife Service, or the secretary of agriculture for lands managed through the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)) with the responsibility to protect the AQRV (including visibility) of Class I areas. If the land manager demonstrates to the state that an area's AQRV would be affected adversely by a proposed new or modified major emitting facility within that state, the facility must be denied a permit; this is true even if the facility would not violate the Class I increments. On the other hand, a facility that would violate the increments can obtain a permit if the applicant shows that the source would not adversely affect an area's AQRV. In this way, the Class I increments amount to a device to assign the burden of proof on whether a proposed source should be allowed.
If the applicant shows that AQRVs in Class I areas will not be adversely affected, the facility is subject to a relaxed set of increments. If the applicant does not, the facility can be built only if it passes through a lengthy variance process that ultimately can require presidential approval for the permit.
The second program concerned with park visibility is established by Section 169A, which declares a national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas caused by manmade air pollution. Section 169A(a)(2) requires that EPA, in conjunction with the Department of the Interior, list mandatory Class I areas in which visibility is an important value. States that either include such areas or that contain sources that might contribute to visibility impairment in these areas are required by Section 169A(b)(2)(B) to include in their SIPs a long-term strategy for making reasonable progress toward the visibility goal. In addition, Section 169(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to require installation of the best available retrofit technology (BART) on any major stationary source placed in operation after August 7, 1962, if that source "emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in a listed mandatory Class I area. Under Section 169A(g)(2), BART is determined by taking into account, among other factors, the source's characteristics, such as the technological and economic feasibility of control, and "the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result" from control.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 supplement the visibility protection program by enacting a new Section 169B. Section 169B(a) requires EPA, together with NPS and other appropriate federal agencies, to conduct research on visibility impairment. The research must include expansion of visibility-related monitoring, assessment of current sources of visibility-impairing pollution and clean-air corridors (areas from which unpolluted air flows to Class I areas), adaptation of regional air-quality models for the assessment of visibility, and studies of the atmospheric chemistry and physics of visibility. Interim findings are required by November 1993. Section 169B(b) also requires EPA to conduct by November 1992 an assessment of the improvements in visibility resulting from other provisions of the 1990 amendments (e.g., the acid precipitation control provisions). An assessment of visibility in Class I areas is required every 5 years thereafter.
Section 169B(c) authorizes EPA to establish a "visibility transport region" whenever EPA believes that interstate atmospheric transport of air pollution contributes significantly to visibility impairment in a Class I area. EPA must establish for each region a "transport commission" composed of the governors of significantly contributing and affected states and ex-officio representatives of EPA and federal land managers. Section 169B(f) requires a transport commission to be established by November 1991 for the region affecting visibility in the Grand Canyon National Park.
Under Section 169B(d), a transport commission must, within 4 years of its establishment, assess visibility effects from present and projected emissions in the region and recommend corrective action. The report from the commission must consider whether 1) clean-air corridors should be established in which emission limits would be especially stringent, 2) new sources in clean-air corridors should be held to the same requirements as new sources in nonattainment areas, and 3) EPA should promulgate regulations under Section 169A to control regional haze.
Section 169B(e) requires EPA, within 18 months after receiving a transport commission's report, to carry out its regulatory responsibilities under Section 169A, including the issuance of criteria for measuring reasonable progress toward the national goal of ending anthropogenic visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas. It is not clear whether EPA may act before receiving the report. States would be given 1 year to revise their SIPs to carry out EPA's regulations. Under the section's timetable, this would occur by May 1998.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Visibility in mandatory Class I areas also will be affected by the new acid precipitation control program created by the 1990 Amendments. This program is intended to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions permanently by about 10 million tons per year below 1980 levels and to control nitrogen oxide emissions. By reducing the precursors to sulfates, nitrates, and nitrogen dioxide—all causes of visibility impairment—the new program is expected to improve visibility in the eastern and mid-western United States, where the bulk of the emission reductions are anticipated to occur. Projections for EPA by ICF, Inc. indicate that Title IV will halve, but not prevent, expected growth in sulfur dioxide emissions from electric utilities in 11 western states between now and 2010 (ICF, 1991). ICF currently projects an increase of as much as 180,000 tons in annual emissions, a 33% increase over 1985 levels, in these states. This would partly negate the reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions in the West that have been brought about through the control of nonferrous smelters.
The act also authorizes a program of research on air-pollution-related issues. The amount of funding actually available, however, depends on the annual appropriations. In addition, the federal land management agencies have supported research on visibility issues pursuant to their own statutory missions.
Basic Principles
The complex Clean Air Act provisions summarized above have several common themes. The most important is that preventive regulatory action is allowed despite scientific uncertainty. For instance, EPA is not required to prove that a substance poses a risk of harm before setting an ambient standard for that substance. This has been explicit since the enactment of Section 401 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, which altered the act's regulatory authorities to provide that EPA may regulate a substance or its emitters if, "in [the administrator's] judgment," the substance "may reasonably be anticipated" to endanger public health or welfare. The House Committee that developed this language explained that it intended to emphasize the preventive or precautionary nature of the act and to authorize the administrator to weigh risks and make reasonable projections of future trends (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 1977). This language was intended to adopt the inter-
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
pretation of the act by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA (541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied 426 U.S. 941 (1976)), which held that EPA need not prove airborne lead to be a hazard to restrict lead content in gasoline.
The visibility protection program outlined in Section 169A appears to be based upon this philosophy. Section 169A(b)(2) prescribes that BART be required for certain sources that "emit any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility" in a listed mandatory Class I area. By using the words "may reasonably be anticipated" in Section 169A, Congress apparently intended that the philosophy of precautionary action should apply to visibility protection as it does in other areas.2 Similarly, Section 169A(c)(1) puts the burden of proof on a source to show that its effect on visibility within a Class I area is not significant, either by itself or in combination with other sources. In this way, the risks of scientific ignorance are borne by the source rather than by the public.
The PSD program also is based on a precautionary approach. In advocating codification of the program in 1977, the House and Senate committees argued that clean-air areas need to be protected because air-quality concentrations within the ambient standards might later be found to endanger health or welfare. The committees stated that the PSD program would minimize this danger by controlling the growth of pollutant concentrations (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 1977; U.S. Congress, Senate, 1977).
The primary means of control under the PSD program—BACT and increments—therefore apply regardless of whether a particular source can be shown to endanger health or welfare. A showing of risk is necessary only when a land manager wishes to prevent the issuance of a permit to a source that complies with BACT and the increments.
Thus EPA may base regulation not only on what present evidence shows, but also on a reasonable evaluation of what future evidence is
Unlike other parts of the Clean Air Act, Section 169A does not include explicit reference to the judgment of the administrator. That reference had been included in the other authorities to make plain that EPA need not make a factual finding that harm could reasonably be anticipated but instead could rely on judgment (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 1977). The exclusion of this language from Section 169A might indicate less commitment to precautionary action in visibility than in other areas.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
likely to show about the effects of current emissions and the agency's policy views about the relative risks of overprotection and underprotection. Similarly, the agency may use emerging techniques so long as it takes reasonable account of the possible flaws in those techniques. This principle is important to the committee's evaluation of source attribution methods because EPA is not required to show with certainty the suitability of a given method. The committee, therefore, has not required such certainty in its evaluation of source attribution methods.
Eclecticism is another important feature of the act. To a large extent, the act links the stringency of regulation to the degree of environmental risk that a source poses. The most familiar example of this principle is the SIP process, in which a source located in a high-pollution area may be treated differently from an identical source located in a low-pollution area. Similarly, the BART requirement of Section 169A differentiates among sources based on their contribution to visibility degradation in a mandatory Class I area; it does so by requiring that the BART determination incorporate consideration of "the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of [the proposed] technology." This language emphasizes the importance of techniques to assess the effect on visibility from a given control measure.
The sponsors of the act recognized, however, the shortcomings of basing a regulatory system entirely on environmental risk. Such a system can result in underregulation when information on risk is lacking; moreover, it can give areas that meet risk-based standards a substantial and arguably undesirable advantage in attracting new sources. The act therefore requires a technology-based minimum of control on new sources, and, to a lesser extent, on existing sources. This differentiation between new and existing sources reflects the relative ease of designing controls into a new source and the relatively long life expectancy of new sources, which make it desirable to use technology-based controls as a means of ensuring against gaps in knowledge about the risks a particular new source may pose.
The act's diversity extends as well to the means of implementing environmental standards. For the most part, the act relies on a traditional regulatory approach under which state and federal regulators prescribe emission limits for sources. The 1990 amendments, however, incorporate market and other economic incentive programs to an unprecedented degree and encourage further experimentation with these devices.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
The committee has been conscious that a given technique for apportioning visibility impairment among emission sources might be used in a broad array of programs. It has attempted, therefore, to provide information that would assist policy makers in assessing the compatibility of a technique with alternative program designs.
Implementation of the Visibility Protection Programs
As the foregoing discussion shows, the Clean Air Act offers several tools for protecting visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. For instance, EPA could proceed by establishing national secondary air-quality standards at levels sufficient to protect visibility. This is legally possible under Section 302's broad definition of welfare (protected by secondary standards), which includes effects on visibility. Nonetheless, EPA has not found this an attractive route. Although the agency in the 1970s set a secondary standard for sulfur dioxide that was intended in part to protect visibility, the standard was judicially remanded to EPA for further explanation; EPA abandoned the effort due to the lack of quantitative information relating ambient sulfur dioxide concentrations to visibility effects (EPA, 1973).
Similarly, EPA has taken only the first steps to protect visibility by moving toward establishing a secondary standard to cover particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm in diameter (EPA, 1987a). The nationally uniform nature of the NAAQS may explain the agency's apparent reluctance: a particulate standard sufficient to protect visibility in the "Golden Circle" of parks in the Southwest would require a reduction of pollution concentrations below natural background levels (those that exist in the absence of pollution) in the East (EPA, 1985a).3 However, the NAAQS have made an indirect contribution to visibility improvement and maintenance, because the pollutants that impair visibility are subject to primary and secondary NAAQS established to protect health and other
On the other hand, as discussed later in the chapter, an environmental quality standard approach might have several advantages, especially if it led to PSD increments for small particles that are most responsible for visibility impairment.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
forms of welfare; these standards have led to reduced emissions of pollutants when the emissions interfere with attainment and maintenance of an ambient standard. For instance, enforcement in the West of the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, principally through requiring control of nonferrous smelters, brought about a reduction of three million tons in annual emissions of this pollutant, which is a precursor to visibility-reducing sulfates.
The PSD program has had a greater effect. The program has benefitted visibility by reducing growth in atmospheric loadings of air pollutants that contribute to regional haze. According to a series of analyses performed for EPA in the early- to mid-1980s by TRW and Radian, Inc., the program has resulted in lower emissions from new sources in clean-air areas than would otherwise have been the case (EPA, 1982, 1985b, 1986a; Oren, 1988). Those studies found that the required case-by-case BACT determinations appears to be resulting in control technology requirements for new sources that are more stringent than EPA's categorywide new-source performance standards or, for sources in categories not subject to those standards, new-source requirements in SIPs.
The effects of BACT might have increased since then. When the analyses were done, EPA's guidance for BACT allowed the permit applicant to formulate the BACT alternatives and placed on the permitting authority the burden of showing the achievability of more stringent control options; EPA since has advised that BACT should be set at the most stringent limit achieved by a similar source, unless the applicant can show that level to be unachievable. (The agency is considering. whether to formally adopt or abandon this policy, known as the "top-down" approach.) EPA has not updated the data base for the PSD program permits since 1984, and so the extent of the PSD program's effects is not clear.
There is also some evidence that the existence of the increments encourages permit-writers to be more stringent in setting control technology requirements for new sources that might otherwise be the case. This occurs because the increments limit the margin of clean air available for development. There is also anecdotal evidence that the restrictive Class I increments may be discouraging prospective sources from locating near national parks (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 1981).
But the increments are of limited effectiveness. First, the restrictive
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Class I increments apply only to large federal parks created before 1977; many other scenic areas are Class II and receive no special protection. It is not clear even that the Class I increments ensure effective protection against new sources that might cause visibility impairment (NRC, 1981). One reason is that the increments do not distinguish between particles in the 0.1-1.0 µm range—which have the greatest potential to degrade visibility—and larger particles. In addition, the increments, like the ambient standards, focus on the concentration of pollution at a given time and place; but visibility impairment depends on the total magnitude of fine particulate matter between an object and an observer (Sloane and White, 1986).
Moreover, the AQRV mechanism for individual assessments of sources that might impair visibility in parks has been little-used, although the Department of the Interior (DOI) has promulgated criteria for such assessments (DOI, 1982). Only recently did a federal land manager attempt to persuade a state to deny a permit to a proposed source that complied with the Class I increments (DOI, 1990, 1992). As a result, the Class I increments, despite their shortcomings, have been used as the exclusive criterion for protecting parks from new sources.
A recent study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that the present PSD program is not satisfactorily protecting the parks. The report points out that sources accounting for up to 90% of pollutants emitted near five Class I areas are exempt from PSD requirements. The reason is that PSD applies only to the construction and modification of major emitting facilities; in effect, baseline concentrations of pollutants are ignored. As a result, existing sources and small new sources are ignored by the program. Even for sources covered by the program, the GAO found deficiencies. Its report concludes that the AQRV process for review of proposed permits by the federal land managers has not been fully implemented. The GAO found that permit applications are not always forwarded to the land managers for review, and, even when the applications are forwarded, the land managers do not always review them and provide comments to permitting agencies. Moreover, according to the GAO, land managers do not feel they have sufficient information on the AQRVs in their areas to evaluate proposed permits (GAO, 1990).
