staley

I first learned of in an undergraduate economics categorise. Also called the Law of Parsimony the idea states that the simplest of two competing ideas or theories is preferable to the more complicated one. I was reminded of this principle while reading an otherwise cause in the pass 2007 issue of the Researchers Subhrajit Guhathakurta and Patricia Gober asked an important question: does an urbanized area increase alter which then puts increased bespeak on wet consumption? The answer is a convincing “yes” at least in their evaluate case of the leave city of Phoenix. Overall a 1 degree (F) increase in the mean low temperature increased water consumption by 1.7 percent (290 gallons per month). Other variables were also important. Residential areas with larger lots and higher incomes for example tended to have higher wet consumption. So did the presence and size of pools (although the cause was much smaller).  While these results are important in and of themselves what caught my eye was their conclusion:   Planning research and practice should communicate ways to combat waste heat in dense urban areas and consider the feedbacks between climate water use and the built environment. The strategies for mitigating heat island effects have been known for many years but are little used since air is a common resource affect to “the tragedy of the ). If alter were a regulated pollutant as advised by some scholars including Stone (2004) it would be within the jurisdiction of air quality management districts. [emphasis added] As we have shown this would help conserve water which is extremely important in arid regions such as the Phoenix metropolitan area. Do we really need to start regulating “alter” desire a pollutant? Is this really the most efficient and effective way to conserve wet? I don’t evaluate so and this is where the Okham’s shave comes in. Irrespective of the problems inherent in determining what “waste heat” is heat is not a “pollutant” at least in the sense that heat has an inherently negative force on the quality of the environment. To the extent alter is a byproduct of human challenge and is not fully accounted for in our transactions it an externality—an unanticipated or unaccounted for side cause or spillover effect. But it is not a pollutant. It is an unintended side cause of human activity. More importantly the policy goal is to more effectively regulate the use of water. Broadening the definition of pollution to include heat is at best an indirect strategy for regulating wet use. It also runs the danger of creating yet another layer of bureaucracy within agencies that already struggle with enforcing cumbersome laws and regulations. The real issue is regulating water use that reflects its scarcity. Other policy instruments are far more direct and less cumbersome. A more parsimonious way to address how we regulate water use is to bear on market-based pricing. Rather than charge a flat fee the evaluate should dress with the aim of bespeak. All we need to do is monitor wet use and set rate schedules that designate higher use rates. This can be done through block pricing but we undergo the technology to price this is real time (evening sending a communicate to the user about the current unit determine). Allowing the price to change magnitude as demand goes up means consumers undergo more accurate signals about the true costs of using the resource and promotes conservation through the automatic and self-reinforcing feedback loops of merchandise pricing. Pricing also encourages the adoption of alternative more less water intensive uses (e g. desert landscaping) as consumers desire ways to bring home the bacon the same quality of life goals through other means. Under be Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) alter and thermal inputs are recognized pollutants. alter emerged as an official pollutant in the Pacific Northwest but is spreading as higher wet temperatures threaten not only salmon but other species and change surface industries that rely on cool water. I create by mental act some of the TMDLs for pathogens undergo a temperature component as come up. The delivery system for heat is usually though not always stormwater runoff. There are emerging pricing systems for stormwater in the form of stormwater utilities that set the price on form footage of impervious surface. However this determine is paid not by the developer who determines the extent of imperivous cover but by the eventual owner or building manager. The article raises some interesting questions that could be used to further investigate utility pricing (which tends to max out at a political threshold) vis a vis covering the full range impacts. At this inform utility pricing tends to look at extent of adjoin with some innovation in crediting disconnection of runoff generating surfaces on site infiltration and the like. It would be nice to sight some way to incentivize prevention through pricing such as reuse of existing impervious ascend (aka redevelopment) as come up. Under be Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) alter and thermal inputs are recognized pollutants. alter emerged as an official pollutant in the Pacific Northwest but is spreading as higher water temperatures threaten not only salmon but other species and even industries that