text:
FCC's REPORT AND ORDER ON IMPROVING WIRELESS SITING POLICIES
Part 1 – Changes to Federal Rules – Exclusions from Certain Federal Requirements
The FCC's Report and Order (the "Order") released October 21, 2014 on Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies covered a lot of topics associated with local regulatory control of wireless siting issues, as well as a number of federal regulatory issues; our goal here in Part 1 is to summarize as clearly as feasible the decisions made by the FCC in this Report and Order regarding federal regulations and describe how those decisions may impact your local regulatory abilities when it comes to wireless facility siting. In Part 2, we'll look at the issue of Temporary Towers and how the FCC deals with them relative to federal regulations, and in Part 3, we'll deal with the rest of the Order and its impact on local regulatory siting issues.
The Order tackles a number of federal regulatory issues, particularly involving DAS (Distributed Antenna Systems) and small-cell systems.
Currently, anyone constructing a tower or wireless facility has to meet certain federal regulatory standards to comply with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The wireless industry asked the FCC to consider reducing or eliminating some of the NEPA and NHPA requirements for DAS and small-cell systems, because their "footprint" was much less than typical wireless facilities.
The Order makes 3 changes as it relates to NEPA regulations:
- It amends the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers to clarify that it includes equipment associated with the antennas (such as wiring, cabling, cabinets, and backup-power equipment), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior,
- It amends the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers; and
- It adopts a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles, in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes, where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses.
NONE of these changes to the NEPA rules affect the existing RF exposure requirements in other federal regulations, which remain in full force and effect and applicable to all types of wireless facilities.
The Order then goes on to adopt two (2) new exclusions to the provisions of Section 106 of NHPA;
First, it excludes from Section 106 review collocations on utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,that meet the following conditions: (1) the antenna and any associated equipment, when measured together with any other wireless deployments on the same structure, meet specified size limitations; and (2) the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance.
Second, it excludes collocations on buildings and any other non-tower structures that meet the following conditions: (1) there is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2) the collocation meets one of three alternative criteria for visibility, location, and size, as described in detail below; (3) the new antenna complies with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and (4) the deployment involves no new ground disturbance.
The Order continues by saying that these two NHPA collocation exclusions are limited, however, to deployments that are not (1) inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2) located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or (3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words, these two new targeted exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required only because the structures are more than 45 years old. In addition to these two new exclusions, the Order further clarified that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings.
The FCC said they would continue to look at adopting further exclusions but needed to study the issue further and promised further action in 18-24 months on this particular point.
After stating the exclusions above, the Order discusses how to define a "small cell" and "DAS systems". According to the FCC;
- "Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network, typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces…Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells, networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies, thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint."
- "A DAS network distributes RF signals from transceivers at a central hub to a specific service area with poor coverage or inadequate capacity. As typically configured, a DAS network consists of: (1) a number of remote communications nodes deployed throughout the desired coverage area, each including at least one antenna for transmission and reception; (2) a high capacity signal transport medium (typically fiber optic cable) connecting each node to a central communications hub site; and (3) radio transceivers located at the hub site (rather than at each individual node as is the case for small cells) to process or control the communications signals transmitted and received through the antennas.[1] DAS deployments offer robust and broad coverage without creating the visual and physical impacts of multiple macrocells. Further, whereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces."
The Order then provides additional details about the NEPA exclusions discussed above before moving onto defining certain terms and their applicability to NEPA and NHPA provisions. First up was "antenna" which is entitled to certain categorical exclusions from NEPA processing. The Order clarifies that the word "antenna" for purposes of the NEPA categorical exclusion to mean "all on-site equipment associated with the antenna, including transceivers, cables, wiring, converters, power supplies, equipment cabinets and shelters, and other comparable equipment." In particular, the Order goes into great detail to stress that the categorical exclusion also applies to backup generators that are part of an installation. The Order further clarified that this NEPA exclusion for "antennas" mounted to a building also included antennas mounted inside a building, and then broadened the exclusion to include antennas mounted to other man-made structures besides towers and buildings, like utility poles and water towers (after dismissing some municipal concerns about water safety by creating a NEPA exclusion). Finally, the Order expands NEPA exclusions by creating a new exclusion for DAS and small cell facilities located in utility or public rights of way, which:
"…covers construction of wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles, only if: (1) the facility will be located in a right-of-way that is designated by a Federal, State, local, or Tribal government for communications towers, above-ground utility transmission or distribution lines, or any associated structures and equipment; (2) the right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes; and (3) the facility will not constitute a substantial increase in size over existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction."
For purposes of this new exclusion, a "substantial increase in size" means an installation that would:
(1) exceed the height of existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction by more than 10% or twenty feet, whichever is greater;
(2) involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter;
(3) add an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater (except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable); or
(4) involve excavation outside the current site, defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on which the facility is to be deployed, whichever is more restrictive.
The foregoing represents a summary of the changes the Order made relative to NEPA regulations and the new exclusions it created to the existing requirement of applicants to undertake Environmental Assessments when seeking to construct wireless facilities. This represents a reduction of federal regulation but doesn't specifically address any local regulatory issues.
The Order continues by addressing NHPA and Section 106 obligations and new exclusions to those federal regulations. Section 106 requires certain wireless facilities, if they have the potential to adversely affect historic properties, to submit an Environmental Assessment, even if it wasn't required under NEPA because of an otherwise applicable exclusion. In determining whether an application has the potential to affect historic properties, the FCC has previously established certain exclusions from Section 106 review, including collocations on towers (subject to certain exceptions) as well as buildings or other non-tower structures outside of historic districts unless: (1) the structure is inside the boundary of a historic district, or it is within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district and the antenna is visible from ground level within the historic district; (2) the structure is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; (3) the structure is over 45 years old; or (4) the proposed collocation is the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties.
With that background, the Order created a number of new exclusions from NHPA review;
- Collocations on existing utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers, if: (1) the collocated antenna and associated equipment, when measured together with any other wireless deployment on the same structure, meet specified size limitations; and (2) the collocation will involve no new ground disturbance.
- Collocations on a building or other non-tower structure, if: (1) there is an existing antenna on the building or other structure; (2) certain requirements of proximity to the existing antenna are met, depending on the visibility and size of the new deployment; (3) the new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and (4) the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance.
- With respect to both of these categories—utility structures and other non-tower structures—the exclusion is extended only to deployments that are not (1) inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2) located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or (3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words, these exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old.
Finally, the FCC clarified that the existing exclusions regarding collocations of wireless facilities on building for NHPA purposes also applied to wireless facilities located within buildings.
All of the foregoing is an effort by the FCC to make it easier for wireless providers to deploy infrastructure, particularly small cell systems and DAS systems, by creating exclusions to certain federal environmental and historical regulations for these types of systems. While this part of the Order does not directly impact local regulatory issues, some of the definitions in this part of the Order must be considered for inclusion in your local regulations so that there can be apples to apples comparisons when reviewing wireless facility applications.
Part 2 – Changes to Federal Rules – Temporary Towers
In Part 2, we're going to talk about the changes the Order has made when it comes to temporary towers (sometimes called "COWs" for "cellular on wheels").
First, some background. Many towers require registration and approval from both the FCC and the FAA. The FAA issues what is called a "No Hazard Determination" and the FCC issues an Antenna Structure Registration ("ASR"). Typically, if your tower is high enough to require a No Hazard Determination from the FAA, you also have to get an ASR from the FCC. To get an ASR, you have to jump through certain hoops.
Previously, the FCC required owners of proposed towers, including temporary towers, that require registration in the ASR system to provide local and national notice prior to submitting a completed ASR application. Typically, the ASR notice process takes approximately 40 days, as applicants must provide public notice, allow 30 days for the filing of any requests for further environmental review, and then wait for the FCC to clear the tower for construction.
There are some existing exceptions to this rule, and the wireless industry had previously asked the FCC to create an exemption for temporary towers so that they could be put up quickly either prior to a scheduled event or after an emergency situation. The FCC did previously give the industry an interim exemption from the ASR public notice requirements in 2013 for temporary towers that:
(1) would be in use for 60 days or less,
(2) required the filing of a Form 7460-1 with the FAA, (the "No Hazard Determination"),
(3) did not require marking or lighting pursuant to FAA regulations, and
(4) would be less than 200 feet in height.
In considering making the interim exemption to the ASR public notice requirement permanent in some form, the FCC in the Order looked at the situations where temporary towers were typically deployed, covering a variety of scenarios:
(1) newsworthy events that occur without any prior notice and require immediate deployments, such as natural disasters;
(2) other events that occur with less than 30 days advance notice, such as certain political events and parades for sports teams;
(3) events for which the timing and general location are known in advance, but where the specific locations for temporary towers are unknown until days before the event, such as state fairs and major sporting events; and
(4) situations in which unexpected difficulties with permanent structures require the deployment of temporary towers while permanent facilities are repaired.
After considering these issues, the Order granted a permanent exemption from the ASR public notification requirements, with certain conditions. The exemption will only be applicable to temporary towers that:
(1) will be in place for no more than 60 days;
(2) require notice of construction to the FAA;
(3) do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations;
(4) will be less than 200 feet in height; and
(5) will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth (excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms) by at least two feet.
In addition, the Order stated that the exemption could NOT be used if the temporary tower would otherwise trigger an Environmental Assessment ("EA") under NEPA (discussed in Part 1). For example, if the construction of a temporary tower created a hazard to migratory birds, and thus triggered the need for an EA, the applicant would still have to go through the ASR application process and provide national and local notice for the required 30 days.
The Order further clarified that temporary towers that qualified for this exemption would likewise not be obligated to provide post-construction notice in the ASR process. Previously, if you got an exemption from the pre-construction ASR notification because of an emergency, you would later have to still provide that notification and wait the required 30 day period because the temporary emergency deployment could be for an extended period of time. Since the time limit for the facilities eligible for the exemption is only 60 days (subject to extension as discussed below) the FCC saw no reason to compel post-construction notice since the tower would be gone by the time the notification period was completed.
The FCC did permit temporary towers eligible for the exemption to have a single extension of up to 60 days, and only upon a showing that the need to keep the exempted temporary tower in place beyond the initial 60 days is due to changed circumstances or information that emerged after the exempted temporary tower was deployed.
The FCC pointed out that it had several communities express concerns that a temporary towers exemption would eliminate local review (including local environmental review) and antenna structure registration requirements. It made it clear that the exemption it was adopting did neither of those things, saying:
"First, the temporary towers measure does not exempt any deployment from any otherwise applicable requirement under our rules to provide notice to the FAA, to obtain an FAA "no-hazard" determination, or to complete antenna structure registration. Nor does the exemption impact any local requirements. Further, we provide, as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM, that towers eligible for the notification exemption are still required to comply with the Commission's other NEPA requirements, including filing an EA in any of the environmentally sensitive circumstances identified by our rules."
Finally, to address concerns for abuse of the rule by the wireless industry in putting up and taking down "temporary towers" every 60 days to avoid the notice requirement, the Order requires that at least 30 days must pass following the removal of one exempted temporary tower before the same applicant may rely on the exemption for another temporary tower covering substantially the same service area.
So what should be your take-away from this part of the Order?
- The exemption granted by the FCC to certain temporary towers has NO effect at all upon your local regulations, which should address temporary towers; and
- The FCC's defined parameters of eligible temporary towers should be used by local government in defining the type of temporary towers that could be put up in your community without significant regulation, for no longer than the prescribed period of time (60 days).
Tracking the FCC's standards in your local regulations gives you a much more defensible position when it comes to someone challenging the reasonableness of those regulations because you've adopted the same standards as the FCC has used.
Part 3 – The Big Lebowski – Implementing Federal Law on Local Siting
Now let's tackle the big issues for local government in Part 3 of our breakdown of the Order. We're going to break this up into two smaller sections, because there's a lot of material here:
Section A – Defining the Terms
In the final portion of the Order, the FCC takes up multiple issues arising from the various federal laws and rules that have been passed affecting wireless infrastructure siting since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. For clarity purposes going forward, let's define what we're going to be talking about:
- Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act – this "preserved local zoning authority" but required local government to not discriminate amongst wireless providers and not block the deployment of wireless networks – we'll call this "Section 704" throughout;
- The 2008 Declaratory Ruling by the FCC – this established at timeline for local government to process both collocation applications (90 days) and new wireless applications (150 days), which we'll call the "Shot Clock" because everyone else does.
- Section 6409 of the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act. This mandated that local governments shall approve and may not deny an eligible facilities request for collocation if there is not a "substantial change" in an existing "tower or base station". But Congress failed to define many of the parameters. We'll call this "Section 6409". The relevant portions of text from Section 6409 is as follows: "[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or any other provision of law, a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. An eligible facilities request is one that requests modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves (a) collocation of new transmission equipment; (b) removal of transmission equipment; or (c) replacement of transmission equipment
The Order first sets its sights on defining and clarifying Section 6409, and so we'll focus on that in this Section. After acknowledging that Congress didn't provide a lot of guidance on what it meant by some of the terms used in Section 6409, the FCC decided to provide some definitions and rules of interpretation, saying that "that clarifying the terms in Section 6409 will eliminate ambiguities in interpretation and thus facilitate the zoning process for collocations and other modifications to existing towers and base stations."
The FCC then started by providing definitions for:
- "wireless tower or base station,"
- "transmission equipment,"
- "collocation," and
- "substantially changes the physical dimensions."
Defining these terms, according to the FCC, will enable better navigation through the Section 6409 language above to determine if an application "shall be approved".
So, what is "transmission equipment" and what is a "wireless tower or base station"? According to the FCC, "transmission equipment" for purposes of Section 6409 means ) any equipment used in connection with any Commission-authorized wireless transmission, licensed or unlicensed, terrestrial or satellite, including commercial mobile, private mobile, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul or fixed broadband.
A "wireless tower or base station" then is any infrastructure that supports equipment used for all Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmissions.
Standing alone, this represents a HUGE expansion of the realm of possible structures that collocated wireless communications facilities could be placed on with compulsory approval under Section 6409. For example, using this language, a commercial wireless provider could argue for a Section 6409 compulsory approval of their equipment on a residential home with a amateur wireless tower on it or even a DirecTV satellite dish (the home being infrastructure supporting equipment used for Commission licensed wireless transmissions). As we'll see later, the FCC did provide some limitation on this definition.
The Order also reaffirms that broadcasting infrastructure is also considered a wireless tower or base station for purposes of Section 6409 AND that transmission equipment includes antennas, cables, and auxiliary power equipment, such as generators.
Getting even more specific, the Order defines a "tower" as a structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities.
It defines "base station" as equipment and non-tower supporting structure at a fixed location that enable Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network.
Going further, it then says an "existing base station" is a structure that, at the time of the application, supports or houses an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a "base station" as defined above, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support.
The Order points out its agreement with local government's comments that by using the term "existing," Section 6409(a) preserves local government authority to initially determine what types of structures are appropriate for supporting wireless transmission equipment if the structures were not built (and thus were not previously approved) for the sole or primary purpose of supporting such equipment. In other words, there's got to be some kind of equipment in place in order to support a collocation request. However, as noted above, the universe of type of equipment has expanded dramatically because of the way it has been defined.
The FCC did throw a bone to local government at the end of this part, saying
"the term "existing" requires that wireless towers or base stations have been reviewed and approved under the applicable local zoning or siting process or that the deployment of existing transmission equipment on the structure received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory approval (e.g., authorization from a State public utility commission). Thus, if a tower or base station was constructed or deployed without proper review, was not required to undergo siting review, or does not support transmission equipment that received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory approval, the governing authority is not obligated to grant a collocation application under Section 6409(a)."
In other words, a collocation application under Section 6409 has to be for a location that has at least once previously been reviewed for some type of local regulatory approval of communications services.
They went on to state that a wireless tower that does not have a permit because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is an "existing" tower, finding that interpretation of "existing" is consistent with the purposes of Section 6409(a) to facilitate deployments that are unlikely to conflict with local land use policies and preserve State and local authority to review proposals that may have impacts.
Then to bring it all home, and clarify some of the definitions above, the FCC stated (when talking about the use of "existing" above) that this definition would be beneficial to local government because:
"First, it ensures that a facility that was deployed unlawfully does not trigger a municipality's obligation to approve modification requests under Section 6409(a). Further, it guarantees that the structure has already been the subject of State or local review. This interpretation should also minimize incentives for governing authorities to increase zoning or other regulatory review in cases where minimally intrusive deployments are currently permitted without review. For example, under this interpretation, a homeowner's deployment of a femtocell that is not subject to any zoning or other regulatory requirements will not constitute a base station deployment that triggers obligations to allow deployments of other types of facilities at that location under Section 6409(a). By thus preserving State and local authority to review the first base station deployment that brings any non-tower structure within the scope of Section 6409(a), we ensure that subsequent collocations of additional transmission equipment on that structure will be consistent with congressional intent that deployments subject to Section 6409(a) will not pose a threat of harm to local land use values.
So that's a little bit of a relief – when we talked above about what constituted a wireless tower or base station, remember the FCC's new definition expanded the universe of possible facilities significantly. In this final portion of the definitions of these items, the FCC clarified that only those wireless towers or base stations that have undergone zoning or some other regulatory review will be eligible for processing of Section 6409 collocations. This, however, does not change the scenario we described above, because if an amateur facility on a residential structure is granted zoning approval, in theory a commercial wireless facility could now be located on that same "tower or base station" using Section 6409. The net effect of this is that local government is going to have to more stringently regulate and approve a lot of OTHER type of infrastructure initially because of its potential to be used for commercial wireless collocations.
And speaking of collocation, the FCC then turned to the remaining definitions.
For collocation, the Order defaults back to prior FCC regulations in coming up with a definition, and said it defined:
"collocation" under Section 6409(a) as "the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes." The term "eligible support structure" means any structure that falls within the definitions of "tower" or "base station," as discussed above. Consistent with the language of Section 6409(a)(2)(A)-(C), we also find that a "modification" of a "wireless tower or base station" includes collocation, removal, or replacement of an antenna or any other transmission equipment associated with the supporting structure."
Collocation, for the purposes of Section 6409, does NOT mean only on infrastructure that already had transmission equipment installed on it. But in the same way the FCC went through its contortions to define base station and tower as being something that's been through some sort of prior local zoning approval, the same theory applies here. As long as the structure has been through some sort of local zoning approval, putting wireless equipment on it will generally be a "collocation" for Section 6409 purposes, subject to the final standards about not substantially changing the structure.
The FCC's final word on this is as follows: "….Section 6409(a) will apply only where a State or local government has approved the construction of a structure with the sole or primary purpose of supporting covered transmission equipment (i.e., a wireless tower) or, with regard to other support structures, where the State or local government has previously approved the siting of transmission equipment that is part of a base station on that structure. In both cases, the State or local government must decide that the site is suitable for wireless facility deployment before Section 6409(a) will apply." Note also that the Order affirmed that removal or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing structure, AND the strengthening/hardening of the underlying structure for collocation, replacement or removal of equipment could also be an eligible facilities request and thus subject to Section 6409 compulsory approval, but that replacement of underlying infrastructure was NOT covered by this definition. And of course, any such "strengthening" or "hardening" of the structure would have to not constitute a "substantial change" to be eligible.
Which takes us to the definition of "substantially change" as used in Section 6409. The Order looked to the existing 4 part FCC definitions of that term, and unbelievably, actually made them more complicated; Under the new FCC definition;
"Specifically, and for the reasons discussed below, we provide that a modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a tower or base station if it meets any of the following criteria:
(1) (a) for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; (b) for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it increases the height of the tower or base station by more than 10% or 10 feet, whichever is greater;
(2) (a) for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; (b) for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet;
(3) it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets;
(4) it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station;
(5) it would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or
(6) it does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding "substantial change" thresholds identified above. We further provide that the changes in height resulting from a modification should be measured from the original support structure in cases where the deployments are or will be separated horizontally, such as on buildings' rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to the passage of Section 6409.
Simple, right? It'll be so easy now to determine if a proposed wireless facility modification constitutes a "substantial change" that makes it ineligible for Section 6409 approval.
Putting aside the sarcasm above, the Order took the existing definition and layered new subparts to it, removed some exceptions, and added two new conditions.
First, for purposes of measuring height and width of modifications, you now have two different standards, depending on whether the existing infrastructure is within a public right of way or not. The stricter parameters for structures within a right of way were imposed to provide greater protection to aesthetics and safety within rights of way. The FCC made a point of stating that these standards would apply to infrastructure that either was built for communications purposes or not, so for example a existing light stanchion and a new DAS pole in the same right of way would be subject to the same standards for determining if a change to either was "substantial".
The Order removed prior exceptions to these height and width limits that existed for interference or weather related reasons and allowed changes in excess of these dimensions to NOT be considered "substantial" for those specified reasons. The FCC said there was no longer any justification for such exceptions.
And most importantly, those height and width changes are measured from the original locally approved wireless infrastructure facility, and not from any interim modifications or changes that may have transpired.
The Order clarified that for the "excavation" component of the test, the word "site" would mean, for towers outside of a public right of way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. For towers within a right of way and all base stations, "site" would mean the "…area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground."
Finally, the Order added two new elements to the definition of "substantial change". One is if the modifications have the effect of defeating or diminishing the concealment aspects of an existing facility, it will be a "substantial change". That seems pretty simple and noncontroversial, and both local government and industry seemed in agreement about that factor. The second new element is more complicated; The FCC said it was agreeing with local government's comments:
"…that a change is substantial if it violates any condition of approval of construction or modification imposed on the applicable wireless tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding "substantial change" thresholds we identify above. In other words, modifications qualify for Section 6409(a) only if they comply, for example, with conditions regarding fencing, access to the site, drainage, height or width increases that exceed the thresholds we adopt above, and other conditions of approval placed on the underlying structure. This approach, we find, properly preserves municipal authority to determine which structures are appropriate for wireless use and under what conditions."
So what does that new standard mean? Well, supposed you have previously approved a non right of way tower to be constructed at 100 feet and approved it conditioned upon it not being able to be increased in height more than 10 feet. A Section 6409 eligible request to collocate and add 20 feet to the tower is made. Since that exceeds your prior conditions (10 feet) but does not violate the "substantial change" standards (10% or 20 feet, whichever is greater), this would NOT be a substantial change, assuming all other factors met the test as well. Now suppose you allowed a 100 foot tower to be built in the same circumstances, but with a 30 foot increase height limitation. A request for collocation to add 30 feet to the tower would ordinarily exceed the "substantial change" definition of 10% or 20 feet and thus would NOT be eligible under Section 6409, but because you allowed an increase to 30 feet, it would still be eligible under Section 6409 because you agreed to broaden the standards when originally approved.
The Order affirms that these standards apply equally to legally nonconforming structures in your jurisdiction. They too will be eligible for Section 6409 modifications.
Finally, the FCC pointed out that wireless facility modifications under Section 6409 should remain subject to building codes and other non-discretionary structural and safety codes. In particular, they clarified that Section 6409 does not "preclude States and localities from continuing to require compliance with generally applicable health and safety requirements on the placement and operation of backup power sources, including noise control ordinances if any."
What does this mean for you as a local government? Well, first and foremost, even if you recently updated your regulations, you're going to have to edit them again since the definitions have all changed. Secondly, and more importantly, because of the broadening of the definition of "tower" and "base station" by the FCC, you are going to have to review and regulate in much greater detail a much broader swath of infrastructure in terms of its initial construction because of its potential to now be used for commercial wireless infrastructure. That means, for example, you may need to now regulate amateur radio operators who ordinarily enjoy a limited federal preemption from regulation (PRB-1, adopted by most states as a statutory preemption) to preclude use of their non-commercial amateur facilities as commercial wireless infrastructure under Section 6409….And they aren't going to be happy about that.
Section B(1) – Time to Act and Remedies for Inaction
To paraphrase Steve Miller, "time keeps on ticking…ticking…into the future". Having established the definitions needed to determine if an application could be processed using Section 6409, the Order then turned to what applicable timeline should be used for the process.
The Order first acknowledged that applications must be provided to local government from parties claiming Section 6409, so that local government has the opportunity to review applications to determine whether they are covered by Section 6409, and if not, whether they should in any case be granted. However, the Order said that (1) the information to be provided in these applications will be limited and (2) the time for review of these applications will be limited.
With respect to application content, the Order says that "local governments may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of [Section 6409]." The Order does NOT say what those reasonably related documents might be, rather that "local governments have considerable flexibility in determining precisely what information or documentation to require…" but that local government "may not require documentation proving the need for the proposed modification or presenting the business case for it."
As to timeline, the Order SHORTENS the prior 90 day collocation timeline under the Shot Clock to 60 DAYS for Section 6409 applications. Local government can toll the 60 day clock by giving notice to the applicant within the first 30 days of incompleteness of their application, but the notice must specify the missing information and supporting documents that are reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of Section 6409. The clock will start again when the applicant re-submits, but can be tolled again if the local government gives notice within 10 days of the resubmission of continued missing material. The Order clarifies also that the 60 day clock for Section 6409 applications continues to run even if your community enacts a moratorium. IF, after reviewing a proposed Section 6409 application, you determine that it isn't eligible for Section 6409 processing because it constitutes a "substantial change" as the Order has now defined that term, then the 90 day timeline from the Shot Clock ruling kicks in, starting from the day you decide the application is not Section 6409 eligible, and you have to process the collocation or modification application under the Shot Clock.
As to what happens if you don't act on a Section 6409 application within 60 days (subject to the tolling provisions above), the Order adopts a "deemed granted" remedy. The Order said Congress was clear in using the "shall approve, and may not deny" language in Section 6409 that if the application is eligible, it must be approved. Thus in the FCC's opinion the "deemed granted" remedy is the only correct choice, though it did add that "…deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the reviewing jurisdiction in writing, after the time period for review by the State or municipal reviewing authority as prescribed in our rules has expired, that the application has been deemed granted."
Although the Order adopts this remedy, it suggests that this remedy isn't necessarily the last word on the subject. Acknowledging that judicial determination may be necessary, the Order goes on to say:
"…Accordingly, we require parties to bring claims related to [Section 6409] in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such claims would appear likely to fall into one of three categories. First, if the State or local authority has denied the application, an applicant might seek to challenge that denial. Second, if an applicant invokes its deemed grant right after the requisite period of State or local authority inaction, that reviewing authority might seek to challenge the deemed grant. Third, an applicant whose application has been deemed granted might seek some form of judicial imprimatur for the grant by filing a request for declaratory judgment or other relief that a court may find appropriate."
In making that determination, the Order said that …. "a State or local authority may challenge an applicant's written assertion of a deemed grant in any court of competent jurisdiction when it believes the underlying application did not meet the criteria in [Section 6409] for mandatory approval, would not comply with applicable building codes or other non-discretionary structural and safety codes, or for other reasons is not appropriately "deemed granted."
So the takeaway from this part of the Order is that Section 6409 applications must be tailored to request permissible information and then must be acted upon quickly in order to avoid a "deemed granted" remedy. This will require local government to change regulations and procedures to avoid the "deemed granted" pitfall. Even with all of that, you will still have the opportunity to go to court to challenge a Section 6409 application.
Section B(2) Government as Landlord
The Order continues by pointing out that Section 6409 applies only to local government in its regulatory capacity and NOT as a landlord. Should you choose in your capacity as a landlord to limit the number and type of applicants on your public property infrastructure, you will not be burdened by Section 6409.
Section B(3) Effective Date
The Order did acknowledge that the changes it was implementing would require changes in local government's procedures, and so the Order's new rules don't take effect until 90 days after publication of the Order in the Federal Register. That has not yet happened, so the earliest effective date will be sometime in early 2015 for these new rules.
Section B(4) "Complete" Applications
Having tackled the big issues, the Order did some housekeeping matters that are somewhat important.
First, as it relates to Section 704 and the Shot Clock ruling, the Order sought to provide clarity as to some issues.
Previously, the Shot Clock timeline was considered to have started running when an application was deemed "complete". But the Order says that is a wrong interpretation. The Shot Clock timeline starts when the application is SUBMITTED. Local government can then "stop" the clock within the initial 30 days by saying the application is incomplete. The time starts running again when the applicant re-submits with the missing information. Local government can then "stop" it again within 10 days of resubmission by again identifying missing information, and it will again start running upon the 2nd resubmission. After that you can't stop the clock because of incompleteness.
In order to stop the clock, local government's request for additional information "must specify the code provision, ordinance, application instruction, or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be submitted." Beyond that guidance, the Order declined to further elaborate on what made a "complete" application.
Section B(5) Moratoria
Just as noted in the discussion above regarding Section 6409's 60 day shot clock, moratoria will likewise not stop the timeline of days for "substantial change" collocations (90) or new towers (150) under the Shot Clock ruling. The Order finds that any
"…moratorium that results in a delay of more than 90 days for a collocation application or 150 days for any other application will be presumptively unreasonable."
If that happens and an applicant goes to court to force a decision because you've not met the Shot Clock timelines, a court is going to look to the FCC and this Order to determine if your moratoria is reasonable and you're going to have to prove how and why it was reasonable. The Order also declined to rule that a moratorium in excess of 6 months was a per se violation of the obligation to act in a reasonable time, leaving that decision up to the courts as well.
Section B(6) DAS & Small Cells
Continuing its grab bag of rulings, the Order rolls on to discuss the applicability of Section 704 and the Shot Clock to DAS & Small Cell installations. The Order makes clear that both of those regulations apply to DAS and Small Cell facilities, including third party facilities that serve as neutral host DAS deployments. So long as the installation is part of " …the provision of personal wireless services, their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes that apply to applications related to other personal wireless service facilities."
Section B(7) Section 704/Shot Clock Definition of Collocation
Moving along to more esoteric material, the Order then considered how to define collocation for purposes of Section 704 and the Shot Clock (as opposed to Section 6409). Remember that for purposes of determining which Shot Clock timeline (90 or 150) to follow, a collocation was defined to mean placing an antenna on an existing structure as long as it did not involve a "substantial increase….in size" as that was defined in other FCC documents.
After first considering adopting the same test as it did above for Section 6409 collocations, the FCC rejected that approach as being too stringent for the Shot Clock purposes. For Section 6409 purposes, the definition was to determine if a local government "shall approve, and may not deny" an application, and thus it needed to be very refined. For the Shot Clock purposes, the FCC decided to keep the original standard it had applied in the Shot Clock proceeding, which is the 4 part standard starting with 10% or 20 foot height increase that you should all be familiar with and should have already integrated into your regulations.
What this means is separate definitions in your regulations for Section 6409 eligible applications and other traditional collocations that are not Section 6409 eligible.
Section B(8) Preferences for Deployments on Municipal Property
In an important nod to local government, the FCC said in the Order that it would NOT find establishment of a preference for siting on public property in local regulations to be a per se violation of Section 704's requirements to not discriminate amongst providers. The Order said while some preferences coupled with onerous regulations could have that effect, those decisions would have to be made on a case by case basis.
As we frequently advocate for establishing preferences on public property (because you can control deployment better as a landlord than as a regulatory entity), the preservation of this ability is an important tool for local government.
Section B(9) Remedies for Shot Clock violations
Finally, the FCC considered whether to change the remedies available for applicants who don't get action on their applications within 90 or 150 days, as applicable, under the Shot Clock ruling. The FCC decided NOT to adopt the "deemed granted" remedy it gave in the Section 6409 context but rather preserve the existing remedy for the applicant to go to court and ask for expedited review of the local government's failure to act, which the FCC said seems to have worked adequately so far.
Thankfully, the FCC called it quits at that point, having addressed all of the issues which it said it would consider when it first issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The FCC considered hundreds of comments from both industry and local government in coming to its findings. Although clearly not everyone is happy about the Order, the FCC did at least clarify a number of murky items that led to different results in different jurisdictions because of different interpretations of what Congress or the FCC "meant" in some of its language.
It is entirely possible that the Order will be challenged by parties in court, much like the Shot Clock was all the way up to the US Supreme Court. However, based on the deference that the Supreme Court gave the FCC in the Shot Clock case, we suspect these new rules will likely stick around until the FCC decides to tweak them further, which may happen sooner than later given some of the changes made here, in particular the expansion of the universe of "eligible facilities" that can support Section 6409 collocations. We think that may have some unintended consequences that may cause the FCC to revisit that issue.
Look for information soon on a webinar we're going to put together to try and cover the highlights of the Order in an hour long presentation. Of course, should you have any specific questions, we're always available to assist.
Thanks for staying on the ride until the end. Please check that you've taken all your belongings before departing the train.


text:
The hunt for a mysterious lottery winner whose photo was released in an effort to find him this week ended just hours after it began.
Bladimir and Marita Agnite of Fremont, Calif., came forward to claim the $52 million Mega Millions jackpot after a friend or relative told Bladimir he had seen his picture on the news.
Speaking to reporters this evening, Bladimir Agnite said he confirmed his win on his computer and then woke up his wife in the middle of the night.
"I said, 'We're wanted — in the lotto," he said.
After she, too, confirmed the win, she said, according to California lottery officials, "I started crying. He hugged me and we just cried and cried."
California lottery officials earlier released a still shot of an unidentified man who turned out to be Bladimir Agnite, dressed in a white T-shirt and sunglasses, buying the winning ticket in the July 27 drawing at a Kwik Stop in Fremont, Calif.
Bladimir Agnite later checked the winning ticket multiple times at Raley's and Safeway stores in the Bay Area, in Northern California, but had not officially come forward to claim the prize, according to the lottery commission.
He said that despite his follow-up checks, he didn't realize he had really won.
The couple could use the money. Bladimir Agnite was laid off from a printing company and Marita Agnite works as a hospital nurse, according to a lottery statement on the winning couple. They plan to use their winnings to buy a house and pay for college for their children, and she plans to keep working.
Mega Millions winners have one year from the time of the drawing to claim their prize.
"The California Lottery truly believes that when a person buys a lottery ticket with the hope and prayer of changing their lives, we should do all we can to connect them with their winnings. We believe this effort will make a lot of Californians very happy," said Russ Lopez, deputy director of corporate communications for the lottery.
The California Lottery said it began sending out photos of all apparent winners of unclaimed prizes recently. In fiscal year 2011-2012, more than $20 million went unclaimed, it said.
Story By ABC News

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Find the best surf spots
This is an interactive map! Use controls to pan and zoom this map.
Datum: WGS84 [ Help ]
Latitude: 3° 50.937' S
User rating (53)
Wannasurf.com is not responsible for the accuracy of the information contained in this guide. You use this guide at your own risk.
Choose your format: please login first
You are free to use Wannasurf.com KML/GPS data files ONLY for your personal use. See Terms of use for more information.
KML file: please login first
Your favourites and future surf spot lists
Cacimba is located in a remote area of the island. The best way to get there is by buggy (rented or cab).
DistanceTake a car
WalkInstant access (< 5min)
Easy to find?Easy to find
Public access?Public access
Special accessDon't know
Alternative name Cacimba
Wave qualityWorld Class
ExperienceExperienced surfers
FrequencySometimes break
BottomFlat rocks with sand
PowerHollow, Fast, Powerful
Normal lengthShort (< 50m)
Good day lengthNormal (50 to 150m)
Good swell directionNorth, NorthWest
Good wind directionSouthWest, South
Swell sizeStarts working at 1.0m-1.5m / 3ft-5ft and holds up to 3m+ / 10ft+
Best tide positionDon't know
Best tide movementDon't know
Week crowdFew surfers
Week-end crowdCrowded
- Rips / undertow
Cacimba is the Brazilian version of Pipeline! This is a fast, hollow and very powerful wave that requires a high technical level from those willing to charge it in a big day. The guy in the pictures is a top 44. In the day those pictures were taken he was one of the only ones having fun there. The other guys in the line up were only experiencing Cacimba's heavy lip in amazing head-first-drops and broken boards.
Relaxed and laid back atmosphere. Localism is inexistent. The whole population of Fernando de Noronha is directly involved with tourism. Local surfers are people who work in the island's hotels, rent boats, guide tourist, etc... Therefore, you will probably have already met some of the local surfers by the time you get into the water.
The bottom of Cacimba do Padre as of most other spots in the island is formed by flat rocks covered by sand. Northern swells start to break in the island by November. However, it is during February and March that waves get into their best formation, as the waves have excavated the sand from the bottom.
Author: Anonymous Contributors (3) They surfed this spot ! (28)
No video available
|No surf trip
By Eduardo , 07-12-2009
Answer - Just one information to Paco: we paid all our debt in 2005, and to Philip: you can't say anything about protecting because you can´t protect your own vegetation, and the majority of our problems started when the portuguese arrived in our contry, so it's not our fault. "hot brasilian surf chick" was just saying that we don't need people of ANY country who disrespect Brasil and incentive the harlotry, but who don't do this is always welcome. (sorry for bad english)
By anonymous , 26-03-2006
Fantastic - this wave is fantastic...is a hawai inside the brasil, tank´s god for this place.Alohaaa.Rodrigo
By anonymous , 21-01-2006
Sad... - {.......in this context, the web is a sad sad place. } Let's all go surfing. Just be glad you don't have to wear a 5/4/3 mil suit. If the leaders of the world can't and won't have peace. Let's all try to get along on our own level.
You can edit this page to correct errors or add new information. If you have any problems regarding this page, Send us feedback.
Wannasurf.com on your mobile
RSS All the RSS feeds of Wannasurf.com
Newsletter All news by email


text:
Six-time reigning world champ ruled out of gruelling event
PADDLEBOARDING: Noosa's six-time reigning paddleboard world champion Jordan Mercer won't defend her crown, after being ruled out with injury.
The 23-year-old has succumbed to a fractured arm, while she has almost recovered from a broken foot which derailed her Ironwoman Series title defence earlier this year.
"I'm heartbroken over not being able to race in Hawaii," she said.
"That event really and truly means a lot to me. On my competitive calendar it's the one I look forward to the most."
Mercer has dominated the 51km Molokai2Oahu Paddleboard World Championships in recent years, winning the previous edition in 5hrs32min.
"It's going to be very strange not being over there." she said.
"The race is a pretty big part of my life so it's going to be different sitting back and missing that whole journey and experience."
She was determined to snare a seventh title later this month but her doctor advised her not too compete.
"I was paddling so well in my training and I thought the Molokai was the light at the end of the tunnel after being out with the foot injury but it's not to be unfortunately," she said.
"The specialist essentially made the call. It's in my best interests to take this time to recover so I can have many years to come with paddling and surf lifesaving."
She said the fracture was likely sustained at the gym.
"I spent so much time on crutches and they (doctors) believe that has created a weakness in my arm and (while) doing exercise in the gym, it's believed I've injured it there," she said.
"I tried my best to work through it and I didn't want to believe something was really bad...but a couple of weeks down the track I knew I had to get it checked out."
A stress fracture in her ulna (forearm) was confirmed.
But Mercer remains optimistic.
Her foot, injured last year, is almost fully recovered and she is keen to race at the International Surfing Association World Paddleboard Championship at Denmark in September before contesting summer surf lifesaving events.
"In a couple of weeks I should be back paddling and swimming," she said.
"I'm really happy with my foot. I've been working so hard to do everything I can to try and help it heal so it is nice to see that it's on track.
"It's definitely been challenging for me. It's something I'm not used to, being so out of sorts, but I've just been trying to remain positive and I have set my sights on some things that are worth working towards.
"I'm happy I have ISA to look forward to....(and) I'm really motivated to be able to do ironwoman racing again."
Mercer won surf lifesaving's professional series in 2015/2016, following in her father Darren's footsteps.
Mercer is been keeping fit via cycling and alternate work-outs and is keeping busy with tertiary studies. She recently ran a nippers' clinic for young board paddlers.


text:
2013 Ford Escape Can Park Itself, Unlock, Open the Hatch
Test-Driving the 2013 Ford Escape
I used to think hands-free driving meant you keep your hands off your smartphone when hitting the open road. A brief spin in Ford's new 2013 Ford Escape, however, taught me that sometimes it can also mean you don't need to put your hands on the wheel, the door handle or a latch.
The new Escape, which is arriving at auto dealers in a couple of months ($31K for the fully-loaded model), is one advanced vehicle. It has the latest MyFord Touch 2.0, which is essentially a touch-friendly overlay for the Microsoft Sync technology. It offers a big 8-inch, in-dash screen that starts out divided into four panels for your connected smartphone, music, navigation and climate. You can switch among any of them either via touch or a physical control knob.
The updated MyFord Touch is, according to Ford representatives, slimmed down and simplified, but you can control most of it by voice (it understands 20,000 different commands), including adjusting the temperature, choosing which Billy Joel song to play and who to call on your Bluetooth-connected smartphone. "We know customers love their mobile devices and they're not going to stop using them. We want to give them the systems in which it's easiest to use," Jason Sprawka, Ford Escape Brand Manager told Mashable.
The car is festooned with sensors, which help drivers pull into garages without hitting the wall, pull out of parking spots when they can't see what's coming in either direction, know if there is a car driving in their blind spot (a little amber warning light shows up in the passenger side view mirror) and, most impressively, conduct a hands-free parallel parking maneuver (Ford just calls it Active Park Assist).
During a test drive around New York City, I got to see this feature in action. We pressed a small in-dash button, which tells the Ford Escape to start searching for a suitable spot. As we drove slowly along, the screen would light up telling us that the space we just rolled by would fit the SUV. We accepted the space, our driver lifted her hands off the steering wheel and then the Ford Escape took over. The driver did keep her foot on the brake just to slow the car down as it alerted us to passing cars on the right. The wheel spun back and forth as we rolled backwards into the spot. It was a perfectly-executed, automated parallel park.
The sensors have another purpose. They work in tandem with the Ford Escape's key fob, which has radio sensors inside of it. When you're near the car and you touch the door handle, the car recognizes that you have the keys and automatically unlocks. If your hands are full and you want to load the rear gate, you simply walk up to the car and pass your foot under the rear bumper. The rear gate (or hatch) opens up. Pass your foot under it again and it closes. Yes I tried and it and it worked smoothly.
Tooling around in the new 2013 Ford Escape that day, I felt like the future of driving had finally arrived — and I was anxious to move from the passenger to the driver seat.
Check out the gallery for an up-close look at My Ford Touch 2.0 and watch the video for a demo of active park assist and opening the rear gate with my foot.


text:
Class Notes - 1950s
This edition of Class Notes includes law submissions through February 24, 2010, and undergraduate and graduate submissions through September 9, 2010.
|Arts & Sciences Reunion June 23-26, 2011
Robert Weiss JD was a guest of honor and principal speaker at the U.S. Marine Corps Birthday Ball in Denver in November 2009. Weiss, a U.S. Army veteran of World War II, spoke on "The Brotherhood of Arms Transcends Uniforms." He shared his experience at the battle of Mortain in Normandy, where his unit was surrounded by an elite German division for six days.
James Annala BA spent his first three years after graduation as a Navy bandsman on a NATO base in Naples, Italy. He later earned an M.A. from Portland State University. In 1960 he began teaching music in the McMinnville School District. He also taught instrumental music at George Fox University in Newberg for several years and played in the orchestra there until 2006. He and his wife, Evelyn, married in the 1960s, and their son, Carl, was born that decade. When Jim retired in 1989, the couple relocated to Dundee. Today, two of Annala's favorite activities are fishing and playing in orchestras. He also enjoys stamp collecting, listening to records, and gardening.
James Paul BA is president and cofounder of the Academy of Music Northwest in Bellevue, Washington, a pre-college classical music school for ages 4 to 18, established in 1997. The academy is dedicated to preparing area students for admission to the country's top music schools and conservatories. It engages 125 students in music studies and performance in 12 instrumental and choral ensembles and chamber orchestra.


text:
If you are the registered owner of this domain
please login in to your client account and settle the respective invoice or you can get the domain only renewal through following link
If you are a visitor to this website. we apologise for the inconvenience.
Please inform the site owner that they should renew this domain.
If you are interested in unlimit.lk, please click below to request the domain


text:
Some people love taking risks, while others prefer to curl up on the couch with a good book — and it turns out the same is true of bees! Except they can't read. And they don't have couches. But they do appear to have "personality." Scientists found that certain bees are really into scouting — they look for food and also seek out new homes for the colony. And it turns out these bees tend to have a specific genetic signature, which is also present in thrill-seeking humans. Researchers have yet to determine what genes cause bees to become assholes who land on your soda can and sting you.
More from Jezebel
Ooo, tingle!
I think bees land on our soda because of the sugar. Just an assumption, though.


text:
Ray Barone's big bro is finally striking out on his own—in Sin City.
Interviewed on Night Views Radio, Brad Garrett, who played Robert Barone on the hit CBS sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond, revealed a new business venture.
"On June 28, I'm opening up my own comedy club. In Las Vegas —at the Tropicana," the funnyman told host Michael Nayt at Annie Duke Celebrity Poker Night last week at the Commerce Casino in Las Vegas, which benefited After-School All-Stars.
"I'm very very excited. 'I've always wanted a club," he added.
"We're going back to old Vegas —like the Cocoa Room—and it's very very cool."
Moments later, Brad invited Continue reading


text:
Hi everyone, I stumbled across this site today and cannot believe the wealth of info and how friendly it seems, I so look forward to joining in.
I live in UK and am married with two wonderful kids, a boy and girl. I work full time as a financial director and use photography and over the last year digi scrap-booking and card making as a creative outlet. I found out about Becky Higgins Project Life and started my own digital version last year and have been slowly making my way through all my boxes of memorabilia of my life since meeting my husband 18 years ago, and even more since my children were born!
I use Lightroom to edit my photos and Elements 11 for creating my pages, but I still feel I have so much to learn.


text:
From inside the book
67 pages matching Bldg in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 67
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Cover Design Fred Stearns
Stifling Inventive Genius John A Holmes
Forecasting the Weather by Sunspots Jesse Brown
10 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
acre aeroplane Alaska American automobile Bldg boat building built Canadian Pacific Railway cent Chicago Chicago Technical College coal construction cost coupon course cyclecar Cyclopedia Dept device dred electric engineer experience fact farm farmer feet fifty fire five Flying Eagle Cents four give going hand heat hundred inches invention inventor Kindly mention Technical lamp land light living machine Magazine when writing ment mention Technical World method miles month motor offer operation Pacific Pacific Highway Patent picture plant Porto Velho pounds practical profit railroad River road sell ship side station steel Street success Technical World Magazine tell thing tion train Tramp Royal trees Washington Wauchula wire wireless writing advertisers York


text:
Survivor: Bus crash like dream of 'world ending'
Investigators in Oregon are trying to piece together the final moments before a tour bus carrying 48 people careened down the side of a steep hillside, ejecting some of the passengers and killing nine.
Police said Monday they still weren't sure how fast the bus was travelling before the crash on a partly icy highway in a rural mountain pass east of Pendleton. The bus was carrying tourists, many of them Koreans, on the final leg of a nine-day tour of the western United States.
It could take a month or more to determine whether the driver, a 54-year-old man from Vancouver, British Columbia, is at fault and whether he'll face charges, Oregon State Police Lt. Gregg Hastings said Sunday.
The bus was traveling westbound in the left lane of Interstate 84 when it hit a concrete barrier, veered across both westbound lanes and plunged through the guardrail and 200 feet down the embankment, Hastings said. The National Transportation Safety Board said the bus rolled at least once.
When the tour bus came to a rest, terrified passengers looked for their loved ones.
"People screamed and yelled," said Jaemin Seo, a 23-year-old student from Suwon, South Korea studying in Vancouver, British Columbia. "Some mothers screamed to find their son or daughter."
Seo said he was awakened by screaming and was ejected from a broken window as the bus careened down the hill. He suffered a broken ankle, a gash in his arm and shallow scratches across his face.
Police have not released the names of the nine people who died. The survivors ranged in age from 7 to 74.
The passengers were supposed to arrive Sunday night in Canada, where their journey began. Instead, they were taken by ambulance and aircraft to 10 hospitals across three states.
Amid the chaos, authorities struggled to identify some victims or locate their relatives, many of them living half a world away in South Korea. At least one survivor, a man in his early 20s, had yet to be identified.
The crash occurred near a spot on the interstate called Deadman Pass, at the top of a steep, seven-mile descent from the Blue Mountains. Though there were icy spots where the crash occurred, that was nothing unusual for this time of year, said Tom Strandberg, a spokesman for the Oregon Department of Transportation.
He said a sanding truck had applied sand a few hours earlier and was behind the bus making another run when the crash occurred. The sand truck driver was among the first at the scene.
Berlyn Sanderson, 22, of Surrey, British Columbia, said she also was thrown from the bus.
"It's kind of like one of those dreams you have of the world ending," Sanderson told reporters.
Rescuers faced the challenge of bringing survivors 200 feet up a steep cliff, Pendleton Fire Chief Gary Woodson said. They descended the hill and used ropes and baskets to help retrieve people from the wreckage in freezing weather.
Some survivors were carried on backboards by six or eight rescuers. Others were hoisted in baskets, and an all-terrain vehicle arrived toward the end of the operation, Woodson said.
The NTSB said two investigators were expected to arrive at the crash site. They will look into why the bus left the road, the condition of the road at the time, the condition of the guardrail, the actions of the driver, and the operations of the company that owns the bus, the agency said.
Yoo Byung Woo, a 25-year-old survivor, said it was snowing and foggy at the time. She told the Oregonian newspaper that one passenger was frightened and asked if they could take another route. Some passengers were dozing when the driver slammed on the brakes.
Yoo said rocks smashed through windows after the bus crashed through the guardrail and rolled down.
Umatilla County Emergency Manager Jack Remillard said the bus was owned by Mi Joo Tour & Travel in Vancouver, B.C. A bus safety website run by the U.S. Department of Transportation said Mi Joo has six buses, none of which have been involved in any accidents in the past two years.
A spokesman for the NTSB, Peter Knudson, said seatbelts aren't required on such buses. "We have been concerned about this for some time," Knudson said.
The Red Cross has been offering food, clothing and hotel arrangements for survivors as they are released from the hospital.
Jake Contor, a Pendleton resident who speaks Korean and helped translate for the Red Cross, said he had spoken with several survivors.
"The stories have been fairly consistent: braking, swerving, sliding on the ice, hitting the guardrail, then sliding down the embankment," Contor said.
He said the passengers told him the bus left Boise, Idaho, on Sunday morning and was supposed to arrive in Vancouver that night. The survivors who spoke to Contor were seated at the back of the bus and said it appeared that the front and center of the coach sustained the most damage.
The interstate links Boise and Portland through the Blue Mountains and the Columbia Gorge.
AP correspondent Jeff Barnard in Grants Pass, Ore., contributed to this report.


text:
Implements a Scheme view server for Apache CouchDB.
Deprecation Notice
This egg is no longer maintained and is known not to work with recent Chicken versions (at least since 4.8.x). Please get in touch with the author if you want to adopt maintenance.
Requires the environments and json eggs. Also, for it to be somewhat useful, you need a CouchDB server with the following setting in the [query_servers] config section:
scheme = /usr/bin/chicken-couchdb
The path to chicken-couchdb may be different on your system, of course.
You can now use "scheme" as a view language.
Within your map and reduce definitions, you have access to all R5RS procedures as well as those from SRFI-1. There is a binding for null which contains the result of (void) i.e. #<unspecified> and can be used to generate JSON nulls. The following procedures are also available:
- emit key valueprocedure
Just like in the default JavaScript view server, emit is implicitly available and is used to emit results from the map function.
- ref key docprocedure
Allows accessing values in avectors by key (json uses these to represent JSON objects).
(ref 'foo '#((foo . bar))) => bar
- log messageprocedure
Can be used to make the CouchDB server log a message.
{ "_id": "_design/foo", "_rev": "1-8e9036611c14d4ffe34e9065a3a33683", "language": "scheme", "views": { "by-created-at": { "map": "(lambda (doc) (let ((title (ref 'title doc))) (if title (begin (log (string-append \"mapping \" title)) (emit null (ref 'created-at doc))))))", "reduce": "(lambda (k v r) (fold + 0 v))" } } }


text:
Losing control on a slippery road and banging into the guardrail is never a good thing but in this case it's a whole lot better than the alternative—getting hit by a speeding truck.
That is exactly what this driver managed to barely avoid after losing control on a slippery highway while trying to overtake a truck.
When something like this amazing near disaster occurs we almost start to understand why everyone in Russia drives around with a camera on their dashboard. The dash footage of the near miss would be good by itself, but the creator of this video went one step further getting the footage of the truck the car passes to give a good idea how close this simple crash was to becoming a huge disaster.
Compared with getting hit by a speeding truck we imagine replacing your front bumper and the pair of pants you were wearing doesn't seem so bad.
Hat tip to xxstich666xx!


text:
We are using cookies for a better user experience.
World premiere: the new Audi A4 DTM
- Evolution of a championship winning car
- Presentation at the Motor Show in Geneva
- First race on 13 April at Hockenheim
To make a championship winning car even better – the Audi Sport engineers and technicians faced this delicate task when the job of developing the DTM race version of the new Audi A4 arose. From the visual aspect they certainly succeeded: The new A4 DTM, which was publicly unveiled for the first time at the Motor Show in Geneva, spontaneously appears even more dynamic than the successful predecessor model with which Mattias Ekström won the DTM title last year.
The fourth-generation Audi A4 DTM, which bears the project name "R14" internally at Audi Sport, is also futuristic from the technical aspect. With the help of state-of-the-art CFD calculations (Computational Fluid Dynamics) particular attention was paid to the air flow running around and through the car. "In doing so we completed what we had already started last year with the R13," explains Head of Audi Motorsport Dr Wolfgang Ullrich. "We are convinced that we have achieved the most logical optimisation of the aerodynamics allowed within the framework of the regulations."
During the twelve month development period, which started in March 2007, a predominantly new DTM car differing in many details to its predecessor was created in Ingolstadt and Neckarsulm. "Ground breaking technical innovations on a par with quattro, FSI or TDI are not possible owing to the restrictive nature of the regulations," says Dr Martin Mühlmeier, Head of Audi Sport Technology. "In the DTM it's more a question of the logical interpretation and implementation of the technology allowed."
In the process it was possible to reduce the car's centre of gravity height and to further reduce the dry weight, which in turn gives the race engineers more flexibility to set the car up to suit specific race tracks and the weight distribution.
The technicians even found development potential in the four-litre near 460 hp V8 engine used in the Audi A4 DTM. The internal friction was further reduced which in turn benefited the power produced and torque curve.
The basic principle of the vehicle, which is stipulated by the regulations, remains the same: The A4 DTM is a thoroughbred race car with the silhouette of the new Audi A4. The chassis has a hybrid concept. It consists of almost 31 metres of steel tube of the type also used in the aerospace industry. The driver sits in a carbon fibre safety cell that actually resembles a Formula 1 monocoque. This combination guarantees the highest torsional stiffness and safety.
The bodywork is made from carbon-fibre composite and is – in spite of all the aerodynamic gadgets – immediately identifiable at first glance as an Audi A4. The distinctive brand styling-elements like the Single Frame grille and the white LED daytime low-beam lights ensure that the face of the A4 DTM has the same unique look like the road going model.
The most important components of the new DTM were tested immediately after the end of the 2007 DTM season. The first R14 prototype completed its roll-out shortly before Christmas at Le Castellet (France). Before its race debut on 13 April at the Hockenheimring, the new Audi A4 DTM will have spooled off several thousand test kilometres – including endurance tests.
"The new road going A4 has already won many international awards in a very short period of time," says Dr Wolfgang Ullrich. "We aim to do these awards justice with the new DTM. We are convinced that the new Audi A4 is an excellent base for a successful DTM car."
Defending champion Mattias Ekström, who unveiled his new company car in Geneva together with his boss, prefers not to make any predictions at the moment: "If the new A4 DTM is as quick as it looks then I'll be satisfied," says the Swede diplomatically.
The new Audi A4 DTM meets its future opponents for the first time at the official DTM test between 10 and 12 March in Mugello (Italy).


text:
Tarantulas earned their fear-inducing reputation not because they're particularly deadly - they aren't, at least not to humans - but because they're so huge. In fact, they're so large that they shouldn't be able to climb walls without falling off.
That's where the feet-pooping comes into play. Researchers have now confirmed the controversial 2006 finding that these spiders eject silk from their feet as an added measure to keep themselves stuck to vertical surfaces. Like all spiders, tarantulas have hairs on their feet which are used to keep them attached to walls, but this isn't enough when these spiders are so huge.
German researchers had first announced this discovery five years ago, but a rival study argued that the silk came not from the tarantula's feet but instead from its silk-producing organs, and any silk found on the feet was just incidental. Dr. Claire Rind of the University of Newcastle set out to determine the truth. She designed an experiment where the spiders would climb up a glass surface, which would then be gently shaken to see how the tarantulas responded.
Dr. Rind explains:
"We couldn't see any traces of silk with the naked eye, but when we removed the slides and examined them under the microscope, we saw up to 30 silken threads at the point where the tarantula's foot slipped. So our experiments to dislodge the spider made it release silk through its feet."
Unlike other spiders, it appears that all tarantulas have two different silk-producing - or, because I'm hopeless immature, silk-pooping - mechanisms. One is found in the spinnerets, the organ that all other spiders have. But they have a second mechanism found in their feet, and that's what allow these unusually large spiders to maintain their grip as they climb up walls.
Journal of Experimental Biology via BBC News.


text:
| 7.5°C Belfast
Liberal Democrat MP David Ward has issued what the party described as a "categorical apology", after posting a tweet suggesting that he might be ready to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel.
The Bradford East MP said that his comments were not intended to support Hamas rocket attacks, adding: "If they gave the opposite impression, I apologise."
The statement came after the Board of Deputies of British Jews called on Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg to withdraw the party whip from Mr Ward, whose membership was suspended for a period following previous controversial remarks about Israel and the Jews.
Following his statement, the Liberal Democrats said that Mr Ward would meet chief whip Don Foster "in due course" after which a decision would be made on whether disciplinary action should be taken.
Mr Ward was widely accused of inciting violence with a tweet last night in which he said: "The big question is - if I lived in Gaza would I fire a rocket? - probably yes."
The Board of Deputies said he had "shamed Parliament, the Liberal Democrats and himself".
The Lib Dems said they "utterly condemned" the remarks which "are not representative of the Liberal Democrats".
Today, Mr Ward issued a statement to say: "I utterly condemn the violence on both sides in Israel and Gaza.
"I condemn the actions of Hamas, and my comments were not in support of firing rockets into Israel. If they gave the opposite impression, I apologise."
He added: "However, while I defend the right of Israel to exist and defend itself, I will continue to speak out for the rights of the Palestinian people who are facing untold suffering. More must be done by the world community to end this humanitarian crisis and protect the families living in Gaza. I can understand their plight and desperation.
"A ceasefire in this conflict is essential. If we are to end the suffering, and establish a safer society for people in Gaza, the first step must be an end to violence on both sides."
A Lib Dem spokesman said: "This is a categorical apology from David Ward. In light of this apology, the party and the whips will decide in due course if further disciplinary action should be taken."
Conservative chairman Grant Shapps described last night's tweet as "appalling" and Labour said it was a "vile" comment by a "desperate" MP.
But Mr Ward initially appeared unrepentant, following it up with an echo of John F Kennedy's famous expression of support for Germans trapped by the 1948 Soviet blockade of Berlin: "Ich bin ein Palestinian - the West must make up its mind - which side is it on?"
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live, he declined to withdraw his comments, saying he had been trying to understand what might drive Gazan residents to violence.
"The question is why would they want to fire missiles when they know that the missiles will result in further Palestinian deaths, to a disproportionate level? Why are they doing it?" he said.
"They are doing it because they are absolutely desperate and politicians in the West are failing them. The people in Gaza cannot escape, they are hemmed in by land, sea and air. I understand the plight of the people firing the rockets."
Speaking before the MP's statement, a spokesman for the Board of Deputies said: "David Ward MP says he would be prepared to fire a rocket from Gaza into Israel - an act which the EU today called 'criminal and unjustifiable'. Ward has once again shamed Parliament, the Liberal Democrats and himself.
"We welcome the unequivocal condemnation of Ward's statement by party leader Nick Clegg MP but his words must now be underpinned by action and the party whip withdrawn permanently."
The spokesman said the Board was also "deeply c oncerned" by comments made by former Lib Dem MEP Edward McMillan-Scott, who came to Mr Ward's defence with a tweet in which he referred to the Board of Deputies as "disputatious Jews" and Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard as "a prat".
Mr McMillan-Scott, a former vice president of the European Parliament who defected from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems in 2010 before losing his seat earlier this year, wrote: "David Ward can look after himself. The @BoardofDeputies is a frightful bag of disputatious Jews and the editor of the @JewishChron is a prat."
His comment sparked a storm on Twitter, with some posts accusing him of anti-semitism - a charge he denied.
The ex-MEP later used Twitter to issue an apology which the Board of Deputies dismissed as "wholly inadequate". It read: "I apol to @BoardofDeputies altho they didn't when I was smeared by @stephenpollard in 2009 at behest of #Coulson. D Tel did tho. I'm not a/S" (anti-semitic).
Mr Ward had the party whip restored in September after serving a suspension of several weeks over a series of clashes with the Lib Dem hierarchy over his views on Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.
The final straw for the leadership was a posting in July last year questioning the future existence of the state of Israel which the party said broke a previous agreement to use "proportionate and precise'' language when commenting on the issue.
Mr Ward condemned that ruling as "disproportionate", saying such views were widely shared.
Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi has written to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, urging him to investigate Mr Ward for encouragement of terrorism.
Mr Zahawi wrote in the letter: "Freedom of speech is an important right but it is not an unqualified one. This is especially true for public figures who have the capacity to influence the actions of others.
"Mr Ward's tweets would appear to be prima facie evidence that he has committed the offence of encouragement of terrorism as defined by Section 1(2) of the Terrorism Act 2006.
"Mr Ward may or may not have intended this statement to encourage others to fire rockets from Gaza into Israel, but regrettably he would appear to at least have been reckless as to whether others would be encouraged to commit such acts."


text: Wikipedia has chosen the Welsh town of Monmouth in the UK for a new project that will make use of QR codes. The project will be named Monmothpedia and aims to document the life of the entire town. Several prominent locations, people and historic artifacts will be linked to a mobile Wikipedia page that can be accessed by scanning QR codes with a smart phone. Residents of the city will also take part in the project, as Wikipedia is tapping the populace for articles about life in the city. Each…Read More


text:
Votre titre Audible gratuit
Gallagher grapples with provocative questions - Can we train our focus? What's different about the way creative people pay attention? Why do we often zero in on the wrong factors when making big decisions? - driving us to reconsider what we think we know about attention.
As suggested by the expression "pay attention," this cognitive currency is a finite resource that we must learn to spend wisely. In Rapt, Gallagher introduces us to a diverse cast of characters - artists and ranchers, birders and scientists - who have learned to do just that and whose stories are profound lessons in the art of living the interested life.
No matter what your quotient of wealth, looks, brains, or fame, increasing your satisfaction means focusing more on what really interests you and less on what doesn't. In asserting its groundbreaking thesis - the wise investment of your attention is the single most important thing you can do to improve your well-being - Rapt yields fresh insights into the nature of reality and what it means to be fully alive.
Autres livres audio du même :
Ce que les auditeurs disent de Rapt
- Roy
- 02/06/2009
The Neuroscience of Concentration
Winifred Gallagher has turned mindfulness on its head in "Rapt." In this book she pays particular attention to the factors fostering and benefits of paying attention, concentration, and mental focus. The chapters on relationships, productivity, decisions, and creativity were of great practical benefit. She tells you the why and the how at every stage. This volume is well worth the time and money invested.
A related book, Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, makes a wonderful companion listen and is also available from Audible.
25 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- BxProf
- 25/05/2009
held my attention...mostly
The work presents an impressive amount of research, related (often indirectly) to the phenomenon of human attention, albeit in slightly biased fashion. To this reader, the author often turned what should have been an objective presentation of the data into an indictment of Western culture. Intentional or not, those highly sensitive to such things be warned. When you get past this, however, the book does manage to impart many useful insights and is, on the whole, worth a listen.
20 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Michele
- 04/06/2009
Worth Buying
While much of the information in this book is well known, the author presents it in a new and interesting way. She also employs up-to-date research to support her claims.
4 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Maggie
- 13/07/2009
a book divided against itself?
whereas Rapt starts slow it has a stronger second half. the first part reviews what we mostly already know. okay. fine. we need to recall common knowledge which is usually "dull" since we already know it. the second half of the book, however, finally provides the information and research for which the reader has come searching: 1) our attention and our choice of focus matter more than we realize in our technological world, 2) multi-tasking may be a myth, and 3) brain function studies are so worth knowing about. imo, then, the second half of the book makes the entire book worth an attentive listen. inquiring minds want to know. and some things are worth the extra time.
17 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Darryl
- 30/06/2009
Attention? more like...perseverance
This book is a real challenge to stick with at the beginning. The author seems to try too hard with a lot of flowery overly descriptive language. Didn't impress me - it irritated me! But I hung in there and 'focused' on the messages and suprisingly it turned into an interesting read.
10 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Benjamin L. Willmore
- 07/04/2015
Enjoyable listen and good summary of much research
Many familiar studies along with more that I was not aware of summarized without getting too bogged down in the details. More a focus on what to learn from each study and how to organize all the ideas around common themes. I'll need to listen to it a few more times before I'll be able to pull out and use the ideas that are most aligned with my lifestyle. I look forward to listening to it more.
2 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Matt
- 20/09/2012
Good Content Spoiled By Rapid Reading Speed
Essentially this is a very good book, but it's one you really have to work at to absorb. It's not an easy listen by any means. That's because content has a fairly dense, text book-like tone to it.
If you get it you'll need to sit and listen to it without any distractions. Don't try driving, walking or doing household chores with this one on, or you'll miss out on what she has to say.
It's a psychology book of sorts - written with the aim of helping us develop better minds and it really is deep and insightful.
Writing easily digestible prose is clearly not the author's strong point though. She relies on a logical, left-brain, technical type of language throughout. Her words are a bit too big and grown-up for my taste; lots of syllables, and she's not the best at telling engaging stories.
Nevertheless, as someone seriously interested self improvement I found it well worth my attention. I just wish they'd chosen a different narrator - or at least made a more subtly nuanced recording. It's not that the reader is terrible. It's just that she doesn't manage to bring the words alive. She reads way too fast and she's too far from the microphone to sound intimate and engaging. As such, the words go in one ear and out the other.
This kind of content calls for far more variation in pitch, pace pausing and more expression to hold attention well. Ironic, as the book is all about attention.
7 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Breian
- 20/12/2011
5 times
It was so good that I listened to it 5 times. I'll continue to listen to it just to make sure that I don't miss anything. Powerful Stuff... It is like an extra-boost to increase your performance in life/time management by 10 folds. This book is a must for high performers/achievers or to those who wants to decrease/manage stress by working effectively and efficiency.
6 personnes ont trouvé cela utile
- Doug
- 11/11/2016
Packed with Information!
Couldn't stop Listening, Rewinding, then getting lost in the thoughts that the book triggers. The author describes how attention affects many areas of our lives such as motivation, creativity and happiness. Very good book!
1 personne a trouvé cela utile
- Jennifer
- 20/06/2014
Monkey Mind Account of Mindfulness
Who we are and how are is largely shaped by where we focus, where we invest our attention. Although our minds are naturally (and often strongly) drawn to the dangerous and the novel, we have the ability to influence our focus. With or without intentional choice, attending to one aspect of our physical and mental environment causes us to ignore others.
Rather than making a coherent case for where we should place our attention under what circumstances and providing techniques for controlling that attention, the author provides a journalist's survey of the scientific work being done in the area. A sprinkling of nineteenth century philosophy provides some context, but we are left with little more than the general idea that attending to the right things will make us happier.
1 personne a trouvé cela utile


text:
When I sleep at my home in Whiterun, or in a purchased bed at an inn, I get the Well Rested buff.(10% to skill increases)
When I sleep in a bed out in the wilderness I only get a Rested Buff.(5% to skill increases)
When I sleep in either of my beds at the College of Winterhold, the Apprentice Bed OR the Arch-Mage Bed, I only get the Rested Buff.
I would assume that since I own the beds at the college and not the beds in the wilderness, that the buffs from them would be different. What determines which buff I get?