Download Free Quicken 2002 Basic Updates On Hurricane
Regarding problems getting or installing the Quicken 2002 Deluxe R2 11.0.1(see yesterday's item):
Canadian version glitch? Bob Franken writes: 'I was just informed by Quicken tech support that the problem some users were seeing with the updater was only with Canadian versions. Intuit has updated their patch on the Intuit web site, so now anyone who had the problem should be able to download the new patch and update successfully.'
Install in OS X issue Tom Vineyard writes: 'Download went fine, but note that the download page says: 'The Quicken Deluxe R2 Updater application will launch in Classic mode before updating the Quicken 2002 application. Once Quicken 2002 has been successfully updated, you can quit Classic mode and Quicken 2002 R2 will launch under OS X.'
No luck for us We still get a 'connection failure' error every time we try to download this update (running OS X 10.1.1). One suggestion is to make sure that Passive FTP is enabled in Network settings. We tried this and it had no effect. Nick Van Valkenburgh suggests that updating the firmware on our LinkSys router may have some effect, as Intuit told him that 'they have changed their download methods and some routers/firewalls are not handling it well.' We have not tested this out as yet.
Quicken 2002 Download Free
Worldwide, windstorms are among the major abiotic threats to planted forests (Payn et al. 2015), and in Europe, they have contributed to more than the half of the total damage to forest resources since 1950 (Schelhaas et al. 2003). Even though wind hazards are natural drivers of forest ecosystems (Mitchell 2013), destructive storms that occur over large areas in managed forests lead to severe economic losses for the forest-based sector (Björheden 2007) and offset benefits resulting from higher forest productivity (Fares et al. 2015). For example, the total insured losses, including forestry, due to the storm series of 1999 exceeded €10 billion (Munich Re 2002). The total economic losses resulting from those events were estimated at around twice as much (Pinto et al. 2007). From an industrial angle, destructive storms are usually defined as hazards that blow down 100 % or more of the average annual harvest at the scale of industrial supply (Forestry Commission Scotland 2014). This sudden amount of timber to cope with threatens the normal functioning of forest-based activities (Valinger et al. 2014), disrupts the classical management and decision-making processes (Angst and Volz 2002; Broman et al. 2009), and consequently causes critical situations within public and private organizations (Drouineau et al. 2000; Birot et al. 2009). Regarding timber markets, prices and supply may be heavily impacted over the long run when several supply areas are experiencing severe damage at the same time (Costa and Ibanez 2005). From an environmental perspective, wind disturbances may cause a huge reduction of forest carbon sinks (Lindroth et al. 2009), lead to pest outbreaks (Wermelinger et al. 2013), or weaken the production of goods and services of forests in damaged areas (Lindner et al. 2010). In addition, the society is also affected by the consequences of storms, i.e., occurrence of civil casualties, alteration of landscapes, and of living conditions (Blennow and Persson 2013).
Quicken (qw.exe). Quicken shows your personal finance information, including your bank and credit card accounts, in one place. With this program you can add reminders to your Google Calendar or Outlook to not forget to make payments. Your Quicken 2013 information syncs easily from your computer to your tablet or smartphone.
In light of those potential impacts, active management of storm damage risk should appear logical. Paradoxically, even though destructive storms have been part of the history of European forests for a long time (Corvol 2005), this only became obvious in the 1990s, after a succession of shock events that led to questions regarding major changes in forest management (Birot 2002; Veenman et al. 2009). As a result, literature on risk management in forestry exponentially increased in the 2000s (Yousefpour et al. 2012), and a large body of knowledge is now available. This new paradigm within the forest community is also driven by several external factors. One of them is the macro-economic context, particularly the need to stay competitive in a globalized timber market and thus to limit the costs related to natural hazards (Meyer et al. 2013). Other impulses ensued from uncertainties linked to expected impacts of climate change on forest storm damage (Spathelf et al. 2014; Keenan 2015; Schou et al. 2015). Among others, the potential shift in winter storm frequency and severity (Fink et al. 2009; Schwierz et al. 2010), the continuous increase of the economic value at risk owing to the capitalization of growing stock (Nabuurs et al. 2007), and the higher vulnerability of forest stands (Campioli et al. 2012) are expected to increase the risk of damage. Societal changes also generate increasing economic losses from natural disasters (Barredo 2010). Therefore, in accordance with the “Risk Society” concept (Beck 1992), the management of hazards and insecurities in our modern societies tends to be one of the main preoccupations of public decision-makers (Brunet 2007). Nowadays, in this new perspective of modernity, politics are more prone to deal with the after-effects of huge storms and actively take part in the process (Barthod and Barrillon 2002). Whatever the initial motivation, it is now clear that both the forest-based sector and the public authorities cannot avoid addressing storm damage risk. The question is how to do this soundly and effectively.
Through the years, a methodological framework to address storm damage risk in forestry was gradually formalized on the basis of the classical theory of risk management (Haimes 2011) and international standards (ISO 31000 2009) and was used in several papers (Gardiner and Quine 2000; Kamimura and Shiraishi 2007; Schelhaas et al. 2010; Hanewinkel et al. 2011). This framework consists of an iterative assessment process that allows decision-makers to quantify risk—where the term risk encompasses the large variety of risks resulting from destructive storms—and implement mitigation strategies in order to reach the desired level of residual risk. For this latter purpose, decision-makers have to know what the options are, what the costs and benefits are, and the residual risk associated with policy options (Kaplan and Garrick 1981). In a second step, if the residual risk remains too high to be acceptable, tools and procedures to support crisis management may be developed, such as decision support systems, contingency plans, trainings, and exercises. Finally, if the destructive storm occurs, the response phase will be activated. It first consists of an immediate crisis response period with a special focus on emergency and rescue operations, timber damage assessment, and safeguarding measures. After the emergency phase, a public strategy should be implemented to support the forest-based sector. Again, public decision-makers will have to choose between a set of strategies encompassing the particular interests of stakeholders and public constraints. The more efficient the strategy is, the quicker the forest-based sector will recover from the shock and stabilize to a new equilibrium.
Despite the methodological improvements and the large body of literature addressing specific storm-related issues in forestry over the last 15 years, several papers recently reported the need to improve decision-making and management of storm damage at the strategic level (Gardiner et al. 2010, 2013; Landmann et al. 2015). However, as indicated previously, storm damage management is a highly complex, uncertain, and ambiguous process because of the multiplicity of risks, stakeholders, goals, and beliefs. As it is impossible to eliminate those elements from the risk management process, new approaches to address them effectively must be provided to the forest-based sector and the public authorities. Furthermore, the role of public authorities has to be clarified in regard to the forest community’s expectations. Indeed, in the past, initiatives from the forest community did not always receive the expected responses from public authorities (Birot et al. 2009). In this context, it seemed relevant to re-open the debate on how windthrow crisis management may be improved at the strategic level and what the role and interactions of the forest community and public authorities should be in this effort. The target of this paper is thus to provide a blueprint for how to progress in the future, identify where the priorities are, and suggest how some of them should be addressed. The first step is to identify issues and opportunities for stakeholders, using strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analyses based on recent storm experiences and the relevant literature. The second is to present a holistic approach for addressing storm damage risk at the regional (or national) level and describe the way to mitigate risk and support decision-making according to this framework. A focus on the specific role of public authorities is presented in a third step.