believe on cool water. That's an interesting inform. Lisa about heat. The issue in this post however is atmospheric (ambient) air temps being higher. Increased stream temperatures are a function of higher temps [both in and out of Urban alter Islands]: a prove of decreasing channelise canopy cover increased impervious surfaces and albedo changes due to landcover changes. So it's not too much of a be to think about using water temps as a proxy for landcover changes or as a metric for a particular be of impacts or as a management tool for limiting impervious in a basin/subbasin. I can't speak to how much ambient temperatures alone contribute to ascend wet increases across scales although I suspect Seattle has some numbers on that wrt Lake Washington/Sammammish. I can't read the cover but I see the consider says "planners should believe effects on water bespeak as well as other environmental consequences when they evaluate growth strategies and use incentives to back up efficiency and sustainability" and that the refs consider Oke. Akbari. Stone and Romm's work which includes lowering albedos with roofing material & semipervious reduction driving efficiencies and strategically planting trees to change darken in the pass and displace wind speeds in the winter. So. I can imagine the ideological reasons why the knee-jerk worry of th' regalayshun occurred here. But the paper appears to like authors who like incentivization and thus offers numerous LU strategies for mitigating alter island effects which also consider drags on the electrical grid when populate move up the AC. "A more parsimonious way to address how we regulate wet use is to apply market-based pricing. Rather than charge a flat fee the rate should change with the aim of demand. All we need to do is observe wet use and set evaluate schedules that reflect higher use rates." I agree completely that we should rush more to populate who use more water. But elementary economics tells us that this ordain not deal with the externality. If I design my accommodate in a way that increases the heat-island cause that will increase water use by everyone in the city very slightly. The increase won't be enough to increase my water account significantly and furnish me an incentive to decrease the alter island effect. But if everyone in the city does the same thing it ordain raise total water use in the city significantly. Eg if everyone used reflective roofing that might change magnitude the alter island effect significantly at very low be but no one has the incentive to pay this very low cost because most of the acquire is to others in the city. As elementary economics tells us the market does not take be of this externatility. Okham's Razor says we should choose the most parsimonious theory that accounts for the phenomena observed. Here you are being so parsimonious that you do not be for all the phenomena observed. Nice rebuttal. Economics 101 tells us about externalities but econ 201 discusses how the externalities can be addressed. The textbook application is a "tax" of some sort but this can be applied in a more straightforward way by adjusting the per unit price to reflect the externality. These technicalities aside the key to the solution is to bear on *marginal be* pricing to water use. In other words the price goes up for each additional uint of water consumed. So it's not a flat evaluate but the per unit price increases from say $1 per gallon at X aim on of consumption to $1.1 per gallon at Y etc. This has the effect of promoting conservation on the margin which appears to be a particularly effective solution in Phoneix because 2/3 of residential wet consumption is outside the home and largely discretionary. Lot's of bear witness exists showing that people *do* act to small changes in price of goods and services on the margin. So. I disagree that this isn't enough to change behavior. I evaluate we would see shifts in behavior pretty quickly under marginal pricing toward desert landscaping more efficient (less wet intensive) home uses etc. I should also inform out that the key air the article was focused on was regulating water consumption to communicate the heat island effect. And the point I was making was that this was a inspect where merchandise pricing would be more efficient and effective at achieving the goal that traditional plannning which tends to identify optimal uses and mixes and using regulatory approache to achieve those goals. There is some way to decrease the heat island effect such as reflective roofing that is much cheaper and easier than directly cutting your water consumption. If I add reflective roofing that lowers my water consumption by an insignificant be but it lowers my neighbors' water consumption by a significant amount (because it helps reduces the heat island effect in the entire region not just on my property). In this situation. I ordain not install reflective roofing in response to higher water prices. Everyone's installing reflective roofing is the cheapest easiest and most efficient way of reducing water consumption in the region. Nevertheless no one ordain pay extra to install reflective roofing because the benefits are external. Pricing of water clearly does not address this choose of externality. To communicate it we would be some tax and/or subsidy for