The visibility protection program of Section 169A has been especially slow to take hold. In 1979, EPA promulgated a list of mandatory Class
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
latory programs and do not include any new programs specifically aimed at reducing visibility impairment. Except for the recently announced agreement to install scrubbers at the Navajo Generating Station near the Grand Canyon National Park, BART has not affected any source.
The most recent comprehensive examination by federal regulatory agencies of the options for regulating regional haze is the 1985 report of the Interagency Visibility Task Force. The task force consisted of representatives from EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and DOI and was formed to develop long-term strategies for remedying regional haze and to recommend a long-range program to mitigate it. The task force recommended that research funding be enhanced and that visibility effects be taken into account in designing regulatory programs for other purposes; however, it did not propose immediate steps to control regional haze (EPA, 1985a).
Funding Issues
Federal funding for visibility research and regulation has been inconsistent. EPA funding for visibility-related programs, including research, dropped markedly after 1980 (Figure 3-1). However, the NPS Air Quality Division more than tripled its funding for visibility research between 1981 and 1987; since then, NPS funding largely has followed EPA funding (Table 3-1). In addition, the funds designated by the USFS and the Department of Defense for visibility research were halved from the mid-1980s through fiscal year 1990.
Such inconsistent funding has hampered fundamental research. However, compensating factors should be noted. First, research funding in the past decade aimed at understanding environmental issues such as global climate change and acid rain indirectly contributed to advances in visibility research, as have other efforts focused on airborne particle and associated gas-phase processes and radiative transfer. Funding by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) has also supported such research. Second, the private sector, such as the Electric Power Research Institute and the American Petroleum Institute, has contributed substantial resources to a variety of visibility and related studies. Nonetheless, the overall low level of support is a matter of concern.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
FIGURE 3-1. EPA funding for visibility research, including OPPE (Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation) and IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) funding. Does not include regional mode-ling or minor work on chemistry and physics. Source: pers. comm., EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Ambient Standards Branch, 1992.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
TABLE 3–1 Visibility Research Funding Summary, 1971–1991
Dispersion/Visibility Modeling
Visibility Monitoring
Visibility Effects Research
$ 150,000
$ 416,000
$ 0
$ 566,000
Figures not adjusted for inflation.
Source: M. Scruggs, pers. comm., NPS, Denver, Colo., 1992.
In response to the drastic cut in EPA's support of visibility-related research in the early 1980s, NPS launched its own effort. The shift in visibility research funding in the early 1980s from EPA to NPS caused inevitable discontinuities in progress. In some cases, NPS failed to take advantage of scientific expertise that had been accumulated over previous decades. The resulting costs, such as lapses in data collection, have been high (see Chapter 4). Moreover, by focusing its monitoring in national parks, NPS implicitly has minimized the broader regional character of visibility impairment. Nonetheless, NPS deserves credit for working effectively with limited resources and for taking the initiative to establish a national visibility-monitoring program at a time when EPA was disbanding its effort.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
State Visibility Protection Programs
Few states have adopted programs that go beyond federal law to protect visibility in Class I areas. Three such programs are described below.
A significant portion of visibility impairment in Oregon's Class I areas is caused by forestry slash and agricultural burning, and EPA's visibility program, which requires control only of large point sources, would have done little to improve visibility.
Therefore, Oregon established its own program that includes the following key elements:
Implementation of a visibility monitoring program at seven sites adjacent to Class I areas. Optical, aerosol, meteorological, and observer data are collected to support source attribution studies as well as to determine the frequency, duration, and intensity of impairment. The state monitoring program is performed in cooperation with the USFS and NPS.
Adoption of short- and long-term control strategies that have resulted in restrictions on forestry and agricultural burning. Forestry burning has been prohibited during the July 4-Labor Day period, when Class I areas are most heavily used by the public. These strategies have reduced the frequency of substantial impairment by about 80% in the summertime relative to the precontrol period of 1982–84.
Active coordination with the federal land managers through the Oregon Visibility Advisory Committee. That committee provides recommendations to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on a wide range of issues, including the determination of impairment conditions, the adequacy of control strategies, and the scope of the protection program. The committee meets regularly to review the program and to consider new issues as they arise.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Washington's visibility protection program includes the elements of Oregon's program (State of Washington, 1983). The state monitoring program is more limited than Oregon's; therefore, the regulatory program relies heavily on monitoring conducted by NPS and the USFS.
Washington's control strategies call for a 30% reduction in emissions from forestry slash burning and a reduction in impacts during summer weekend days. As a result of improved forestry smoke-management programs, reductions in slash burning, and increased use of residues, visibility conditions in Washington's Cascade Mountains (a Class I area) has improved considerably during the summer months.
Visibility impairment in the Lye Brook Wilderness, Vermont's only Class I area, is caused by sulfate-dominated regional haze episodes rather than individual sources (State of Vermont, 1986). Vermont's visibility program attempted to control regional haze caused by sources in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The state adopted a 2 µg/m3, 24-hour air-quality standard for sulfates to protect visibility within the Lye Brook Wilderness. Vermont requested that EPA approve the program as a revision of the state's SIP, and order the eight upwind states to revise their SIPs to ensure compliance with the Vermont standard. EPA refused to do either (EPA, 1987b); its decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1988).
EPA has considered a variety of means to protect visibility in Class I areas (EPA, 1985a). A program might use, singly or in combination, any of four categories of approaches.
Air Quality Management Approach
Under this approach, the regulating authority sets a desired level of
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
environmental quality, and emissions limits for sources are based on achieving that level. One example of this approach is the ambient standard/SIP process under the Clean Air Act. For instance, EPA could seek to protect visibility through setting an ambient standard for particles smaller than 2.5 µm. The Clean Air Act calls for the establishment of the desired environmental level could be expressed in other ways. For instance, California has long had a state ambient standard specifying that the concentration of light scattering and absorbing particles should be low enough that visibility is 10 miles (16 km) or greater (30 miles in the Lake Tahoe area) when relative humidity is less than 70% (California Administrative Code, tit. 17, §70200). Similarly, Colorado recently adopted a standard that limits maximum permissible light extinction; special control measures, for example, limits on wood burning in the Denver area, go into effect on days when this standard is violated. A similar approach has been proposed on a national scale by one commentator, who suggests that each state should be required to reduce gradually the extinction coefficient caused by sources in that state (Pitchford et al., 1990).
Among the advantages of the air-quality management approach are that
It can be cost-efficient in ensuring the achievement of a desired standard at a specific point, because the amount of control imposed on a source is linked to expected environmental improvement;
It can encourage research in developing improved control technologies, if the mandated emission limits for sources call for more control than is possible using current technology;
An environmental quality standard is an easily understood measure of the effectiveness of control.
The primary disadvantage of an air-quality management approach is that it requires at least a rough quantitative understanding of the relationship between emissions and air quality. This, in turn, requires detailed information on emission levels and accurate air-quality models for estimating the effect of a reduction in emissions. Such information and models have been difficult to develop for secondary pollutants, such as sulfates and ozone, that are not emitted directly from any source but are rather the result of atmospheric transformation of source emissions. Moreover, the air-quality management approach ignores the possible benefits of maintaining an area at a level superior to the desired stan-
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
dard. In addition, the environmental quality standard means that identical sources in different areas of the country will be treated differently, depending on the extent to which an area violates the air-quality management standard. Although this might minimize compliance costs, it can be regarded as posing issues of equity between regions.
Technology-Based Approach
A technology-based approach sets emission limits for sources at a level judged technologically and economically feasible. The new-source performance standard program under the Clean Air Act is an example. The advantages of this approach are its relative simplicity, uniformity, and lack of need for information tying the emissions of individual sources to air-quality levels (Latin, 1985). Its disadvantages are the following:
It may not result in enough control to eliminate the environmental problem.
It does not encourage the investigation of ways to reduce emissions below the level that is currently technologically feasible. (It should be noted, however, that source owners still have an incentive to find the least expensive way to meet the technologically feasible level; this might result in the development of controls that could meet still stricter standards.)
It might be cost-inefficient in that the level of control is not tied to the level necessary to attain satisfactory air quality.
Nondegradation Approach
This approach focuses on preventing new environmental problems. A cap that limits emissions to a given level (e.g., 8.9 million tons of sulfur dioxide in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990) is one example of this approach. But the nondegradation objective can be expressed in terms other than emissions. The PSD program, which measures degradation in terms of increased pollutant concentrations, is an example.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
Like a technology-based approach, a pure nondegradation strategy is simple in concept and implementation. Like the present PSD program, it can curb the growth of emissions. But such an approach takes existing levels of air pollution as a given and will not remedy existing environmental problems. For instance, the PSD program of park protection, because it relies largely on a nondegradation approach, has been criticized for disregarding existing high levels of pollution in parks (Oren, 1989). Moreover, it often is difficult to measure whether and how much degradation is occurring.
Market-Based Approaches
Market-based approaches are alternative techniques for implementing the three approaches described above. Most U.S. environmental programs have been implemented through a traditional regulatory approach for example, when a state specifies emissions levels to be achieved by each source under its auspices. However, without a great deal of information on specific facilities, such programs can be economically inefficient and expensive to administer.
Interest in market-based approaches has been increasing (Breger et al., 1991). Those approaches can take various forms, such as the following:
EPA and some states have been moderately successful in establishing programs to allow individual sources to find the least-expensive method to achieve required reductions in emissions (Liroff, 1986).
In a fundamental departure from the traditional regulatory structure, the acid rain provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments assign emission levels to large sulfur dioxide sources but permit trading of reduction credits between sources. Under this plan, a source might find its least-expensive option for emissions reduction would be to pay another source to achieve compensating reductions in emissions. This would encourage sources to seek out the cheapest means of reduction, increase economic efficiency of the reduction program, and foster innovation in the development of cost-effective controls.
Taxes can be imposed on emission of particular pollutants. This would be an incentive to eliminate all emissions for which the cost of
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
control is less than the amount of the tax. Chlorofluorocarbon production already is taxed, and the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act establish "excess emissions" fees.
The primary advantage of market-based approaches is their potential for cost-efficiencies in regulation. One disadvantage, however, is that these approaches might not have the same element of moral condemnation as do conventional regulatory approaches; to that extent, use of these approaches might lessen public concern about pollution. An immediate disadvantage is that all market-based approaches require that emissions be monitored precisely. The tax scheme has the further disadvantage that it is hard to predict in advance the level of fee necessary for reducing emissions to the desired level. A scheme based on trading emissions allowances can work only if the number of regulated facilities is great enough to constitute a market; it will be hindered if regulated facilities have local effects that preclude allowing trades with outside sources. The acid rain and chlorofluorocarbon problems are relatively independent of the precise location of a source. The same might be true of regional haze, but not of visible plumes.
The Present Visibility Program Compared with Possible Future Approaches
The present program is a blend of the first three approaches: air-quality management, technology-based, and nondegradation approaches. Market-based approaches are included to the extent that the new acid rain program improves visibility in the East. Such a combination of approaches is not unusual; the paradigms are often blended because they have different strengths and weaknesses.
The PSD program uses the technology-based approach in that large new sources in clean-air areas are required to install BACT to limit their emissions. The program also uses a modified version of the nondegradation approach by limiting, (but not forbidding) increases in air pollution in clean-air areas.
The visibility protection program of Section 169A is also a hybrid. For example, technological feasibility and the likely improvement in visibility are considered in setting BART for large existing sources. In
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
this way, BART blends the air-quality management and technology-based approaches.
Aside from its BART requirement, Section 169A gives EPA substantial flexibility in designing a visibility protection program. Although Section 169A requires that states must revise SIPs to make reasonable progress toward the national goal of eliminating visibility impairment in Class I areas, it does not specify the strategy to be used in achieving reasonable progress. EPA could adopt any of the four regulatory approaches identified above or some combination as the basis for further visibility regulation in conjunction with BART. This flexibility does not appear to be altered by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. New Section 169B, for instance, calls for consideration of the regulation of regional haze, but does not specify how EPA might do so. For this reason, the committee believes it appropriate to evaluate source apportionment methods for their consistency with all four approaches identified above.
The Clean Air Act establishes several mechanisms that could be used to reduce visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas, but the effectiveness of each has been limited. EPA has been reluctant, for policy and technical reasons, to use ambient air-quality standards as a means of controlling visibility impairment. The PSD program has decreased atmospheric loadings from new sources and has safeguarded some large parklands from new sources. The amount of protection, though, is limited by the lack of correlation between visibility effects and the Class I increments for maximum permissible increases, the primary measure of whether a new source will be allowed near a Class I area. To date, EPA and other implementing agencies have not established supplemental mechanisms to protect Class I areas. The visibility protection program of Section 169A has had little effect, largely because of EPA's decision to confine the implementation of the provision to impairment that is ''reasonably attributable'' to sources through the use of simple techniques.
Some states have responded to the limits in the federal effort by creating their own programs to curb visibility impairment in Class I areas.
OCR for page 57
Protecting Visibility in National Parks and Wilderness Areas
In addition, interest has increased in exploring possible ways to alter the current federal programs to provide more effective protection. Even under current law, these could fit into any of the four paradigms identified above.


