Ultrithin white topping or UTW is a relatively new technique for resurfacing deteriorated asphalt pavements. UTW involves placing two to four inch concrete slabs on old asphalt pavement to form bonded composite pavements. UTW technique uses conventional concrete, shorter joint spacing, and bonding between the concrete and existing asphalt pavement. The first UTW experimental project was constructed on an access road to a waste disposal landfill in Louisville, Kentucky in 1991. The successful performance of this pavement has led to over 150 UTW projects in several states during the 1990s. With the use of UTW pavements increasing, the questions become how to repair the system when distresses such as cracking do occur, and would the repair and rehabilitation methods used for conventional concrete pavements be adequate for UTW pavements? UTW has been undergoing accelerated testing at Federal Highway Administration's Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Virginia. Eight full-scale UTW test pavements were constructed during 1998 to study different combinations of design variables, including existing asphalt layer thickness after milling, concrete overlay thickness, joint spacing, and the use of fibers. The UTW pavements were subjected to accelerated load testing. Load testing using the accelerated loading facility started in May 1998 and was completed in late 1999. The administration's project team has performed detailed distress surveys on a regular basis at each tested section. Some of the tested sections did exhibit cracking under loading as per the design plan. Other sections exhibited very little or no cracking. Major forms of distresses observed were corner brakes, transverse cracking, and longitudinal cracking. Faulting along longitudinal and transverse joints was also noted. During early 2000, it was decided to repair some of the cracked panels and subject the repaired sections to accelerated load testing. After a review of UTW repair techniques, the project team developed the repair plan. The plan was based on past experience with conventional concrete pavement repair. UTW panel removal and replacement was the most commonly used repair method. The process was broken down into seven steps. Locate distressed slabs, marked periphery saw cut lines, saw cut along marked perimeter and along joints, jackhammer interior concrete, jackhammer periphery concrete, prepare asphalt concrete base surface, and place and finish concrete. After locating distressed slabs, the next step was to mark the periphery saw cut lines. The project marked lines six inches inward from joints. The UTW panels were sawed full depth along the interior marked perimeter. Then, to facilitate the concrete removal and to avoid damaging the surrounding panels, the joints were dry cut partial depth, about one to one and a half inches. Next, the interior concrete was jack hammered. 90 pound hammers were used for the six by six panels and 30 pound hammers were used for the four by four panels. The broken concrete was put in the bucket of a bobcat, then transported to a dump truck. The periphery concrete was jack hammered using only 30 pound hammers. This avoided disturbing the asphalt layer and the surrounding concrete panels. Crew members used a broom to sweep the exposed asphalt surface to remove rainwater and loose materials. This was followed by air blasting. The cleanup prepared the surface for concrete placement. The concrete placement included the following steps. Concrete lay down, consolidation, finishing, texturing, curing and joint sawing. A high early strength concrete, 3,000 pounds per square inch at 24 hours was used. Concrete was delivered by truck and consolidated using a handheld spud vibrator. Next, crew members used a 10 foot long straight edge to strike off the concrete. The straight edge was aligned in the longitudinal direction to match the existing pavement profile. The surfaces were then floated and bull floated, followed by edging to restore the joints between the repaired panels and the existing panels. Finally, burlap drag was used to create final surface texture to match the existing surface texture. Water-based white pigmented curing compound was applied immediately after the burlap drag. The specified coverage rate was 200 square feet per gallon. The repaired panels were then covered with plastic sheets. Joints were sawed to a depth of 1 third of the panel thickness. Sawing width was 1 eighth inch. The approximate time used for removing and repairing a 6 foot by 6 foot panel was about 60 minutes. For the 4 foot by 4 foot panel, the time was about 45 minutes. On-site quality assurance and quality control and specimen fabrication was conducted by Federal Highway Administration personnel. They performed air content test and slump test. The concrete had a slump of 1 inch and an air content of about 4.5 percent. The Federal Highway Administration staff also made cylinder and beam specimens. These specimens were stored and cured on-site for the first 24 hours and then transferred to a laboratory for testing and further curing. Compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength and modulus of elasticity were measured at 24 hours, 7 days and 28 days. The repaired sections were tested between late April and early August 2000. By the end of testing, the repaired sections had been subjected to over 400,000 repetitions of 24,000 pound axle loading. This was well above the original design life of the test sections. Even though there was some cracking, the repairs performed well and extended the life of the original pavement. From the field operation conducted in this project, it appears that UTW panel removal and replacement using the evaluated procedure can be an effective UTW repair method. Additional technical details for repair of UTW are provided by a companion tech brief, published jointly by Federal Highway Administration and Innovative Pavement Research Foundation.


Welcome, this is Melissa Armo with the Stock Swoosh and I'm reviewing Oracle. This was the Stock Swoosh Show play of the day today and Man, what a great trade this was. I also called two puts in it which If you were on the Gap Options newsletter You would have gotten the trades and if you were in the library, you would have gotten this call too So all in all it's really ended up being a a good week so far So cross our fingers for tomorrow because the Fed meeting is tomorrow and it's probably the biggest meeting they've had all year Because if they say something other than what people think they're gonna say It could rock markets tomorrow. So it's gonna be a really exciting day tomorrow to trade today was exciting So let's go over it for those of you that don't know what I do I trade gaps Exclusively I don't trade anything else and again I trade my golden gap method which I created So the night before the stock closed That I watch it slide 115 13 Then open in the morning at 102 70 So it ended up opening way down Way down and then we shorted it Got a little tripped up this morning though in this initially because it opened late This is still going here 100.69 was the low Less than an hour left to go see if we can get down to 100, but Anyways, we did this we added to it. We got the drop. It was a nice exit and You see where it went. I mean it kept going again for me personally I like the idea of being in and out of day trades very very quickly And then if I want to get a bigger move with something holding it to do an option So that's what I prefer to do, but you could still be in this day trade You would have never been down the whole day. You would have still been in the morning day trade, which is nuts I mean to see something again This wasn't a such a nice gap to have such a nice move like this really at the tail end of birding season the end of The year is so fantastic. So Oracle was earnings. Okay, that is what created the gap, but again Knowing this would work hitting it. There were people that went long this. How do I know the stuff or alley? I mean initially out of the gate. It had a big rally 104 84 Just double the check this year It's so weird. This is 104 95 My charts have been off today. That's a second number. I saw that It was off I think it's I think it's 95. I think the miniature timeframes are off Anyways getting back to what I was saying great short today in Oracle socks was show play of the day called it in the live room Everybody did it if you have questions and you want to sign up for my golden gap class You only have a few more days Only have a few more spots last class of the year is sardine sunday december 16th and 17th this weekend Wonderful move in oracle and can't wait to see what happens next Good luck everyone and have a great day And if you're interested in signing up for the golden gap course for december email me and melissa at thestockswish.com


We'd like to get a temporary stage so we can put it up quickly and easily. So the project was about funding the stage extension. We needed to make approximately £1,700 so we registered with Sussex Crowd downtown and it's all about small amounts rather than one big grout. It's a major village project with only 70 houses to get 26 pledging. It's pretty hyperforsom, you thought. So we were pleased with that. Mae'r rhaid i'w ddweud yw'r ffordd yw'r ffordd yn ymgyrch. Mae'n ddweud yw'r ffordd yn ymgyrch. Mae'n ddweud yw'r ffordd yn ymgyrch.