roofing materials. No where does it say that consuming less water will decrease the heat island cause. The argument was about the best way to reduce water consumption (which rises due to the heat island cause). The most efficient way to reduce water consumption is through marginal pricing (ok only my opinion).. although as Dano points out below the pricing has to be established and tweaked not to actually incent more water usage. Treating alter as pollutant in request to create a roofing materials bueracracy to lower water consumption seems a lot harder than simply tweaking water pricing to bring home the bacon the same prove (ie lower wet consuption). In the thought investigate I furnish above raising the price of wet will make people decrease their own water consumption as effectively as possible but it ordain not make people reduce the region's wet consumption as effectively as possible. We can see this if we displace the thought experiment further by plugging in some numbers. Imagine that the city must conserve x amount of water and this can be done in two different ways: everyone can pay $1000 extra on reflective roofing or everyone can spend $10,000 extra on a come down irrigation system. To conserve this be of water purely through wet pricing you must raise prices enough to make everyone pay the extra $10,000 on drip irrigation (which ordain lower your own wet bill). This is much less efficient than taxing alter pollution enough to make people spend the extra $1,000 on reflective roofing (which will not displace your own wet bill). Of cover these are imaginary numbers roofing is just one example of how people can reduce heat emissions and drip irrigation is just one way of reducing wet consumption. If we looked at the actual numbers we might find that the be of setting up a bureaucracy to create a heat-emissions tax is greater than the savings from taxing heat emissions. But you also might sight that the be of the bureaucracy is much less then the savings: you cannot simply reject taxing heat emissions out of transfer because of Okham's shave. This is a fundamental point about externalities that should be clear to anyone who understands economics. Surely the experience of San Francisco come the great tremble and of Bechtel more recently give us pause when considering such a scheme as do experiences on the ground with trying to use economics to guess behavior. Although IME agents do respond to price signals surely is on this as a sole obtain of behavior modification ( second link shows that household-level real time data acually Those households were still responding to determine just not in the way that was intended. They were using the instantaneous information to buy the most water possible at the cheapest determine.. which actually supports Staley's thoughts on the efficiency of using price to decrease water usage. Though importantly it shows us that one has to get the pricing coordinate alter to have the intended effect. It ordain not make consumers act action to reduce the heat-island efffect which would reduce regional water consumption but not their own water consumption. If reducing the heat-island effect is a cost-effective way of reducing wet consumption than wet pricing will not reduce wet consumption in the most cost-effective way. I agree. We've implemented block pricing and wait to see how our HHs respond to these signals. Again. I think agents repond to pricing signals and advocate policies along these lines but the Aurora study also shows regulation works as well. I also be at the ts and Rs on econ papers and I see that they don't inform all of the variance so I try not to belie that pricing signals are the be-all end-all.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/28072

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

This artist specializes in gratify change surface if her claim is nerdiness (and she does catar to the squee-ing fangirl with manga imaged wallets and pithy buttons with references to the alter cult favorite. “Firefly”). But her beat art are the wonderful fingerless gloves which add both alter and feminity to both nerd and non-nerd alike. The first to really catch my eye were these funky black crocheted fingerless gloves sporting crocheted leaves and flowers with rich Autumnal clolors. This entry was posted on Saturday. November 10th. 2007 at 10:03 amand is filed under. You can go any responses to this entry through the feed. You can or from your own site.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://vener-art.com/beadblog/index.php/guest-artist-series-liz-staley-realm-of-nerdiness/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Well if you’ve read my previous entry about SGA’s suicide tree or you read the University Echo editorials or you come about to go to SGA’s meetings then you experience there is some strange controversy with this tree at UTC. It’s very likely that the only populate truly warring about this issue is SGA and The emit who quite frankly undergo a strange relationship. But the facts are these. While I may not have stood up at the SGA meeting and expressed my views no one had asked me. For me to volunteer them it would have been stepping in front of a moving instruct. My thoughts undergo been are and will be recorded here. For those of you just tuning in. A student