text:
Male - 1967/06/18
Born in 1967, he worked as assistant director for almost 10 years under Im Kwontaek and worked on films like "Sopyonje" (1993) and "Chunhyang" (2000). He made his directorial debut with the melodrama, "Bungee Jumping of Their Own" (2000). He also directed the historical thriller "Blood Rain" (2005). His third film, "Trace of Love", was the opening film for the 11th PIFF.
Source Open the link
You're reading the news with potential spoilers, make them spoiler free, dismiss
The Concubine (Movie, 2012) 후궁 : 제왕의 첩 | If You Were Me 5 (Movie, 2010) 시선 너머 | Blood Rain (Movie, 2004) 혈의 누 | Bungee Jumping of their Own (Movie, 2000) 번지점프를 하다 |
VIP Premiere | Characters | Showcase | On the set video |
Music Video 'Flowers Fall Off' | Trailer | Uncut Trailer | Trailer |
To participate to HanCinema, you must sign up or log in. Sign up, Why ?
Fan club |
Quick message | |
To participate to HanCinema, you must sign up or log in. Sign up, Why ?
Old message board |
Subscribe to HanCinema Pure to remove ads from the website (not for episode and movie videos) for US$2.99 per month (you can cancel anytime).
The first step is to be a member, please click here : Sign up, then a subscribe button will show up.
Today's birthdays