Good afternoon. Thank you very much for coming. Let's come to order, please. So afternoon, I'm Michael Lash, Chair of the Department of Economics. And welcome, Provost Staros, alumni, students, colleagues, guests. Let me begin very simply. Eleanor Ostrom, our speaker today, is an intellectual giant. Professor Ostrom rejected the bleak allure of the so-called tragedy of the commons and the implied Hobson's choice between privatization and authoritarianism. On the contrary, Ostrom observed that the earth is full of sustained and functional commons in which the institutions of the commons help people to cooperate and to act collectively to promote the general welfare. Professor Ostrom defined an alternative theory of the commons and perhaps is, importantly, a meticulous and reproducible method to document, and maybe even more importantly, to equip her students and their students in turn. Maybe there's a lesson here about a sustainable intellectual commons working somewhere. To document case after case of successfully maintained commons from forestry in South Asia to irrigation systems in the Southwestern US, really, around the world. Her work and that of her students has transcended mere documentation, although that's, as I said, has been rigorous and meticulous. The academic research has become one of the bulwarks of commons' maintenance. Professor Ostrom is distinguished professor, Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science and Senior Research Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University. She's also the founding director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University. She's a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. Her list of publications redefines entire disciplines. I won't list it here. Her list of prizes is as long as many distinguished professors' lists of publications. One prize is especially noteworthy. Eleanor Ostrom won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics, becoming the first woman to do so in the 40-year history of the award. In its recognition of her work, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences noted, Eleanor Ostrom has challenged the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should be either regulated by central authorities or privatized. So it's indeed a pleasure to welcome her to the University of Massachusetts. This afternoon, Professor Ostrom will deliver the 2011 Gamble Lecture, give me a hand of us, 2011 Gamble Lecture of the Department of Economics. The Philip Gamble Memorial Lectureship Endowment was established by Israel Rugosa, class of 1942, another example of paying it forward, and other families and friends in memory of Philip Gamble, a member of the economics faculty from 1935 to 1971, who chaired the department from 1942 to 1965. The fund supports an annual lecture series featuring a prominent economist, previous speakers have included five previous Nobel Prize winners, all male, I think, Jean-Cath Galbraith, Barbara Bergman, Lonnie Guinear, Robert Reich, Robert Schiller, Danny Roderich, a long list, most recently financial journalist Gretchen Borgensen. This afternoon, we are honored by the presence of members of the Rugosa family, Marty and Elizabeth Rugosa. Thank you, thank you for coming. Marty is a 1979 graduate of the Eisenberg School and the steward of the Philip Gamble Memorial Lectureship. Elizabeth is a 1988 zoology graduate. Thank you, welcome and thank you truly for attending. The Gamble Lectureship is also supported by the Charles L. and Martha S. Gleason Fund. Charles and Martha were economics graduates in 1940 and 1942. Both are now deceased, but their legacy lives on. In 2005, 2006, the University of Massachusetts Amherst sponsored a series of lectures and conversations until the Forum on Social Wealth to think about the commons and the new light, shown by Professor Ostrom. We developed these lectures into an undergraduate course, Econ 105, Introduction to Political Economy, recommended to all of our undergraduates. While we were developing the class, we looked for a voice who would deliver the last word in the course and we chose Eleanor Ostrom. So please join me in giving her the last word once again and welcoming Professor Ostrom. Well, thank you very, very much for inviting me. I much, much appreciate the invitation and I've had some wonderful discussions with colleagues and students here and it's just been great. So I enjoy it and it's a somewhat controversial position I'll take and so I won't be upset if some people wanna challenge it, but we'll talk about it. So I think we have to agree that climate change is the largest commons. Pardon me? Okay, can you hear me now? Okay, so we're dealing with a very large commons that I will argue in a few minutes. It's not normal very correctly, but the I am asked repeatedly if what we've learned from fisheries and water systems, et cetera, has an automatic relevance for studying the global and there's one aspect of what we have learned is that nested systems at multiple scales tend to be sustainable and ones that are operating entirely independently of either larger or smaller tend not to be. But it's also a global public bad and in terms of climate change and greenhouse gases, the problem of greenhouse gases, no one can be excluded from it and everyone does have a implicit negative incentive to do something about it. And what disturbs me is that people see that one of the impacts of our use of electricity and other things is global. Then that is perceived as the only and thus the only way of taking care of it is global and I will be arguing that global solutions are very important, but we're not moving and we've mismanaged, we've mis-conceptualized it so I want us to think about an alternative way. Okay, so I will be arguing that we do not need to wait. It looks to me like it could be another 10 years, maybe even more before we got some international agreements and I don't think we can afford to wait that long. And there are lots of debates on this issue and I happen to have some reasoned views but I'm not going to get into that today because I'm not concerned about the globe as a governance. I am very concerned about our shared plan and the problems that we all face with greenhouse gases going up and then we've got some really nasty problems on the policy side of how do we develop policies that don't reward those that were the most selfish in the earlier period including some of us and so there are efficiency questions, effectiveness, moral, all sorts of questions. So these are difficult and important debates and there are reasonable proponents on many sides and I think we have some reasoned capabilities of what we can do but I want us to move ahead. So I think that's my basic message. Okay, let's go. So debate, I debated in high school, I learned a heck of a lot from debate and it's important that we engage in good discourse about it but debate alone without coming up with some things that are feasible doesn't get us anywhere. And we do eventually need global action so please do not interpret that I'm saying it's useless at the global level. I'm just saying right now we're not moving so there are many other things we can be doing and just waiting makes it potentially much more difficult. So we're facing not only warming but very great variability in climate and upsets on a whole bunch of different scores. So then what I want to do is in order to move ahead we want to look at a variety of questions. The first question I'm going to raise is kind of a social scientist question. Is the conventional theory we use for collective action the best theory for analyzing the problem? And of course I've been attacking that theory for some time in terms of it's the underlying theory of Garrett Harden and Mansur Olson and many others and so my answer is obviously no but we have to think about this hard. As the conventional theory is interpreted none of us will stop emitting greenhouse gases and all of us need the government on top of us to stop it. And they accept the theories of Garrett Harden and Mansur Olson and there are some aspects of their theories that are correct. It's just their policy recommendations of where they carry it and frequently I'm wrong. And the idea that we must have global theories is eventually correct but that doesn't mean it's exclusively. So I'm going to be addressing a variety of questions. Besides the conventional theory, the one that is kind of the foundation for what I'm dealing with here is our global benefits, the only benefits generate. And I'm going to be making an argument that a lot of our daily actions generate greenhouse gases eventually that is a harm to the entire world but it's also a harm to many of us locally and we need to be thinking of it only. Right now we think of individual, hello. I think we need to be thinking of individual externalities at the individual level, at the family level, at the small community level, at the little bit larger level, at a regional level, at a national level and at an international level. That changes the way we analyze it and we can do a much more rigorous job of analyzing it. And I don't know how many times people said, oh, anything local, that doesn't mean bad. It doesn't have an impact on the entire globe. Well if the only thing you're trying to avoid are global externalities and you don't see the externalities at lower levels then indeed, forget it, but if there are externalities that can be avoided at multiple scales then taking action at multiple scales can have a big impact. So we can have still more questions. Are large-scale governments always better equipped? Are they the ones that will solve collective action universally above smaller scale? And another one that people, a lot of people, some of the colleagues here have been saying, oh, if we have too many units involved, isn't that chaotic and isn't it difficult? And yes, but if you don't have more than one and one doesn't do anything, it might be a lot better to have multiple. And then the last question is really the title of the talk, how might a polycentric system with various mechanisms at very small and moderate, somewhat bigger and bigger all the way to global, can it make a difference? And polycentricity is a concept that comes out of the work of Vincent Ostrom and Charles Thiebaud back in the 60s as they were looking at urban phenomena and arguing that in a metropolitan area there were not benefits that were strictly for the entire metropolitan area, which was the argument, in that there were polycentric systems that were very important. Okay, so now let's do a quick overview of collective action theory. And the presumption is that it does explain the use of activities which produce greenhouse gas and global externalities. And obviously reducing the use of cars and lowering furnace use, et cetera, can be potentially very costly and costly for the individual. And if there are no benefits for the individual and the only benefits are global, it really is a difficult.  And we have all sorts of reasons for assuming that people will not voluntarily act if it is only to solve a global problem. So the conventional view captures the nature of many problems. But it basically is saying, if we don't do anything and we don't ask the government to come in and solve it, nothing will happen and we are in bad shape. Now the support for this theory, empirically, has been pretty weak. And so what I have been doing since the 60s is addressing this one, a very wide diversity of fields, the first groundwater in California, then policing in terms of public goods around the U.S. and then irrigation systems in Nepal and a variety of others, and now very extensive work on forestry. And we are finding that when users see a future that they can affect and that they are more likely to be in that future that they can affect, then they are much more likely to take action. And in our forestry studies, we have studies now in over 100 forests around the world and good statistical analysis. And we find that when the users themselves monitor, that's when forest conditions get better. And that's not in our theory. There's no discussion as people talk about externalities that some of those are at a local level and local people are concerned about it and local people will, I mean, investing in monitoring. That's something that's not, I hope you all will go forth and recognize that in their papers in science and BNAS that show that very, very carefully. So we need to change the basic assumptions that we're using. And some of you may not be too happy about that. I don't want to change market theory when we're talking about market problems. There's no need to change it. To just apply economic theory as we've evolved it for the market, for commons, is not adequate. And we need to rely on a behavioral theory of human action. And one of the things that we have found in our research is that building trust, not trust, building trust is a very, very important thing that people do who can solve these problems. And then, as I mentioned, we need to be thinking about unnested externalities and not just one. So if we turn to the problem of a behavioral, this isn't behaving the best, a behavioral theory of human action, I draw heavily on the work of Herbert Simon and the basic idea that people want to be rational, want to obtain outcomes as best they can, but they frequently don't have complete information. They don't have a way of maximizing in terms of the situations. And they can learn norms and they can have preferences that involve payoffs for others. And so we need to be thinking of a broader theory of human behavior. And that's at the foundation of what we're working on. Then we need to be thinking about nested externalities. And so in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, besides what does go to the globe, when you take a bike out for a ride in the countryside instead of taking a car for a ride in the countryside, you are producing a lot less extra greenhouse gases and your health's better. So we haven't taken into account that biking and walking can produce benefits at the individual level and that there are externalities at the individual level of costs and health problems that you can avoid. When a neighbor, when a household community decides to invest in insulation, they are saving themselves money over a 10, 15 year period and the externalities of higher cost from heating their house are avoided. So we really need to be thinking of a variety of externalities at multiple levels. So if there are no changes are made, we'll have households that purchase X amount of carbon by either buying gas instead of bicycling or thermos or things of this sort. If there were appropriate incentives that were overt, they'd purchase less and if we can make them avert, that's part of the policy debate of how do we make them avert. And if they accept responsibility for eliminating costs to the family, they can reduce carbon by even more and this is what I'm hoping can be done. So let's talk about heating buildings. The building use is 40% of the primary energy in the US. 40%, I don't know how many of you have been in an office or the university where you come in and the heat was on all night and it's just, so what do you do? You open the windows. Well, the heat ran all night and there's a great waste for the university and some universities have started competition among the dorms, very interesting process where they have to get good recording mechanisms but get the dorms to compete of who can reduce their energy bill the most and they can, for the campus, by getting a little competition in there, they can reduce it quite a bit. We've just started it and we did it at IU. It's an amazing sort of thing. So there's a very important article in the Proceedings of National Academy of Science by DEETS at all and they could indicate that households could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 10 years. If they did a variety of things like weatherization and better insulation, low flow shower heads. Now this one, folks, the next time you get in the shower, if you have to go, oh my God, it's so hot and you have to turn the cold water way up, think about what that means. You brought the hot water to this very hot level. You pay for all of that and pushing greenhouse gases up and then you can't stand it. So get your hot water down here. You don't have to get it down to none but you can use less cold water. It does not affect the efficiency of your clothing washing and your dishwasher. And it's such a simple, simple thing. The efficient water heaters. So not only getting the water heater turned down but getting more efficient ones. Improved appliances. We just got a new dish washer, pardon me, a clothes washer, front loading. Very fast. Uses less water, uses less heat. I'm real pleased with it. Getting fuel efficient vehicles. There are now lots of ways of getting your thermostat at home or in your office so that when you're not there, it turns off. So you're not wasting 12 hours of heating or air conditioning. I mean, you think about it, it's just huge what we waste. So that PNAS article is very useful. Then our community efforts that can be done is to have community campaigns that address this. And I'm gonna talk about two, one done in Sacramento and one done at Berkeley. I was born in Rice, California. You don't have to part in some of my projects. The Sacramento Municipal Water Utility is a private utility. So they were very concerned about having to expand and build new plants and all the rest. And they started to take random samples of their users and then they would rank them. And then they'd send back information to the users. So the bill compared your household use with everyone else's in your neighborhood. And so the bill looked like that. And just giving people feedback information made a very big difference. They tried out something where they put a face on it. And when this was after this, but for those that were really good, they put a big smiley face. And for those that are bad, they put a lot of smiley face. And people who had a big family got a frown, they got furious. And so they didn't find any self-appearance, but they have kept adding the smile. And so they got a lot of change behavior. They tried a market system of trying to get people monetary rewards for reducing. Didn't work. This worked. And I'll go on to Berkeley first. This was a financing initiative where they wanted to finance people who would do renewable or solar. And they wanted to overcome the burden of doing it because I've just had solar on my garage and I can tell you it's a pretty big bill.  Bring it to us and we'll certify it. And then you can get a loan up to 20 years at a low interest. And that is then paying every year on your tax bill. How simple can you get? And so many people, they ran out of funds right away. They got it started, they ran out of funds, they got another one, they started. But if more locals will do that, it's one way of getting a lot of things done at a local level. Okay, well, we have another question because everyone's saying, well, this still doesn't do any good. You gotta go large scale. Well, does it always work at the large scale? Well, we have a lot of, there are policies at the large scale that do work. But it's pretty ambiguous. People point you to the Montreal Protocol and say, oh, we did it. Well, there were only five really big producers of far, far, far off, whatever that was. And one of them was Dupont. And they had already discovered an alternative that they really wanted to use. So the biggest manufacturer said, great, put a limit on it, we'll stop right away and we'll go in and make a lot of money because we have an alternative. So we can't just go to that. There were lots of other things about the Protocol Treaty, but it isn't an example of how to solve the kind of conflict situation that we now have. The Canadian Department of Fisheries, the East Coast of Canada, a local fisherman were saying, hey, there's a problem, there's overfishing, it's a problem, it's a problem, it's a problem, it's a problem.  And two years later it collapsed. So they didn't take the word of locals seriously and then they had a massive collapse. So that's a big problem. You go to EU, which is working on fisheries supposedly and that's not been successful. There are potential problems with multiple actors. You can have linkage between. And so some people are kind of concerned that some of the firms in Europe that are local and have adopted policies that come local now are buying their things from overseas where there's huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. And so you then buy it from there and have to do the shipping costs. So it isn't always the case if you don't move to a larger that you've solved it all. There are other problems. You can have inconsistent policies that you can have that make it much more difficult to find a way of solving these problems. You're going to inadequate certification. We've been looking at a lot of the certification under the Kyoto Treaty and some of it is just incredibly bad. Free writing. And so having multiple, there's no question, no problems. But right now no problems, we can't get anything big. So I'd say the problems that we're facing with multiple units are not as big as the problems we're facing of inactivity. And I think we can move ahead a lot, Paul is such a. So I think the lessons that we're slowly but surely learning, there are complexity of causes. There's not just one, it's not just a few large-scale industrial producers. We're all doing it. The knowledge of exact causes and effects is still developing. We've got a lot of scientific knowledge about the impact. I'm not challenging that but there's still a lot to solve about getting good, tough data about precise estimates. But we do know that with a number of the kinds of policies we might adopt, you could then find some opportunistic behavior that, but I don't know any policies that people have evolved and didn't dealt with that don't have the chance of opportunistic behavior. And I think that policies at any level can generate errors and we have to be aware of it. So as I indicated earlier, I do propose a concentric approach that goes back to early theoretical work in the 1960s in terms of urban problems. And Vincent Ostrom and Charlie Thiepel wrote a very important article in 61 arguing that instead of there being one kind of good and a metropolitan area even for policing or any of the wide diversity of things that governments do, there are multiple scales. We then did a series of studies from the 1970s on that were very, very rigorous. And we did find that metropolitan areas that had some large like crime lab and dispatching. And then small and medium sized police departments that had found ways of working together. This is where we found the most successful low crime or low cost so that it affects both efficiency and effectiveness. And so this is not just a theory. It is a theory that has been now tested with extensive data. And the arguments that people had, they were arguing that oh, you gotta consolidate all those departments because they can't possibly do crime lab. Well, when we went out and did empirical work we found out they weren't trying. They'd already figured out that it was better to contract with the local hospital or the state or somebody. So our academic knowledge was lousy. The forest conditions, we have a collaborative network, the international forestry resources and institutions network. We have centers in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and we are doing some work in the US at Michigan and at IU. And we go in and we literally, we had ecologists help us with teaching us how to measure trees and getting very good ecological measures. And we are doing that. And then besides doing all the information about the tree growth and diversity and all the rest, we spend a lot of time with local communities finding out what are their traditions? How do they make decisions? What kind of rules, how broad gender representation are why diversity of things? And what we found in a statistical analysis because now we have a large N. If we look at the impact of private forest, government forest or community forest, just use those three broad terms. There's no statistical difference over a large number of forests. So people think I am recommending that community is always better. No, but what we're finding is that it's not the formal rules, but what they're doing locally, how much trust they have in one another, how much sense. So some government forests, people have a limited right to harvest. And with a limited right to harvest, non-timber forest products and mushrooms and important things, so fodder for animals, all sorts of things, they have a long run future. And with a long run future, they tend to monitor and be more active and the forest condition is better. And so it's not just turning it over to the government or to a community, that makes a difference. It's getting complex arrangements that involve people really investing in themselves. So what we basically have in much of what we study is that instead of one global response or large scale, we need to apply, polycentric theory, to develop complex, multi-level political, economic, social systems and recognize that sometimes the ones we design in the first place aren't gonna work very well and we're gonna have to go back and learn and redo, et cetera, that it has to be interactive. And we need to gain more sophistication on the institutional side. Our ecologist colleagues have a lot of sophisticated knowledge about nested systems. And we don't, we treat things as the government or the market, even though the market may have 500 participants in it, or even more. And so we just need to be thinking of much more than one remedy. And my other argument will be that no matter what we do, we need to be sure that locals are more involved. Policies that are made in some national capital by a bingo meeting with a international or national government, and drawing a map. A lot of international policies are the equivalent. They spend an hour to draw a map and then they tell everybody, this is our decision and they expect everyone to honor it. And they've never even looked at some of the areas. I've been in a forest in Nepal that were nationalized earlier after people had been 500 years of banning themselves. It was just yanked away from them because after all, they couldn't, they were just peasants. Anyway, I will open it for questions or discussion or however you guys want to run out. Please. Yes. Hi. I'm really good. We've sort of lined out the use of government and the use of support. Well, basically, we're talking about the center of government, we've got a very, very, you know, local government and state government nationalized. I was wondering what you thought of, I don't think he's done it like he's seen, but how helpful is our base solution that we're working towards using local carbon emissions, local warming, specifically a lot of companies are cutting out the way their products are. I don't think there's any use, the point of local carbon emissions that are carbon neutral products that are selling before consumers are wrong. Yeah, I'm being advertising. Being advertising, and sometimes it's real. Sometimes it isn't. That's part of our problem with a lot of health products that sometimes it is just on the label and it's not real. But sometimes it is real and the more we get people instructed to be paying attention to the way that people present it, it's important. So that would be one of the sorts of actions that fits in a polycentric theory. But I don't rely on that only. Well, in regards to today's talk, it seems to me that what we have today is a polycentric system. We have initiatives going at all scales from the individual to the college campus, to cities, to states, to regional buildings, like in England, some national governments moving ahead, loopings of national governments, like if you're really new to the tapestry program. So we have this policy. We have the beginning, but a lot of people have said, oh, there's uses. And the renewable energy installations are growing rapidly, energy efficiency is improving, and at the same time, emissions increase both in the United States and both in the future. Here, that trajectory, the energy administration has predicted that with current policies in place, emissions will be 35% high in 20 years. Compared to that, with the scale that we've got, the need for full concentration is anything, for example, in the state of London. And it seems to me that it's just too optimistic to say, well, we can manage, in any sense, at least kind of decentralize. I'm saying that it's better than waiting 10 years before we get some of that international action. No, it's waiting. All of these things are going on. What do you mean, nobody's waiting? Have we had any agreement? What did we do in Copenhagen? We've always said to the system, people are doing exactly the kinds of things that we just talked about, they're all scared. But not enough, and we're not teaching.  In this country, about almost half the people do not accept the proposition that the climate can be due to human action. You're about a problem, my theory of that, Mr. The two leading candidates for the growth in our nation also do not accept. It's tragic. Yes, but I'm saying right now, we're not getting any of that up there, and it is encouraging that there is a lot more going on at local levels. I'm not saying that that is going to be sufficient for the long run, but my proposal is, let's do everything we can to improve that. And I'm still pushing for large-scale solutions as part of that. I'm not ignoring it, let's not sit around. I consider a lot of the current policy debate is twiddling our thumbs, and I just don't think that's a reasonable way. I see it as a real threat. So then, the more we can do, and the more we can get neighborhoods to take action, the more we can get things like Reggie in the far west, far east, in terms of some of the market arrangements and the tax arrangements. And some of the European, not only you have the EU, but some of the large cities in Europe have really taken very major actions. We need more of that. So I think we have more chance of getting more of that than we have of getting better treaties. If I thought that we could get better treaties if we just organized a little better, I'd go for treaties. And then also, because as soon as you have the treaties, you've got to figure out how to do the local and all to fit the treaty. So the treaty gets an agreement, but how do you keep the agreement if you don't have various other policies at other levels? So it's just that I don't like to see us wasting time and energy saying, denying that there's a lot more we can do. I'm an activist. Let's go. But will monitoring happen in the absence of ownership, or is it pretty much ownership has to happen than the local community is willing to monitor them? Well, see, monitor can be a little thing on your utility bill. And that was not that expensive to do. And they did affect use. And on the campuses where they've had the competition among dorms, they've gotten a power use down 10%, 15% on a dorm. And one of the things they're finding is that we are indicating those heating things over there by your head, you know? That's very uninformative. It does your current temperature and you can play with it, but it doesn't turn off when the room is empty. It keeps going at the same level, day and night. And in the dorms where they change the meters so that people got better information and they could adjust it, then they know even more reduction. I was asking a reference to your force monitoring. I know that community conservation has less developed parts of the world. Oftentimes, a local community won't take care of the resources unless they have a stake in their ownership. The stake is different than ownership. And that's what we were surprised. We expected to show community forest to be better. And we were wrong. It isn't simple ownership. It is stake. But stake, there are many ways of having stake. And are you allowed to walk through? Can you pick wildflowers? Can you pick various kinds of mushrooms and things like that? That's not harming the forest capacity of regrowl, but you've got an interest. And so without a stake, yes. Why should you put in effort when they've taken it away from you? For many people, at least they've lived there. They're forbearers. They've been there for hundreds of years. And then the government comes along and says, it is, you don't know how to keep it. I mean, the insulting aspects of what we've done into indigenous communities around the world is pretty frightening. I don't want to change market organization in those areas where there are private goods with few extra downs. So capitalism is one of those terms that is frequently used, it's very rare. And if you're talking about the use of market organization for products that have very few externals, I don't know anything about it, but it's the difference between then idealizing and putting up as heroes people who make billions of money. That's not market theory. That's part of our social theory. And our social theory has led us to confuse making money with being great. And I admire successful entrepreneurs, but I don't idolize them. And I think getting people to move away from idolizing political leaders and entrepreneurs who made lots of money would be important, and that's what you're getting at. But capitalism is too broad a term. Jerry, counterpart market system with government. Well. And then argue we need something polycentric. But what is a market system with proper crisis be a polycentric system that would move the profit mode under the strength of the crisis, people would save energy, that's what's needed to find the most efficient way to do it. Why don't we just fix the price system and forget about everything else? Because we've been proposing this and there's no action at all. And so I'm tired of waiting. I do think that besides just pricing, that there are other things we can be doing so that my model of the individual, my theory of individual is a little broader than a narrow rational choice out of this narrowest. But there are, I'm for a lot of capital trade possibilities, but nothing's happening. So my discouragement is with inactivity. And I don't see any move. I think we could be still debating on that in 10 years. 15 years. And we continue the level of greenhouse gas emissions for another 15 years. So I'm very concerned. And whenever we can use various kinds of market mechanisms and governments get incentive systems that are real and encourage firms to take very positive action, great, that's part of what I would see.  What does government do? Which government do you think is stupid?  So part of our problem is that we turn and idealize systems as if governments always search out the best interest of their citizens. And our research shows they don't always, some do at some times. But you've got to get into how are we choosing officials, we've evolved a system in the U.S. that is involving an awful lot more funds going from various kinds of private firms to government officials. Then we had 35, 40, 50 years ago. And I think we can do an analysis that there are many aspects of that that are pretty dysfunctional. So my puzzle is that anyone, I've seen local governments that are corrupt and there are local leaders who just do very well. And I've seen that all the way up. But you have a little more chance of learning about things. At, well, and you can learn about them at all levels. Partly, if you don't teach, you look at the textbooks in government now, there are not very many discussions about some of the incentives for malpractice. And that should be a part of how we teach. Just like we should teach, I mean, we do teach monopoly in economics and the bad aspects of monopoly. But we are not teaching some of the bad aspects of government, as we should. And we don't teach local government hardly at all. Used to be that every freshman who took a introduction to political science is one semester of government, national, and one state local, state and local security. I'm very impressed about that. We're going to be an active man who, or more necessarily, is of communication regardless of resource to extract and complete. How do you reconcile the sustained impact as you mentioned in our lecture with the existence of strip lining, there's a lobbying impact on that. If we look out there, we'll find some groups that are doing all sorts of positive things for the environment and others that are doing all sorts of negative. And, but we are then waiting for the top down to put taxes on and change the behavior of people motivated by profit motive to do things that harm the environment. And I'd like to get taxes on them. I'm not opposed to it. To some extent, we're starting to do a little bit more at the state level. And I'm very encouraged with that. But if that's what we wait for, I just don't want us waiting. I want us to recognize it. Let's get in there and do things at various scales and really try to make a difference. And then we can learn from that and how some of those are going to be terrible failures. Well, let's learn from failures and move ahead. So, how do you make a lot of improvement happen? Well, one of the things would do, have more people read the Leeds at all article on PNAS. I mean, that is one of the leading scientific journals and very well. There's a new one coming out in PNAS about next week that is on some of these same issues. And it's good. And then, like the sorts of things that people were studying in the college efforts, there have been some very careful studies. Some of it's just averageizing in college, or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but some of it's been carefully studied. And there is good scientific information. What happens when people have better dialysis and things of information? So, having all the scientific knowledge that you might need to think through ice melt, that isn't needed for a lot of what I'm talking about. I was very important. I'm gonna be doing a major study of ice melt in Kenya in the Rockies on water systems and irrigation systems. But I don't expect that's going to be impacting a lot of private decisions about their use of electricity. But I'm very interested in the way and that institutional arrangements at a local level react to the threat. And there's a very substantial threat of ice melt and producing the amount of water that they have in the future. The consumption of the ice melt is about several percent of what we're talking about. How do we persuade the same energy without thinking about the loss in general? Pay that, how do we make it sexy? Yeah, it's tough. I don't think there's a simple way, but the more people in freshman classes really get into some of these issues, the more we work with community groups and we try to provide them the information and the things that they could be doing in their community, we can slowly but surely make a difference. But no, we have an awful lot of the individual level decisions that are not in the long-term self-interest of the individuals who make them. Even if economic output becomes more efficient with respect to the amount of the greenhouse gases that are produced, we're thinking about we need to live under an economic system that has a growth imperative. There's a lot of evidence that in the high-income developed countries of America, of Europe and so forth, that the last several decades of growing economic output is not obvious, it's led to any increase in human welfare. We have a win, the economy doesn't grow as far as there's always problems rising on the climate, residents and prime ministers who are voted out of office. So how do you think it's possible to really solve this trajectory towards global climate change that will be disastrous for civilization as long as we have an economic system that seems to have endless economic growth from here to eternity built into it in a way that works? Do you teach economics? Yes, I do. What, do you teach that? Sometimes I do, but I don't guess. Well, I think it's important and I don't think we should stop teaching market theory, but regardless, profits are one criteria that we use for evaluation, but in a world of complex equity issues and ecological environmental, we may want to be moving much more sensitively to a more complex picture of what is success and we need to be doing that our teaching. So we have a whole new generation who are studying with us and let's not continue these things and then writing for the press and introduce and things of that sort. It's important that we stress the challenges of changing our systems to make them more sustainable and instead of economic growth, sustainability is a much more important value and we need to stress that, we're not. So a lot of it is at our feet as college teachers and what we profess. Whatever, you know, you are, we're I guess at the time, so why don't you? Well, you slowly but surely take where is there action? What legislators can you elect that I have more likelihood to put taxes and other things on various kinds of firms? How do you get the press to cover the costs more effectively? There's no single thing and there's no magic. Organizing and getting word out there and getting away from the sense that, oh, if it's a private firm, they can do anything if as long as they're making profits. Well, I studied a problem back in the 60s that looked like it was going to disaster and it took a while, but that basin is, that groundwater basin is now 50 years later in much better condition than it was earlier. So I guess partly I do have a sense that we can take difficult and costly steps and see 50 years later, it is better. Right now, I'm afraid that 50 years from now we've got a disaster. I can't hear you. Well, that's one of the techniques. Again, I don't think there's any one, but that's one technique that we have available to us that we can be thinking about. And here is where for us, this is where for us are very important in that the good forest land is at just sequester a lot more carbon than urban areas. It's not a panacea by itself, but it's something we should be thinking about and encouraging ways of, again, trying to encourage people who invest in their forest. I'm not very encouraged with REDD reduced emissions and deforestation and degradation because they're talking about huge sums of money and not very much on how to set this up institutionally so that they actually get a long-term reduction in emissions and more carbon stored. It's big, it's big advertising right now. And I've looked at some of the policy papers in this area and they're not very sophisticated. It's, again, advertising. Okay, well, that's for sure. We're closing the comment here. We do short-term aspirations and some short-term aspirations, but we don't address long-term problems. And it seems to me that the early merchant, our normal historian, talks about the transformation of consciousness. And she said, this is the only time of that when people have to face up with contradictions in their lives. And we see this with urban control and other issues. When the government regulations, have you looked at the literature of how these contradictions how these contradictions arise so that they become a public debate? Well, more on the resource use in the looking at indigenous communities what they've done in recognizing, and at least what I've tried to do is make it apparent to many people that indigenous communities that managed resources for centuries were not that dumb. And we've done grave time by taking all their rights away from them and what we've replaced it with is not very adequate. But that's where I've done most of my work on that score. Well, thank you very much. Before we go on to the next question, we were just a message to the examiner in the Department of Economics, Professor Ashram. This is a- Yes, room. Okay. So thank you very much for joining us. And before-


Hi, everyone. My name is Simon Glavin and I'm a bioinformatician at the University of Melbourne in Australia and I'm also one of the administrators of Galaxy Australia, a large public Galaxy server. Today I'm going to be talking to you about running jobs on remote resources with Pulsar or a way of getting Galaxy to use remote compute resources, not local to Galaxy. To some requirements before we start, we would kind of recommend that you would understand a little bit about Galaxy installation and how to do it using Ansible. And also, if you've never used Ansible before, there's a good tutorial on a slide deck on that as well. And if you are going to do this tutorial later on, you'll also need a server or a virtual machine on which to deploy Pulsar. And hopefully that server or virtual machine is separate to your Galaxy server. Right, some of the things we hope that you'll be able to answer the end of this slide deck and hands on tutorial is how does Pulsar work and how can I deploy it. We'd like you to have an understanding of what Pulsar is and how it works, how to install and configure a Pulsar server or a remote Linux machine and be able to get Galaxy to send jobs to a remote Pulsar server. All right, so what are heterogeneous compute resources? And what do I mean by heterogeneous? Well, basically, I mean that we can have a large Galaxy system, we can have a number of different compute resources available to it, and they can have different operating systems or versions. They can have different sets of users or different groups and different users and groups could have access to different compute resources. For example, if you're running a Galaxy server at a university, some of your users may be able to have access to HPC and how do you make that available for them to use considering it's probably going to be running a different operating system to the one that you're running your Galaxy server on. So data accessibility is another issue. So if you have compute resource in a different data hall in your university somewhere and doesn't have access to the Galaxy file system or the temporary job working directories a Galaxy would normally use, then how do you get to use that compute resource? Do you have full administrative control? If you're using your university's HPC system, then the answer is probably no, you don't have full administrative control. How do you get Galaxy to use those resources if you don't have administrative control? And sometimes they may be completely separate physical location. For example, in Galaxy Australia, most of our stuff is located in Perth, but if I want to run a job using some compute resources in Melbourne, which is about 3,000 kilometers away, how would I go about doing that? So these are the kind of things we're talking about when we say heterogeneous compute resources. It means we've got different groups of compute resources that may have different accesses and different administrations, different locations. But to be able to use it, Galaxy expects that everything is running on a single operating system. So the versions of all the dependencies and everything can be the same. And then we have a shared file system with fixed paths. They didn't have access to the Galaxy files as well as the temporary job working directories. And maybe this is not always the case. For example, in Australia, we used to be, had known to be located in Brisbane, but now it's located in Perth, but we want to be able to utilize compute resources spread out all over the country. And so how do we go about doing this? Well, there's a partial solution in Galaxy, which is the command line interface job runner. So if you've worked through the Galaxy tutorials up till now, you'll know that there's in the job conf, you can add different job runners and one of those is the command line interface one where you can say SSH into a remote machine and then submit jobs with the command line interface. They're using S batch or Q sub. If you're using slurm or PBS talk, etc. However, this still depends on having all the file systems being shared between the remote computer resource and the Galaxy server. And this may not be the case. So this is where Polestar comes in. And Polestar is Galaxy's remote job management system. It was written by John Chilton as part of the Galaxy project itself and is a system whereby Galaxy can send job metadata and job input data to a remote computer system somewhere. Polestar can pick them up, run the jobs, collect the results and resulting metadata and send it all back to Galaxy again. And it doesn't require shared file systems. It just requires that the Galaxy server be able to talk to the Polestar server over the network. Polestar can run on any OS, including Windows, which is kind of handy if you've got a Windows only command line tool that you want to be able to run on your Galaxy server. There's multiple modes of operation for every environment in terms of different firewalls, etc. And Polestar can be configured to run in multiple different ways to suit your needs. So the architecture of Polestar is that Polestar server runs on a remote resource, i.e. the head node of a cluster or just a remote machine somewhere. And then the Galaxy Polestar job runner in the job control file is the Polestar client. And communication between Polestar client i.e. the Galaxy server and the Polestar server is either via HTTP via REST API or via advanced message queue protocol. And file transport from one machine to another is dependent on the communication method. It can be used things like Percurl or HTTP file transfers or the SCP or RC Inc etc. So the architecture of all this kind of looks like this diagram here. So this little green box here is the Galaxy server. We have Galaxy running and it's talking to a SLAM queue to send jobs out to a bunch of compute nodes. There's a shared file system between the compute nodes and the Galaxy server. So this is the local Galaxy cluster, I guess you'd call it. Inside the Galaxy server we have a job cont file. And in the job cont file we've defined the various things like job runners. So the SLAM job runner, the local job runner, and this thing called the Polestar job runner, which is actually the Polestar client. And in the destinations we've set up a bunch of destinations like the local destination, the Polestar destination and the SLAM destination. And by default we send everything to SLAM except for the case of if a user wants to run Trinity or a user wants to run Spades, we've decided that actually these tools can be sent to the Polestar destination. So if a user comes along and decides to run Spades, for example, according to the job cont file, Spades will be sent to the Polestar destination, which then uses the Polestar job runner. And that then contacts the Polestar server. Well, if it's in REST mode, the Galaxy server will then just contact the Polestar server and say, hey, I've got a job for you. Here's the job metadata. And here is your input data. Please take care of this for me. And the Polestar server can do a numerous things. It can run it this locally on the same machine that the Polestar server is running on. Or it can submit it to a queue in the remote location be that HPC or even at your own cluster in the cloud. And then once those jobs are finished, the Polestar server collects all the results and sends them back to Galaxy. So Polestar can operate in a few different modes. The first one being the RESTL mode. And basically that means that the Polestar server on the remote computer runs a REST API on a web server. And the Polestar server listens to the API and the Galaxy server can initiate a connection to the Polestar server by just sending it a REST API request. So HTTP encoded URL. This is really good for where a firewall or open ports are not concerned.  So port 443, for example, open doesn't require any external dependencies to be running this mode. So you don't need any other intermediary servers between them. Galaxy can talk directly to Polestar over the REST API. The other way of running Polestar in the main is by advanced message queuing protocol. And in this case, we have an intermediate server program called an AMQP server such as something like a rabbit MQ or something like that will sit in between the Galaxy server and the Polestar server. And then both Polestar and Galaxy talk to the AMQP server. In this case, Galaxy would say, hey, AMQP server, I have a job. This job is for Polestar server. Can you please hold all the details of this job? And then that will be put into the queue for that particular server. And then the Polestar server periodically checks with the AMQP server to say, hey, is there a job for me? And the AMQP server in this case will say, yep, Galaxy has just given me a job for you. Here's all the details. And then the Polestar server will grab the job metadata, grab the locations for the files, and we'll pull them in. And this is really good for where the remote compute has a strong firewall and there's no way of getting around it. And so in this case, because Polestar will be initiating connections out to the Rabbit server or the Q server, we don't need to poke any holes in the firewall. It's also kind of useful for networks with bad connectivity as we can set retries and things like that to and we can use things like curl for file transfers, which are probably a bit more residual than HTTP file transfers. And occasionally you may want to run Polestar in embedded mode, which means that you're running Polestar on the same node that you're running Galaxy on. And this is sometimes good for copying input data sets from non shared file systems to shared file systems or a manipulating paths around etc. There's a lot of documentation on this if you wish to look into it more. Polestar needs to stage the files that it needs to work on. And so when Polestar gets a job, it actually needs the job metadata. So what tool we're going to be using, what version of the tool we're going to be using, all the parameters that are set for that particular tool, and then which input data sets we're going to run on. And then it needs some way of getting those input data sets off the file system on the Galaxy server onto its own local file system. And it can do that in a few different ways. When Polestar is running in REST API mode, Galaxy can push the data out to the Polestar server, or the Polestar server can pull it from the Galaxy server. Polestar can use libcurl for doing more robust transfers with resume capability. But when running in MQP mode, the only way of job file staging is by pull. So it means that Polestar needs to be able to curl the data out of the Galaxy server. Okay, so dependency management for Polestar. And this is where Polestar gets a job and say it's a BWAMM and it's BWAMM version 0.7.18. And Polestar says, Oh, I don't have that installed. How do I go about getting it? And this is where Polestar can automatically go and get them. And so it has a similar dependency resolved conflict to Galaxy. We can set up Polestar to auto install condo dependencies, or pulling singularity containers, or our token containers to run that particular tool or that particular version of that particular tool. In the tutorial, we'll be setting up Polestar to use condo dependencies. That was fairly simple to get it to use singularity. And job management. So Polestar can run various different job managers to facilitate the actual running of the jobs. So if we're going to run it locally on the Polestar server, we can use the Kube Python job manager, which will allow us to send the Polestar server numerous jobs at once. But that Kube system will only run one at a time. Or we could send it to the Kube drama manager, which will then forward on or submit jobs to a local queue for the Polestar server, say like it's a local Slern queue, or a PBS talk queue, or some other kind of HPC DRM system. Or we can set it to the Kube CLI so we can get Polestar to submit jobs using Kube server s batch. Or we can now send it to run on a condo cluster, which is pretty cool. And so after taking Galaxy Australia, well, this is the old picture now it's all located in Perth, but up until recently it was all located in Brisbane. So our main queue and our storage main storage and our main compute nodes were all in Brisbane. But now by using Polestar, we've able to utilize compute resources located all around the country. And you can see here we've got our head node in Brisbane. We had a Polestar node in Perth, a couple in Melbourne, and we were in the process of setting up some in Adelaide and camera and Sydney. And also we can if we want to set them up in Darwin and Tasmania. In actual fact, this can be run internationally as well as what happens in Europe. Europe has a rather extensive Polestar network where their head node is based in Freiburg in Germany. However, they have Polestar nodes dotted all around the EU. And they also have a Polestar node located in Melbourne in Australia. And that was pretty much just approved that we could run it all the way across the globe. There's a lot of resources for Polestar. The dock site, the actual source code for Polestar is part of the Galaxy Project. There is an answerable role for installing Polestar available as well. And in the tutorial, we'll be working through that to install Polestar on a remote server and then get Galaxy to talk to it. Some of the key points we'd like you to think about are the Polestar allows you to easily add geographically distributed compute resources into your Galaxy instance. It also works well in situations where the compute resources cannot share storage pools. Thank you.