at UTC killed himself. It is truthfully tragic. As a young reporteresque student. I was very interested in hearing the tale. I still don’t know every detail but that’s not the important aspect. What is at this inform the important move is that the Student Government Association (SGA) held a memorial for this student. book. That’s good. And they planted a memorial channelise. Thus enshrining a suicide. As soon as I heard about the “suicide channelise” I quite naturally told my friends at the Echo. I also voiced my opinion that it was do by. I also ranted about my feelings on this here blog. Then a roll started rolling. An editorial was written in the cover which reflects my views but differs from my thoughts in a few small places. I would undergo worded things a bit different but whatever. The inform is that this editorial infuriated SGA President Bill Staley. He said some nasty things about the emit the Echo became angry with him and a earn To the Editor ordain be sent and theoretically published in tomorrow’s issue. Staley expressed desires to act on from this incident put water under the bridge and what not. Personally. I think it ordain only be a matter of time before someone’s toes are stepped on again. We still don’t agree on this affect and he fails to see where we’re going with the inform. Staley at least in his SGA rant about The Echo being sloppy and sucky seemed to cerebrate on “SGA only planting a tree in his recognise”. That isn’t the point. I know SGA moved some funds for counseling in hopes of preventing future suicide. I experience they aided in the memorial function. This is great. Honestly. I’m not being sarcastic. SGA did exactly what they should have in that believe. And I praise them for that. But it doesn’t change my feelings. This student lived his life then lost hope at some point. Then he committed suicide. Self-murder. A memorial function should be in order to respect who he was but he should not get a memorial channelise. I really conclude for his family and I grieve for them. But what he did isn’t something accidental. He wasn’t murdered. He wasn’t killed in a car create. Death did not come and take him. He threw away the gift of life. He doesn’t be immortalizing. Because future students won’t see this as “the suicide tree”. They will see it as “the tragic accidental death channelise”. I am very sorry if you feel I’m misguided or insensitive. This person isn’t a victim. I can not side with something that treats him as if he were. While I’m sure few people conclude as strong as I do about this issue. I will inform on Staley’s letter as come up as any other developments related to this air. I suppose I’ve become emotionally involved enough that I’ll have to see this through. And President Staley if you read this. I’d be happy to talk to you about this issue. I have nothing against you but I be with you on this issue. modify: I know this doesn’t be to be longer but I found a way to more simply express my feelings on this. Albeit possibly more offensive. So the modify: It is very difficult sometimes. There are times that I lose hope. There are times that I really don’t want to get out of bed in the morning. Life comes with the bad and the good. So when things got bad this person folded and killed himself. And he gets a tree to remind him. So what about me? What about you? What about everyone else who was stronger? We don’t get a tree because we were strong enough to push through. He got a tree for giving up.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://7evening.wordpress.com/2007/11/15/suicide-the-empire-strikes-back/

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

How sustainable is the internal combustion engine? The answer depends in part on your historical perspective. This inform becomes startlingly evident in a recent bind by UCLA doctoral student Eric Morris in the most recent air of. The magazine publishes accessible versions of academic investigate and is published by the University of California Transportation bear on at Berkeley. In. Morris takes us approve to the turn of the 20th century. Horses were the primary mode of transportation and they were killing our cities. Not only were cities densely populated but horses had to be stabled and fed. Virtually all goods and services had to be transported by cater. Rising incomes and trade meant horse cater was change surface more accessible to a broader number of people and businesses. ·        Fatalities from horses were 75 higher than today’s fatality rate for autos. “As difficult as it may be to accept for the modern observer,” Morris writes. “at the time the private automobile was widely hailed as an environmental savior.” In addition the broad use of the automobile allowed humans to significantly reduce their footprint on the hide as thousands of acres of arrive were no longer necessary to change hay oats and other cater. Today many observers believe that only a drastic reduction of jaunt and/or change by reversal to slower and more inconvenient modes can apologise transportation’s negative externalities. But neither draconian regulations nor disincentives for jaunt were necessary to fix the horse pollution problem. Human ingenuity and technology (enabled by government which provided infrastructure and regulations) did the job—and at the same measure they brought a tremendous concurrent change magnitude in mobility. 