subset: commoncrawl


text:
18 April 2012 16:12 [Source: ICIS news]
LONDON (ICIS)--Crude oil rose around 50 cents/bbl on Wednesday to recoup some earlier losses, when this week's US stock figures showed larger-than-expected draws on products, although these were offset by a larger crude build than forecast.
May NYMEX light sweet crude futures rose from around $103.60/bbl before the figures from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) were published to around $104.10/bbl, a loss of 10 cents/bbl from Tuesday's close, having earlier hit a low of $103.47/bbl.
However, they then lost a little ground and at 14:40 GMT, May NYMEX crude was trading around $103.90/bbl, down 30 cents/bbl from Tuesday's close of $104.20/bbl.
On ICE Futures, June Brent also gained ground, rising from around $117.40/bbl before the figures were published to around $117.75/bbl. At 14:40 GMT, June Brent was trading around $117.60/bbl, down $1.18/bbl from Tuesday's close of $118.78/bbl, but above the earlier low of $117.32/bbl.
Analysts predicted this week's US stock figures would show a build on crude stocks of about 1.4m bbl, a draw on distillate of around 200,000 bbl and a draw on gasoline of around 900,000 bbl.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) figures were published late on Tuesday.
US Stocks (million bbl) |
w/e 13.04.12 |
Change |
Change | |
Crude |
369.0 |
+3.9 |
369.3 |
+3.4 |
Gasoline |
214.0 |
-3.7 |
220.4 |
-2.6 |
Distillate |
129.0 |
-2.9 |
132.3 |
-2.4 |
27.8 |
-0.9 |
28.2 |
-0.9 | |
39.2 |
-0.1 |
39.9 |
-0.6 |
For the latest chemical news, data and analysis that directly impacts your business sign up for a free trial to ICIS news - the breaking online news service for the global chemical industry.
Get the facts and analysis behind the headlines from our market leading weekly magazine: sign up to a free trial to ICIS Chemical Business.
ICIS news FREE TRIAL |
Get access to breaking chemical news as it happens. |
ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX) |
ICIS Global Petrochemical Index (IPEX). Download the free tabular data and a chart of the historical index |
Asian Chemical Connections


text:
- Home
- Podcasts
- Arts
- Automotive
- Business & Finance
- Comedy
- Education & Reference
- Environment
- Film & Television
- Food & Drink
- Games
- Health
- Hobbies & Recreation
- Home
- International
- Kids and Teens
- Legal
- Miscellaneous
- Music
- News & Media
- Politics
- Relationships
- Religion
- Science
- Shopping
- Society
- Sports
- Storytelling
- Technology
- Travel
- Unknown
- Videocasts
- Radio
- News
- About
- Learn
- Submit Podcast
- Contact Us
Oracle's acquisitions of Virtual Iron and Sun still raises questions in the virtualization community
Virtualization Report 7/15/09 Podcast: Questions around Oracle's plans for Virtual Iron customers has lead to VMware offering those users a hefty discount to switch; and Sun is pushing forward with VirtualBox - announcing the release of a 3.0 version.…
Share: Oracle's acquisitions of Virtual Iron and Sun still raises questions in the virtualization community
Improve control in your virtual environment with solutions from F5 Networks or Virtual Computer
Virtualization Report 7/6/09 Podcast: F5 Networks introduces integration between its BIG-IP solution and VMware vSphere and vCenter. And Virtual Computer announces NxTop 1.1 to help retain end user personalization with shared virtual images.…
Share: Improve control in your virtual environment with solutions from F5 Networks or Virtual Computer
Virtualization and networking: Vyatta and Voltaire
Virtualization Report 6/16/09 Podcast: As virtualization and cloud technologies continue to take over the data center, keep your eyes on the changing network environment. Vyatta raised $10 million thanks to Citrix and others. And Voltaire is scaling ou…
Virtualization gets mobile; and even defragged on Exchange
Virtualization Report 6/9/09 Podcast: Virtualization is everywhere. Cell phone providers are now finding virtualization in their mobile devices. And datacenters are going to find virtualization on their Exchange mail servers.…
Lanamark adds storage module; and EMC acquires new technology
Virtualization Report 6/2/09 podcast: Lanamark introduced its new storage design module that accelerates the design of end-to-end desktop and server virtualization solutions. And EMC is acquiring configuration and compliance management software as well a…
Oracle gets Virtual Iron and Vizioncore updates backup solution
Virtualization Report 5/27/09 podcast: Oracle acquired Virtual Iron to build out its virtualization platform, but the NY Times recently reported the financial standing of Virtual Iron as not so great. Vizioncore on the other hand appears to be doing well…
Community launches Xen 3.4 and 3Tera launches an appstore for the cloud
Virtualization Report 5/20/09 podcast: Xen's community pushes to create a powerful, efficient, and ubiquitous virtualization hypervisor - announces Xen 3.4. And 3Tera announced that it is going to launch an AppStore portal, offering public, private and h…
Citrix launched a number of free technologies at Synergy 2009
Virtualization Report 5/14/09 Podcast: The Citrix Synergy show in Las Vegas was a five day mega conference that showcased the latest virtualization and application delivery technologies -- many of which are or will be absolutely free!…
Neocleus ships next generation client virtualization solution; Eucalyptus debuts open source cloud offering
Virtualization Report 5/5/09 Podcast: Neocleus has announced its latest product, NeoSphere, the company's desktop and laptop management platform built on top of their second generation, Type 1 client hypervisor. And after getting $5.5 million in a Series…
Share: Neocleus ships next generation client virtualization solution; Eucalyptus debuts open source cloud offering
InfoWorld Podcasts - The Virtualization Report
Learn about the latest trends in virtualization