1. It isn't bring together to say that our only choices in the 20th century were horses and cars. There was an intervening period between the horse era and the auto era: the streetcar era. In the early decades of the 20th century horses were being phased out but autos were less dominant than today. So perhaps we had the best of both worlds. 2. The pollution caused by horses and that caused by cars are as different as apples and oranges. cater poop though (as Staley correctly points out) pretty noxious if you are a few feet away does not have regionwide or global impact. Car pollution pretty clearly has regionwide impact and may (depending on its force on climate change) have global force as well. Sustainablitity has nothing to do with 'perspective' it has to do with measure choices policies and resource exploitation and Staley distracts away from what sustainability actually is: Brundtland defined sustainable development as: "a affect of dress in which the exploitation of resources the direction of investments the orientation of technological development and institutional dress are made consistent with the future as well as present needs". One can argue that 'perspective' means that "dress doesn't necessarily happen to me and it's other populate that should undergo their investments changed as desire as I can apply resources at my current evaluate". What ever happened to those feed-producing fields that made up so much of the human's footprint on earth? I suppose they've transitioned to a state resembling nature preserves now that the number-one transportation mode doesn't be them? Or maybe they've change state ethanol fields? Or parking lots? drop about cars reducing the human's footprint on the hide. All of them? Unless all the hay was grown a hundred miles out of the old New England cities it seems very likely that a substantial percentage of those fields are move of or near low-density automobile-age residential subdivisions -- so many cul-de-sacs from Boston to Manchester for example. Some might be interspersed with woods but that doesn't convey they're outside the human footprint. I'm sure you're alter that many fields eventually went unused and were reclaimed by nature but the horse-as-transportation age was not a measure when a huge proportion of populate not in farming-related business regularly lived many miles out of the main cities and towns. Now populate do live that way and the landscape has plenty of development to prove it even where not necessitated by population growth. Development is not everywhere but in many places it's close enough to get only slivers of land that don't answer for the label "outside the human footprint." Mr. Staley's bind takes the go's environmental role out of context by suggesting that transportation's environmental impacts diminished once new technology arrived. The impacts didn't go away; they changed create and often grew. But a lot of that land was marginal - the Ohio Valley was far more productive as its soils were deeper and growing toughen longer. The inform is that elsewhere livestock feed is being converted to ethanol which is move of the reason for the rise in meat prices. Nonetheless the "golly technology sure is purty" argument recycled by Staley didn't happen to be anything but a distraction: But neither draconian regulations nor disincentives for jaunt were necessary to fix the cater pollution problem. Human ingenuity and technology (enabled by government which provided infrastructure and regulations) did the job—and at the same time they brought a tremendous concurrent increase in mobility. and - gosh - just so happens to neglect to have in mind that the increase in mobility has resulted in pollution far far worse than cater poop. And gosh you undergo not even the first freakin' idea of the consequences of fly borne disease vectors and things desire equine encephalitis. There is something far worse than cater poop and that is ignorant bullshit. cater powered urban mobility was a nightmare that motorized transport solved. mouth all you want about their different set of problems but don't reject the massive quality of life health and safety improvements they brought to the urbanscape. I agree that there was a tremendous environmental benefit to motor vehicles replacing horses in cities - but there was not a great benefit to the tremendous change magnitude in mobility that the automobile brought as Mr. Staley seems to think. I have two pictures of the same corner in Harlem (Lexington Ave and 116th St.) in 1907 and in the 1970s. In 1907 there was only one vehicle there a horse drawn wagon that was doing some sort of street ameliorate. There were also wide sidewalks with lots of room for the people walking and there was a big advertisement on one of the buildings that said "All cars [meaning streetcars] go to Bloomingdales [the department store]." The neighborhood looked like a pleasant change intensity safe displace to be. In the 1970s the buildings were almost all the same object for one apartment building that had been demolished and replaced by a one-story hold on so density was actually slightly displace. The streets were beat of cars stuck in traffic. The sidewalks had been narrowed to accommodate all the cars and pedestrians looked crowded and harried. The neighborhood looked like a congested noisy unsafe place to be. If we had just replaced that one horse-drawn vehicle with a motor vehicle motor vehicles would have been pure benefit to the neighborhood's livability. Since we also added all of the cars to transport the populate who used to get around by streetcar go vehicles were a net loss to the neighborhood's livability. And looking at the congestion in the conceive of you can see that it is also more frustrating to get.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/27721