text:
When you think of "models" you don't automatically picture people over the age of 50. In fact, the American ideal of beauty sometimes leaves older people behind.
That's one reason we'd like you to meet some of the men and women who were selected by AARP The Magazine for their annual Faces of 50+ feature, as these newly-minted models prepare for their moment in the spotlight.
Topic Alerts
You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click "Follow."
Manage Alerts


text:
Get Instant Pricing with Edmunds Price Promise℠
1Look for "Special Offers" on a specific car
2Get your upfront, locked-in price from the dealer
3Go to the dealership to buy your car with no haggle
Total Reviews
E-150 Cargo Van (4.6L V8 4-speed Automatic)
My question is has FORD fixed the spark plug problem yet?? We need to know WHICH years and engines have been redesigned so the spark plugs do not blow out of the cylinder heads. Even two local dealers do not know what year the problem has been corrected if at all. If not... I will never buy another FORD. Almost ALL Japanese engines with aluminum heads have long reach spark plugs in them. That should be a clue. Even motorcycles.
Report itTo open the rear doors enough to put plywood inside you will notice when the doors are open that there is a flat steel strap that restrains the door from opening too far into traffic etc., and you will see a little spring clip just above the little strap. Just lift that strap up off of the little pin holding it and slide it out. ,now the doors will open fully. I see this same comment on all the forums a lot, and just thought I would take the time to tell you . It probably shows you in the owners manual too. (not sure ) though.
Report it
You must be signed in to post a comment.
Help | About Us | Contact Us | Careers | Affiliate Program | Dealer Center | Privacy Statement | Visitor Agreement | Membership Agreement
Your Ad Choices | Site Map | Glossary | Mobile | Developers
Follow Edmunds
© Edmunds.com, Inc.
† Edmunds.com received the highest numerical score in the proprietary J.D. Power 2014 Third-Party Automotive Website Evaluation Study℠. Results based on responses from 3,381 responses, measuring 14 companies and measures third-party automotive website usefulness among new and used vehicle shoppers. Proprietary study results are based on experiences and perceptions of owners surveyed from January 2014. Your experiences may vary. Visit jdpower.com.


text:
Want to win gold at Maryhill? Be like P-Swiss, go with the Oracle!
That's right, Patrick Switzer has won Maryhill Festival of Speed, not once, but twice on the Rayne Oracle. Not your traditional Rayne deck, the addition of guys like Patrick and Luke Melo, guys from Onterrible that is, brought a need for a tight, slalom style board for technical downhill and, well, slalom.
Check out the Push Culture News Interview from Maryhill FOS and see what Patrick has to say:
Rayne might be from the Rockies, but the crew out east is known for making the most of what they have - half the hills, all the skills they say? From slalom to street, downhill to parkading, those guys know how to have a lot of fun skating everything and anything. (longboard jousting, what?) Now you can skate like Patrick and Luke and who knows, the Oracle might just bring you gold too!
Check out what's in stock now:


text:
City and Borough of Juneau 155 S. Seward Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 tel. 907-586-5240 fax 907-586-5385 http://www.juneau.org
Q. How many years can you wait to file a domestic violence charge
Dear Juneau Resident,As with other crimes, the statute of limitations apply. The time would depend of the original crimes status as a misdemeanor, A,B, or C felony. The answer would be different if you are talking about applying for a domestic violence protective order. One of the areas of that order has to do with prior acts of domestic violence. In that order, the victim can cite incidents older than what would be subject to prosecution.


text: The Total X-Tinction Part 2: Friend Or Foe? wiki last edited by pikahyper on 07/18/13 01:17PM View full history Punisher continues to square off with the new Mutant Liberation Front. Blastfurnace and Corpus Derelicti make things tough for Frank and S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Kymberly Taylor, as both find out that protecting a preacher is tougher than expected.


text:
Current Support
We welcome and we are very grateful for gifts that support our work, and we welcome opportunities to discuss tax advantages that philanthropy may provide through careful gift and estate planning. Your gift today will make a difference in the lives of our patients and help our physicians and researchers find new ways to treat eye disease.
You can donate now online by clicking on the Giving Tree logo in the left column and selecting the UC Davis Eye Center as your donation recipient.
Alternatively, you may also contact the Eye Center's development team:
Antoinette McLean
Development Director
UC Davis Health System is recognized as a tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) public charity by the Internal Revenue Service. Your gift to the UC Davis Health System Eye Center qualifies as a charitable deduction for federal tax purposes as permitted by law.


text:
Shoe Size
Ratings & Reviews
Overall, others give this:
Reviewers may have received a benefit, like a sweepstakes entry or rewards program points, in exchange for writing a review.
Those benefits were not conditioned on the positive or negative content of the review.
Most Helpful Reviews
The boots fit and style is good. But the sole materials are lacking. Just after having 3 months (after warrenty expired) the sole started to fall apart. The Foamlike material between the rubber Sole and the Boot just started to disintegrate. By month 4 there were large portions missing from the sole. Returned to store but, they said not covered as after warrenty period.
via sears.com
Excellent choice of work boot extremely comfortable and very durable. Would highly recommend this purchase.
via mobile
via sears.com
Needed insoles for arch, no support. Inside rough so need over the calf socks
Phoenix, AZ
via mobile
These boots are a great deal especially for the price
Phoenix, AZ
via mobile
Excellent for the price
Riverside, CA
via mobile
I got these boots for 50% off and after breaking them in they feel like slippers. I work construction every day so I need a good pair off boots, diehard are the way to go!
San Antonio, TX
via mobile
Rohnert Park, CA
via sears.com
these are the best work boots ever I got them for a killer price
Van Nuys, CA
via sears.com
Die hard boots are the best.I have been wear for 25 years + comfortable long lasting
Boonsboro, MD
via sears.com
My husband had a very old pair of the Wellington Boots and has been trying to replace them for several years. Finally he found yours which are comparable. He is so pleased.
Sears Can Help
You can be sure we'll offer you the best available options every step of the way.
Sears Guarantees, Policies & Agreements
If you find a lower price, we'll match it. If it goes on sale after you buy it, we'll match that price. See details.
Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back. Restocking, cancellation or other restrictions may apply. Learn More
If there's ever a problem with your product, a protection agreement can provide you with peace of mind. Find out how.
Not ready to replace? Repair. Sears can help you save money and time. Schedule Now!
Specifications & Dimensions
General Features: | |
Toe Type: | Soft toe |
Upper Material: | Leather |
Insulation: | Non-insulated |
Closure: | Pull on |
Waterproof: | Non-waterproof |
Safety Feature: | Oil resistant, Slip resistant |
Boot Height: | 8 in. |
Style: | Western & wellingtons |
Profession: | Construction |
- Free shipping! Orders $59 or more Offer ends 31-Dec-2015 See details.
- BONUS DAYS! Extra 5% OFF Family Footwear when you use your Sears Card! Offer ends 25-Apr-2015 See details.
- Online Only! Get an EXTRA $15 off Mens shoe purchases of $75 Sold by Sears. Use code SHOE1575 Offer ends 25-Apr-2015 See details.
- Get Quarter ct tw Diamond Earrings for $19.99 with any storewide purchase of $19.99 or more! Offer ends 31-May-2015 See details.
- Get Anvil or Bypass Pruner for $9.99 with any storewide purchase of $25 or more! Offer ends 31-May-2015 See details.
- Get Cheval Jewelry Mirror for $139.99 reg price $199.99, with any purchase. Offer ends 10-May-2015 See details.
DieHard Boots Deliver Dependable Service
Sturdy and reliable, these Die Hard Work Boots deliver the fore and aft support of a responsive steel shank, the protection of 10 inch high-rise uppers and solid grip of dual density polyurethane outsoles to keep you moving no matter where you're working. Whether you're hauling shoulder loads of shingles up ladders, rolling wheel-barrow loads of gravel or just helping a buddy with a weekend project, these boots are built to deliver with every step.
Perfect for long days on the job, DieHard Boots are flexible, impact absorptive and pack the cushion of double layered insoles below a supple pig skin lining, so they keep your feet comfortable even when you're pulling a double shift. And to help keep you working, these boots put an end to side-lining slips and on-site falls with a slip resistant design that you can count on. The first step to getting the job done right, toss a pair of these pull-ons next to your front door and get moving fast with Diehard.
- DieHard Work Boots are built with full grain leather uppers for superior durability
- Double layer cushioned insole keeps every step comfortable
- Pigskin lining is supple and smooth
- Dual density polyurethane outsole takes hold of the ground
- Goodyear Welt construction ensure long lasting service
- Oil/slip resistance keep you on your feet
- Steel shank improves stability and adds support


text:
Now with More Hands-on Courses
Augsburg now offers a new MBA, delivering what employers seek in business leaders and helping working professionals find meaningful work while advancing their careers. Offering three customizable Student Learning Experiences, our new MBA focuses on helping students:
- identify their strengths,
- build their business skills, and
- apply their knowledge through real work and experience.
$8,000 Scholarship for New Students
Applicants who enroll in May or September 2015 in the Augsburg MBA program will be eligible to receive an $8,000 scholarship over two years. Scholarships are limited and are available only for students starting this summer or fall.
Advance Your Career with an Augsburg MBA
Augsburg's MBA program develops the skills and knowledge you've already gained and takes your career to the next level.
The Augsburg MBA is an affordable, accredited option for students in the Twin Cities and Rochester, MN. We offer small class sizes and evening schedules designed for working professionals, so you can complete your degree in 24 months.
- Customize your degree through specializations in marketing, finance, leadership, or management.
- Gain connections, build your résumé, and apply your skills with a Management Consulting Project.
- Take advantage of the option to enroll in one or two 10-day, study-abroad courses.
- Learn in a supportive cohort model with other working professionals from diverse career fields.
- Receive support from faculty and staff who understand the challenges faced by full-time working students.
Financial aid is available to those students who qualify.
Take the Next Step
Contact us today for more information or to schedule an appointment.
Member of and candidate for ACBSP accreditation | NCA accredited


text:
Non hai un account? Iscriviti al programma IHG® Rewards Club
Riscatta i tuoi punti quando vuoi, per ciò che vuoi.
Reward Nights In fase di riscatto dei punti per una Reward Night, è possibile prenotare solamente una camera alla volta.
Una volta completata la prenotazione della Reward Night, ti sarà offerta la possibilità di duplicare la prenotazione.
* Richiede l''affiliazione alla rispettiva organizzazione.
** La ricerca per la Migliore tariffa disponibile non include le tariffe di affiliazione.
If you need to book more than nine (9) rooms, please call the hotel directly, 1-800-MEETING, call your nearest reservation office for assistance or visitwww.meetings.ichotelsgroup.com . Bookings for more than nine (9) rooms for the same guest or group through this current page will not be honored.
A five-minute walk from one of Holland's biggest transport hubs, Holiday Inn Express® Rotterdam Central Station hotel puts you within easy reach of metro, tram, and bus links, as well as trains to Rotterdam The Hague Airport and Amsterdam. Onsite parking is available for 120 cars.
Business guests can walk 10 minutes from the hotel to De Doelen Convention Centre, and to major Visualizza più informazioni
Business guests can walk 10 minutes from the hotel to De Doelen Convention Centre, and to major companies such as Unilever. You can host a successful meeting or presentation in the hotel boardroom, which hosts up to eight people with Wi-Fi included and friendly staff on hand.
Rotterdam is renowned for its architecture. You can stroll from the hotel to the medieval St Laurence Church, Piet Blom's futuristic Cube Houses and the spectacular structure of Markthal, a modern food market for fresh produce and fine dining. Art lovers have a 15-minute tram ride to Museumpark, where they can admire works by artists as diverse as Rembrandt and Andy Warhol at Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen and Kunsthal. The shopping streets of Lijnbaan and Meent are also within a 10-minute stroll.
Served in the hotel's stylish Great Room, the inclusive breakfast buffet includes freshly baked goods and rich Dutch cheeses. At the end of the day, you can relax with a cold Dutch beer in the lobby bar.


text:
54 posts found | |
Originally posted by flizzer Why are these people not satisfied with all the WoW clones out there? There is no shortage of games that are very similar to WoW. I think most people who played WoW for a long time are looking for something very different, but there is little out there other than gw2 and small niche games like DF. |
Originally posted by DavisFlight Literally millions of people disagree with you I'm sure. There is a reason it retains so many subs. I hated Cataclysm and I dislike MoP but to say the game is a bad mmo seems naive to me. It did many many things right and has earned my respect as one of the best mmos ever created. To the post above this one I have played EQ2. :). Liked it alot but couldnt hold my interest for more than a couple of months. Couldnt stand that I could run vertically up mountains lol. |
Originally posted by Epicent Lady gaga and Pewdiepie of youtube are also popular with millions of followers, doesnt make their music and lets plays respectively any good what so ever. Popularity doesnt equal quality. WoW was always a mediocre game loved by the masses by its ease of acess and dumbed down gameplay, just like LoL is now liked for the same reasons. |
Originally posted by austriacus Yeah, but the opinion of some random forum guy doesn't make anything good or bad either. Popularity also doesn't equal lack of quality no matter what the MMORPG wannabe hipsters would like to believe. He liked the game and you don't. Does this make you think that you're right or something? WoW was one of the best games ever. WoW was mediocre. WoW was awesome. WoW sucked. At least have some kind of reasoning behind what you say. "WoW was dumbed down" doesn't say anything except that you may be incredibly inept at finding the depth that is in the gameplay. I mean, what do you even play? Could you at least recommend a game that this poor player that loves this mediocre experience can pick up? SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
Originally posted by DavisFlight rofl |
Originally posted by colddog04 Different things make MMO's great to different people, I played WoW for years and I played with real life mates and we had a blast, It was my friends I played with that made the game great not the game itself. After they left for other games and I ended up playing with pugs and guilds where I didn't know the people as well is when I lost interest in the game. |
Originally posted by colddog04 People just have a habit of bashing on WoW. No other game gets as much hate and there is a reason for this. These forums are full of trolls though. I don't expect maturity from most of the people on here anymore. WoW isn't my favorite game. But the feeling I got when I used to play it was very good. The world was huge. They had a ton of raids. Open world pvp used to be awesome. The dungeons were great. (this was all before dungeon and raid finder mind you.) The game WAS really deep to ME regardless of what you might say. If you want a very very small portion of the list of games I have played just refer to my profile. I have literally played..........damn................has to be well over 100 mmos if I count them all up. I am completely non biased and have even got kicked out of guilds for saying other mmos are good in certain games. If a game has fine points I will point them out. If it has weaknesses I will point those out. I don't have some odd emotional tie to certain games that I have to get on the forums and bash them. You remind me of a certain other forum user that gets on the Darkfall Forums and CONSTANTLY bashes that game. Thats ridiculous trolling and not the point of these forums. That user shall remain nameless but people hunt alot of deer where I am from...........................if you catch my drift. |
Originally posted by colddog04 You can love a game and it can still be mediocre. I love a lot of mediocre games. Me loving them does not make them suddenly deep. Yes WoW was dumbed down in comparisson to previous MMOs, thats the whole reason it became so popular, it opened a door to a niche genre by making it more accesible. (Im not going to go in detail, this has been discussed for years) Also, mainstream of w/e is always very shallow, always, because the majority of people are like that and are atracted to that kind of entertainment. And theres nothing wrong with that. I play guild wars 2, like you do. Love the game and its a step above WoW. But i will never claim its a very deep game, it is deep enough for a mainstream game, and thats all it needs. But if you really want a game that i play that is deep i would nominate the Civ series or right now on alpha kerbal space program |
Originally posted by austriacus WoW was dumbed down and that is why it has become popular? Are you serious? Even vanilla WoW had huge numbers and was immensely popular. |
Originally posted by Epicent You can check my previous posts if you like, ive never bashed WoW. I also played for maybe 3 weeks, got no sentimental atachment to it. But theres no more to WoW than meets the eye. Creating an optimal skill build was always pretty easy, relies on the trinity for all its high end content, set rotations of skills for everyone, lower penalty in death etc. When you can predict exactly how something will go by not even watching it 90% of the time, then its not very deep. |
Quality is in the eye of the beholder which seems to be something that the majority of posters on this forum are easily confused by. If you can give me a single reasons as to why WoW is mediocre then I will be proven wrong, but keep in mind the reasons have to be facts and not your opinion. You can't do it. You think WoW lacks depth. I don't really care about depth. Having an opinion and defending it is fine, but you can't state, as a fact, that a certain game is mediocre. It is mediocre based on your previous experiences with the genre, but someone else will have a completely different viewpoint because they have a completely different background. |
Originally posted by Epicent When i say WoW im including its vanilla time. It was indeed less deep than games before it, thats why it rose in popularity so fast. By 2005 it had about 1 million subs, unheard of at the time. Rest exp, less downtime between fights, lower death penalties etc, were the main contributions to this. |
Originally posted by austriacus See, you're doing it again. You are just stating it is dumbed down without offering anything to back it up. You call it mediocre because... I think it's because you believe it to be fact. I'm writing a web series with one of my buddies about EQ using EQ 1999 and EQ might be the ultimate in dumbed down experiences in my opinion. While relentless in it's punishment for death and it's xp curve, it actually plays like retarded turtle. That came before WoW. I mean, if we are talking straight gameplay, WoW blew a lot of those older MMOs out of the water. I agree that WoW made their game more accessible. But accessibility does not equal shallow, dumbed down or mediocre. It did open the doors for the genre and it has probably had too much influence on what was made after it. But that does not equal what you are saying. You are saying mediocre without actually saying why. Mainsteam is not always very shallow. That might be one of the most ridiculous points I've ever read. Was Radiohead shallow? What about some of the great comedians? Was George Carlin shallow? Was The Godfather shallow? Was A Tale of Two Cities shallow? Going outside of the genre to find a game seems a little strange since the OP actually asked for an MMORPG. But whatever. I play Civ too and there are a ton of great single player experiences you can have. Just like, in my opinion, there are a lot of great MMORPG experiences you can have. SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
Originally posted by simsalabim77 I want to point out to you something that you and coldog might be missing. Ive never said previous mmos werent mediocre either(notice i said games). MMOs until recently were glorified chat rooms. Most were bad designed games with lots of problems. A game can be deep and still mediocre. A game doesnt need to be deep to be good. Maybe my sentecne construction at the begginign didnt make it ovious(english isnt my first language sorry) But when i used the lady gaga and pewdiepie thing to say it doesnt make them any good i was trying to just point out that saying something is good because a lot of other people like it its not very smart to the op |
Originally posted by austriacus You're completely missing the point, but that's okay. |
Originally posted by austriacus None of those things means it has less depth. Maybe that's where the disconnection is. You think that harsh death penalties, harsher leveling curves and more downtime between fight = depth. Depth requires that choices be made. In your examples, there are no choices to be made. Wait... here, watch this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/depth-vs.-complexity SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
Real MMO players don't take the WoW bashers seriously. Obviously they are bashing WoW to overcompensate for something. Just like middle aged men buy fancy sports cars to overcompensate certain limitations they have. I'm willing to bet very few of these 'WoW bashers" were very good at whatever MMO they deem superior. WoW is popular for a reason. Being a shallow shell of a game isn't one of them. |
Originally posted by colddog04 When you know before an encounter that you will recover HP quickly or that you will not take heavy loses after a death you are indeed taking less choices because theres less factors you have to consider for your next action I watch extra credits religiously no need to point it out to me. |
Originally posted by austriacus Ok, so we've reduced it to one thing. Health recovery. You are saying that slow health recovery has more depth than fast health recovery and that WoW has less depth than previous games because your health recovers faster than those games. So lets use your example with a melee class. I would say that you actually have more actions to consider with fast health recovery. If your health recovers quickly, you can kill or wait. If your health recovers slowly, you can only wait. Under your conditions (which I personally don't think constitute depth), WoW has more depth. SWTOR is the greatest mmo ever! |
So, the original post was asking for a recommendation for an MMORPG that could spark his interest. He liked Wrath of the Lich King in WOW, which is an example of his gameplay style.. This thread has turned into a WOW bashfest. Lets get back on topic. I recommend waiting for Wildstar and The Elder Scrolls Online. I really do not see very many games with the storyline and depth that WOTLK gave us. But, Guildwars2 certainly has alot of good elements that could keep you very entertained until one of these other games launch. |


text:
see more
More like this
Wyotech-Oakland Campus
9636 Earhart Rd, North Field Oakland, CA 94621
(510) 569-8436
Wyotech-Oakland Campus is a university in Oakland, CA.
The school is on the continuous calendar system.
There are 340 undergraduate students at Wyotech-Oakland Campus.
The school has its own library and participates in Title IV federal financial aid programs for those who qualify.more


text:
Posted at 5:15 AM on May 11, 2009
by Dale Connelly
(26 Comments)
I'm interested in the latest Hubble Space Telescope repair mission. It combines two things I like a lot. Outer space. And people who know how to fix things.
My father is a man who likes to immerse himself in a repair job. I spent my youth holding a flashlight over the open engine compartment of a '65 Corvair or a '68 Chrysler New Yorker, training the beam on the *#!* fuel pump or the #%*! master cylinder, fetching a ¼ inch socket or a gasket or a rag to mop up some dripping oil. It was tedious work, requiring patience and focus, like running a space mission.
I did OK on the patience part.
I'll admit my focus drifted.
But things were spiced up by the grunting and some colorful language that sometimes came shooting up from underneath the vehicle. I hope NASA doesn't clamp down on the cursing. It's an important part of any maintenance job. Cursing helps the mechanic deal with a wide range of common frustrations - parts that won't detatch and places that are too tiny to reach, tools that won't work or worse - can't be found.
In my father's garage, it seemed that once a tool was set down, it was likely to disappear. In outer space, they literally float away. I know what that's like.
Because my only job to hold the flashlight and fetch sockets, I never did learn to be good at fixing things, and my auto repair victories are rare. The most recent big success was replacing a radio antenna in a 1993 Camry last summer. I still get a little dizzy thinking about it, because I had to lay across the driver's seat with my head down where the accelerator pedal is. For 20 minutes. You can't walk a straight line right after doing that, but it was worth the trouble.
In a throw-away society where people are encouraged to replace worn out things rather than repair them, we are going cold turkey on a decades-long new stuff spending binge, and the average person who can fix something and extend its life is a geniuine folk hero.
Anyone have a story to tell about an extremely satisfying repair on something you might otherwise have thrown away?


text:
(1) Thu Jul 15 2004 18:39 PST Relief:
Well, I checked my DPR, and econ shows up under major requirements as a "D" but it still says "complete." So I guess I am ok. My second thought was, it was a waste of bother to take it again since I would have been ok in the first place...but then, I guess I didn't bother myself with it all that much, did I? :o)
- Comments:
Posted by Chris at Fri Jul 16 2004 18:58
Maybe if you had the right book the second time around it would have been less of a waste of bother.


text:
SC Johnson
More from SC Johnson
Four families will lead the SC Johnson #30GreenDays Challenge by making one simple, green change every day and sharing their experiences online.
Ease into new ways to green up, save up and clean up creatively with these 10 simple ways to take your next get-together to the next level. #30GreenDays
Take a photo tour of 10 different facilities around the world where SC Johnson is using renewable energy and learn about their positive environmental impact.
Two wind turbines at company's largest manufacturing facility cut nearly 6,000 metric tons of GHGs, produce 8 million KWh of electricity.
SC Johnson's efforts focus on making life better through philanthropy, education about mosquito-borne diseases and investments in families.
SC Johnson is committed to using more renewable energy around the globe and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing waste and increasing recycling are a priority for both SC Johnson operations and SC Johnson products.
SC Johnson works every day to develop winning products while continuously improving ingredients and packaging choices.
Tips for how to immediately reduce your energy use at home to lessen your environmental impact and save money at the same time.
New cleaning system from SC Johnson offers a fast and easy solution with 3 concentrated formulas in a single waste-reducing sprayer.


text:
Stormwater hits home! Your everyday household activities can have a huge impact on stormwater quality and the environment. A few examples of everyday household activities which may contribute to stormwater pollution are vehicle maintenance (e.g. vehicle leaks, oil change, etc.), vehicle washing, pool backwashing/draining, lawn maintenance (e.g. use of fertilizers/pesticides, yard waste) and pet waste. However, by using some Best Management Practices (BMPs), you too can help prevent stormwater pollution.
Remember, we all need to do our part to help prevent stormwater pollution.
Here are some BMPs for household activities which can help prevent stormwater pollution:
Improper Discharge of Pool
Well Maintained Pool
Proper Pool Discharge


text:
The second annual Crab Feed and fundraiser for the Nevada County Agriculture Youth Boosters is scheduled for 6 p.m. Jan. 12 at St. Canice Hall, 236 Reward St. in Nevada City. Dinner is served at 7 p.m — fresh crab provided by Little Fish Co. and pasta provided by Goombas. Meal also includes salad, bread, a dessert auction and a no-host bar. Tickets are $40 in advance, and those who reserve a table for $380 will get two complimentary bottles of wine. Last year's event sold out, so reservations should be made early. For information, call (530) 268-0241.
Weight loss support group welcomes members
The Western Sierra Medical Clinic is sponsoring a weight loss support group from 1 to 2 p.m. Mondays at Miners Family Health Center, 1345 Whispering Pines Lane in Grass Valley.
Meetings will be facilitated by licensed clinical social worker Joanna Snider-Lipa. For information, call (530) 273-9339.
Diapers urgently needed
The Nevada County Diaper Project is asking the community to assist in keeping the Interfaith Food Ministry and Family Resource Center's shelves stocked with diapers by donating either packages of diapers or money to purchase them. The demand has become overwhelming, and help is needed to get us through the holiday season.
Please drop off boxes of diapers at the IFM facility at 551 Whiting Street or Pampered Earth, 124 South Auburn St. in Grass Valley or send a donation to Nevada County Diaper Project, P. O. Box 912, Penn Valley, CA 95946.


text:
The possibility of seeing AC Milan striker Mario Balotelli wearing another iconic red uniform is all the more bolstered as he was spotted in New York, where Arsenal will be holding their pre-season camp.
Several photos of the 23-year-old, together with fiancée Fanny Neguesha, have been uploaded on the latter's social media account.
He even had a shot taken with the Gunners logo in the background.
The north Londoners left for the big apple on Wednesday, with Arsene Wenger thrilled to visit a nation whose people are slowly embracing the game of football - or soccer as how they call it.
"I can tell you something I'm completely convinced of - before people didn't know who you were, but now every American guy I met knows Arsenal, knows England and knows the Premier League," the French mentor told Arsenal.com.
"The enthusiasm about soccer in the States is new but big. I expect us to have a good crowd there."
"It is the perfect time to go. I always wanted to go with Arsenal to the United States, so I'm personally very happy to do it."
For more football news, follow IBTimes Sport on Twitter.


text:
RDBMS Server
Blue Core Research's "NO BULL" buyers guide to Database Auditing products - Part 12: Change Control
Submitted by tduong on Sat, 2010-11-20 15:30Change control is an important part of being compliant. You will not pass an audit without having a change control process in place. One of the requirements you might face is to monitor all changes in the database and make sure they all came from the change control process.
- tduong's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Blue Core Research's "NO BULL" buyers guide to Database Auditing products - Part 13: Application user Identification
Submitted by tduong on Mon, 2010-11-08 22:23There is a common misconception about the value of application user identification. The reason for the misconception is the marketing of this feature by some companies, but we'll get into all that later. First lets examine the idea.
Most applications have a single database user that they use to access the data. To enforce security, these applications maintain an internal list of users and roles that they enforce. In other words – instead of using the database security features, that functionality is performed by the application. The result is that when you look at the database activity you see everything coming from a single user. An obvious requirement is to map the database activity to the application user as it is seen by the application.
- tduong's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Blue Core Research's "NO BULL" buyers guide to Database Auditing products - Part 14: Oracle and MS SQL Server
Submitted by tduong on Fri, 2010-10-29 00:59Most companies have more than one database vendor. Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, MySQL and Sybase are all common depending on the company, and some use less common databases such as TeraData. There are, however, some important questions to ask before you dive into your cross platform heterogeneous requirements:
* Which databases do you actually need to audit? Is all your SOX, PCI, HIPAA or other sensitive data scattered across all these databases, or is your SQL Server just used for small home-grown apps that do not have any auditing requirements?
* Do you have the same DBA or team managing all these databases, or are they different teams that will end up managing auditing solutions independently? In the later case you are better off choosing the best solution for each database rather than mandating a single solution no one is too happy with.
- tduong's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Hints on OCA/OCP exam technique
Submitted by John Watson on Wed, 2010-06-30 13:11Part of my job is teaching for Oracle University, and I'm often asked about OCP exam technique. Here are a few hints. The OCM exam is very different, and the confidentiality rules forbid me from discussing it, so please don't ask.
- John Watson's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
11.2 Grid Infrastructure networking enhancements
Submitted by John Watson on Mon, 2010-03-15 04:01This note is an attempt to summarize some of the 11gR2 facilities that allow for greater virtualization of resources, reducing reliance on networking facilities supplied by the operating system. All corrections welcome.
- John Watson's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Quick overview of the state of an Oracle database.
Submitted by David Lozano Lucas on Fri, 2010-01-29 08:57One common problem: You are allocated to a new project and find that nothing is documented.
By running this script, you get four important points of information: Tablespace status, installed products and its versions, oracle parameters different to default and status of tables:
spool report.txt
prompt You can leave this script copied at $ORACLE_HOME\rdbms\admin\
prompt - Remember to use also statspack o bstats depending on the Oracle version
prompt - Review alert.log
prompt TABLESPACE STATUS
Select t.tablespace_name "Table
- David Lozano Lucas's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Install Oracle on Windows 64 Bit and migrate Oracle Windows from 32 bit to 64 bit
Submitted by maheritc on Tue, 2010-01-12 18:40Installing Oracle 11g 64 bit on Windows Server 2008
When installing Oracle 184.108.40.206 on Windows Server 2008 64 bit, the installer gave a an error saying the Operating System ( OS ) was not supporting. In looking at the install log on c:\program files\oracle, I noticed the installer thinks the OS is windows vista.
To work around this error, I selected the check box for user verified and continued with the install.
- maheritc's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more
Use of the SQL Tuning Advisor
Submitted by David Lozano Lucas on Fri, 2010-01-08 08:56Use the SQL Tuning Advisor for tuning SQL statements. Typically, you can run this advisor in response to an ADDM performance finding that recommends its use.
Additionally, you can run the SQL Tuning Advisor on the most resource-intensive SQL statements, referred to as top SQL, from the cursor cache or the AWR, as well as on a user-defined SQL workload.
To run the SQL Tuning Advisor do the following:
Moving multiple tables and indexes between tablespaces at once
Submitted by David Lozano Lucas on Fri, 2009-10-23 05:30Here I present a simple query to use when we want to move the tables and indexes of several users at once.
To make it one by one:
ALTER TABLE xxxxxx MOVE TABLESPACE TEST; ALTER INDEX xxxxxx REBUILD TABLESPACE TEST;
To move data from multiple owners.
Saluting. Start - Stop script
Submitted by David Lozano Lucas on Tue, 2009-10-13 08:06It is an English word that sounds very funny in Spanish, almost unreal.
Well, just wanted to brand the blog with a first entry to introduce myself.
I work as an Oracle and SQL Server DBA (mixed profile, they call it -
concerns twice for the same pay, on me).
Here I will write "how to" articles as they emerge in my day to day.
If you can read Spanish, check out the blog I maintain for a little more time http://blog.davidlozanolucas.com/.
Here is a script to start/stop Oracle databases running in Unix:
# =======================================================================
- David Lozano Lucas's blog
- Login to post comments
- Read more


text:
More charges in Modesto triple homicide
Prosecutors have filed criminal charges against three people accused of acting as accessories in shooting deaths of a man and two teenagers inside a two-story house in a typically quiet east Modesto neighborhood near Creekside Golf Course eight months ago.
Malissa Boldroff, 20, Jose Manuel Obregon, 19, and Abbygail Castillo, 26, are suspected of harboring, concealing, or aiding a suspect involved in the shooting deaths of Edward Reinig, 31, Alyxandria Tellez, 19, and David Siebels, 16.
Boldroff and Obregon appeared for a pretrial hearing this morning in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Authorities were still searching for Castillo.
Deputy District Attorney Marlisa Ferreira informed the judge that she will be seeking higher bail amounts for Boldroff and Obregon.
Judge Dawna Reeves scheduled the defendants to return to court Nov. 29 to review their bail. Boldroff has already been released on bail; Obregon remains in custody at the Stanislaus County Jail.
No other arrests have been made in connection with the triple homicide, which occurred about 3:40 a.m. March 3 at the home in the 700 block of North McClure Road.
Officers responded to a report of the shooting and found the three gunshot victims inside the house. Reinig, Tellez and Siebels were pronounced dead at the scene.
Bee staff writer Rosalio Ahumada can be reached at email@example.com or (209)
Join the Discussion
The Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.


text:
Maestro C 10" tablet offers 10 hours run with Windows 7, and 16 on Android, has a cool kickstand
0. phoneArena 18 Apr 2011, 09:00 posted on
Powered by the new Intel Oak Trail chipset, Evolve III's 10" slate boots Win 7, Android and MeeGo. It will be offered in a 4G version, and promises 10+ hours of Windows 7 computing, 16+ in Android mode...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
posted on 18 Apr 2011, 20:21
1. doubler86 (Posts: 320; Member since: 26 Jan 2011)
Wow that's pretty impressive. I love how the case is a magnetic keyboard. Plus having the two best OS'es in one tablet is what everyone's been wanting. A PC side and an Android side. Very interesting, hopefully we hear more about it and how it switches and possible release dates