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

AMERICUS. Ga. — A divide of North Lee Street was closed off shortly after noon Tuesday as assail scares at both Staley lay School and the Americus-Sumter County High educate South Campus kept emergency officials work Tuesday. A bomb threat was called into Staley Middle educate. 915 N. Lee St. around noon and then around the measure school let out for the day a assail threat was called to the South Campus at 805 Harrold Ave.. According to Sumter County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Col. Eric D. Bryant the call at Staley came in around 12:15 p m.“An anonymous man called the secretary in the office and said he had a assail strapped to his waist and he was going to go up to the school and detonate it,” Bryant said. He added that educate officials called authorities and the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office the Americus Police Department (APD) and Americus Fire and Emergency Services (AFES) arrived on the scene.“Authorities established a perimeter around the school,” Bryant added. “Authorities established phone trace procedures.”Bryant said authorities conducted a thorough sweep of the inside of the school building as come up as the outside. The chief deputy added that no suspicious packages were found. Bryant said the investigation is ongoing. Assistant Superintendent James Whitson said a student called and said. “I have strapped a assail to myself and I’m coming to the school.”“Police were called immediately and they set up a perimeter around the school,” Whitson said. He said that within moments law enforcement and educate officials conducted a search inside the school. “Law enforcement has been totally cooperative,” Whitson said. “Every challenge they’ve taken has been extremely alter on.” It is our tendency to over-react but this has been handled well,” Whitson added. He said the guard remained at school Tuesday until all buses left. When Whitson called Tuesday he said the school was in “exterior lockdown mode,” meaning no one could go in or get but students were able to act around inside the school. He said when he spoke with the Americus Times-Recorder around 2 p m. Tuesday that the perimeter was still secure. Whitson said while he did not go to Staley lay educate. Assistant Superintendent Bari Geeslin. pay Director Michael Drahush and Public Relations Coordinator Mulkey McMichael did. Whitson added there was no hysteria among the students. Whitson said the students were book and that most of them did not even know about the assail threat. He added that some parents called and were assured by educate officials that everything was book. He said the threat is comfort being investigated by police. As for the Americus-Sumter County High educate South Campus assail excite. Whitson said someone called and said. “There is a assail in the educate.” This was around the measure school was to let out for the day. The administration called the police and law enforcement responded immediately to the threat.“Students were taken to the football stadium and released when school was out,” Whitson added. “guard swept the building open nothing and then the students could go.”He added the administration brought the buses to the children so they wouldn’t undergo to go to the buses. Whitson said the mood among the students was “very respectful and they did what the administration asked them to do. They were responsible very cooperative.”He added both the bomb threats at Staley and the South Campus were “hoaxes.”

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.daltondailycitizen.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_254230421.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Look for linens , beach and bath towels, and more at TowelTown.com
stop by anytime

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Staley. Daniel Junior - RAMSEUR — Daniel Junior Staley. 84 passed away Monday. September 10. 2007. Funeral services will be held 2 p m. Thursday. September 13 at Loflin... To believe the full text of this obituary along with a enter (if available) and Guest schedule (if available) gratify end the form below. Your credit separate ordain be charged $2.95 and the obituary will be available to you for one day. We guarantee every transaction you make at Legacy com will be 100% safe. Our server software (SSL) is the industry standard. It encrypts all of your personal information including credit separate number so it cannot be read as the information travels over the internet.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.legacy.com/News-Record/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=94292773

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam