text:
NSF 13-566: Partnerships in Astronomy & Astrophysics Research and Education (PAARE)
Program Solicitation
Document Information
Document History
- Posted: May 30, 2013
- Replaces: NSF 08-562
- Replaced by: NSF 22-525
Program Solicitation NSF 13-566
National Science Foundation |
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
August 27, 2013
August 21, 2015
Third Friday in August, Every Other Year Thereafter
Important Information And Revision Notes
Revisions from the previous solicitation are:
- Proposals are now accepted on a biennial, rather than annual, basis. The anticipated budget has also been clarified.
- The preparation and evaluation of renewal proposals has been explicated.
- Proposals are required to describe how a formal, long-term, collaborative research and education relationship between the minority-serving institution and its research institution partner will be established.
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 17-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 30, 2017.
Summary Of Program Requirements
General Information
Program Title:
Partnerships in Astronomy & Astrophysics Research and Education (PAARE)
Synopsis of Program:
The objective of PAARE is to enhance diversity in astronomy and astrophysics research and education by stimulating the development of formal, long-term, collaborative research and education partnerships among minority-serving institutions and partners at research institutions, including academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST)-supported facilities.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
James E. Neff, W9137, telephone: (703) 292-2475, email: email@example.com
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
- 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 4 per biennial cycle
Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 annually to support current and new awards. The program anticipates solicitation of proposals on a biennial schedule. Awards are expected to have a range of budgets depending upon the scope of the partnership.
The estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
- A minority-serving college or university. See "Eligible Academic Institutions" in this program solicitation for a complete description.
Who May Serve as PI:
The Principal Investigator must hold a full-time, part-time or adjunct faculty appointment at a minority-serving college or university.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
- Letters of Intent: Not required
- Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
Full Proposals:
- Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
- Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing Requirements:
Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:
Not Applicable
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Not Applicable
C. Due Dates
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
August 27, 2013
August 21, 2015
Third Friday in August, Every Other Year Thereafter
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria:
National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions:
Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements:
Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
I. Introduction
The National Science Foundation's mandate to ensure vitality of the Nation's scientific and engineering enterprise includes concerns for the quality of and access to astronomy and astrophysics education for all Americans. Within this context, it is recognized that minority-serving institutions and their research partners at academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST)-supported facilities represent rich resources for improving minority access to careers in astronomy and astrophysics.
The Partnerships in Astronomy & Astrophysics Research and Education (PAARE) program described in this solicitation is designed to improve and strengthen the education infrastructure in astronomy and astrophysics, and to increase recruitment, retention and degree attainment by members of groups underrepresented in the field.
The PAARE program is intended to enhance the quantity and quality of astronomy and astrophysics research opportunities for students and faculty members at participating minority-serving colleges and universities. The program will produce models for developing long-term astronomy and astrophysics education and research relationships between minority-serving institutions and their research partners at academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF/AST-supported facilities.
II. Program Description
The objective of PAARE is to enhance diversity in astronomy and astrophysics research and education by stimulating the development of formal, long-term, collaborative research and education relationships between minority-serving institutions and partners at research institutions, including academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF/AST-supported facilities.
PAARE awards are expected to achieve significant increases in the number and quality of interactions between participants from research institutions, including academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF/AST-supported facilities, and students and faculty at minority-serving colleges and universities, and should result in increasing undergraduate and graduate astronomy and astrophysics degrees for underrepresented minorities.
The Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) strives to foster educational and research partnerships that utilize talented students at minority-serving colleges and universities by establishing opportunities for them to develop their scientific skills. Such partnerships will also serve the needs of partnering institutions by collaborating with and teaching traditionally underrepresented students who bring a unique set of experiences and perspectives to the research. Additionally, new opportunities will be had by students at the partner institutions, as the research efforts on both sides of the partnership are expected to expand. PAARE partnerships can also help to transform the academic structure of minority-serving institutions by providing the resources to build a research community in schools that have a heavy emphasis on teaching.
As retention of traditionally underrepresented students is key to the success of this program, a solid mentoring scheme is vital. PAARE awards are expected to help build a foundation for students at an early point in their scientific training and to help these students make the next step in their careers. The partnerships are intended to provide education and mentoring as a form of professional development to help these students succeed long after their work on the PAARE research has concluded.
As a means to determine the effectiveness of mentoring, education, and research, PAARE awardees are expected to consider carefully how the program can be assessed to determine if identified goals are being met. It is important that the partnership has a guiding vision as a whole, and to determine what success means at each level of the partnership.
Although proposals for the renewal of successful PAARE programs are welcome, investigators are reminded that such proposals will be reviewed through the normal merit review process and there is no guarantee that a renewal grant will be awarded.
III. Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 1 to 4 per biennial cycle
Anticipated Funding Amount: $1,000,000 annually to support current and new awards. The program anticipates solicitation of proposals on a biennial schedule. Awards are expected to have a range of budgets depending upon the scope of the partnership.
The estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.
IV. Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
- A minority-serving college or university. See "Eligible Academic Institutions" in this program solicitation for a complete description.
Who May Serve as PI:
The Principal Investigator must hold a full-time, part-time or adjunct faculty appointment at a minority-serving college or university.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Additional Eligibility Info:
Eligible Activities:
Support will be provided for activities that facilitate development of formal, long-term astronomy and astrophysics research and education relationships among minority-serving colleges and projects or faculty members at research institutions, which include academic institutions, private observatories and NSF/AST-supported facilities as described below. Funded activities might include, but are not limited to, the development of collaborative and mutually beneficial astronomy-related research and education projects, support for graduate and undergraduate students and exchanges of faculty and students. Well-prepared high-school students may also participate.
Of special interest are activities based on research and education connections among the participants, and designed to increase recruitment, retention and degree attainment by members of groups underrepresented in astronomy and astrophysics research. Proposers are encouraged to contact NSF program staff identified in this solicitation to discuss the appropriateness of the planned activities.
Eligible Academic Institutions:
All PAARE proposals, including those submitted as part of a collaborative proposal, must be submitted by an eligible minority-serving institution (MSI), including Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs), and Tribally Controlled Colleges (TCCs). Each PAARE proposal must be submitted in collaboration with one or more research institutions as defined below. Partners that are not an MSI may request funds only through a subaward from an eligible MSI.
Minority-serving colleges and universities eligible to participate in this activity must offer baccalaureate degrees in physics, astronomy or other physical science-related areas, including a general science degree, and meet at least one of the following criteria listed below. Further information on institution classifications can be found at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/edlite-minorityinst.html.
- Be designated by the Department of Education as a Hispanic-serving Institution (HSI) under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended [See 20 USC 1059 (c); Public Law 102-325, Section 316, July 22, 1992].
- Be designated by the Department of Education as a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (see 34 CFR 608.2).
- Be designated a Tribally Controlled Land Grant College or University (TCU) as cited in Section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994; an institution that qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978; or Navajo Community College, as authorized in the Navajo Community College Assistance Act of 1978, Public Law 95-471.
- Be a college or university whose undergraduate enrollment consists of at least 50% of one or more ethnic minorities underrepresented in science and engineering in the U.S., and not a Research University (RU/VH, RU/H, or DRU) in the Carnegie classification. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Native Alaskans and Hawaiian/Pacific islanders are ethnic minorities underrepresented in science and engineering in the U.S.
Partnering institutions or organizations may be any institution or organization eligible for NSF funding that supports a research program in astronomy and astrophysics, including academic institutions, private observatories, and NSF/AST-supported facilities. Research groups and individual scientists at research institutions are also eligible partners, provided that their institution shows evidence of commitment to the proposed program as demonstrated in a letter from the institution describing its support of the partnership. Proposals may include subawards to the partnering institution, provided it has demonstrated a commitment to the activity at least for the duration of the PAARE grant.
V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from email@example.com. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
- Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.com.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for required sections of the proposal, in accordance with PAPPG instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The PAPPG requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description; References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a PAPPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.
Supplemental proposal preparation instructions appear below.
The following items should be included and/or addressed in the "Project Description" section of the proposal (limit 15 pages):
- Describe the goals and the mission of the partnership.
- Describe in detail the planned research and education programs demonstrating how the partnership benefits all involved parties at the MSI(s) and the partnering institution(s). The proposal will be judged on the strength of the research as well as the strength of the proposed partnership.
- Describe how a formal, long-term, collaborative research and education relationship between the minority-serving institution and its research institution partner will be established.
- Describe the potential impact of the project on the science, education, and building of a diverse community of astronomers and astrophysicists, and how their results would be disseminated.
- Clearly define the mentoring scheme. This may include student and faculty mentorship.
- Describe the role of the partners at the research institution(s).
- Outline the management plan.
- Describe how the research and education plans will be internally evaluated including an assessment scheme.
- List of Participants: Provide a list of participating faculty or staff from all academic institutions involved in the partnership. List each participant by full name, and her/his institutional and departmental affiliation. Also, enter each name in "Add/Delete Non Co-PI Senior Personnel" FastLane Form. (Note: All faculty participants should have a PAPPG-compliant biographical sketch and a list of current and pending support included in the corresponding section of the proposal.
- For renewals of previously funded PAARE programs: describe how the proposed activities build upon the prior effort through the strategic development of the program.
In addition, the partnering institution(s) must each submit a statement indicating support of the proposed activities and the resources that will be provided to carry out the project. Supporting statement(s) must be uploaded in the "Supplemental Documents" section of the proposal.
The budget justification should explain clearly the connection between the requested funds and the proposed activities for the main budget and for any funding requested through subawards.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing:
Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
C. Due Dates
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
August 27, 2013
August 21, 2015
Third Friday in August, Every Other Year Thereafter
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail email@example.com. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.com. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.
VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
- All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
- NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
- Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
- Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
- Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
- What is the potential for the proposed activity to
- Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
- Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
- To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
- How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
- Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
The PAARE proposals will also be evaluated on the following:
- Are the goals and mission of the partnership clearly defined and achievable, and are they building an equal partnership between the MSI and research institution?
- Is there a clearly defined mentoring scheme for students? Does the PI understand the issues involved with recruiting, retaining, and mentoring students from underrepresented groups?
- Is the role of the partnering institution (or institutions), project, or individual investigator clearly stated? Does the proposal demonstrate a strong partnership?
- Is the planned research and education program sound and feasible?
- How will a formal, long-term, collaborative research and education relationship between the minority-serving institution and its research institution partner be established?
- Is the management plan sound? Does the organization chart contain appropriate participants?
- Is the plan for assessment of the impact, dissemination of the results and progress of the project reasonable?
- Has the partnering institution or institutions demonstrated a commitment to supporting the proposed activities and the resources that will be provided to carry out the project?
- For renewals of previously funded PAARE programs: do the proposed activities build upon the prior effort through the strategic development of the program?
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
VII. Award Administration Information
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from email@example.com.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
VIII. Agency Contacts
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
James E. Neff, W9137, telephone: (703) 292-2475, email: email@example.com
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: email@example.com.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com.
IX. Other Information
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
About The National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov
Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314


text:
A. Definitions
- "Mint" means the United States Mint, a bureau of the United States Department of the Treasury.
- "Mint Police" means the United States Mint Police.
- "MPD" means Metropolitan Police Department.
- "Jurisdiction" means the area described in Part B1.
B. Jurisdiction*
- The Mint Police may assist the MPD in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities by sending Mint Police officers on patrol with the power to arrest in the following areas of the District of Columbia that immediately surrounds the area of the Mint Police's geographical jurisdiction, that is—
The area within and bounded by 12th Street, NW, to the West; New York Avenue to the Northwest; K Street to the North; 7th Street, NW, to the East; and E Street to the South. This Jurisdiction includes the named streets, as well as the adjacent sidewalks on both sides these streets.
- See the map of the geographical jurisdiction.
- The Mint Police may assist the MPD in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities, including exercising the power to arrest, when on-duty Mint Police officers are engaged in official business involving protection in transit of bullion, coins, dies, and other property and assets of, or in the custody of, the Mint, between and among locations within the District of Columbia.
- The Mint Police may assist the MPD in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities at special events by sending Mint Police officers to such locations within the District of Columbia, and at such times, as the Mint and the MPD agree. Before agreeing to render assistance to the MPD for special events, the Mint ordinarily will require the MPD to agree to reimburse the Mint for its expenses.
- It remains within the discretion of the Mint whether the Mint Police will assist the MPD in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities by sending Mint Police officers on patrol within the Jurisdiction conferred by this Agreement or to special events. This Agreement shall not be interpreted to require the Mint Police to provide such assistance at a particular time or in a particular manner. The Mint also may decline to conduct crime prevention and law enforcement activities in specific instances and for specific periods of time. Any such declination shall not be construed as an unwillingness to continue the arrangement provided for in this Agreement. Whenever the Mint Police provides assistance pursuant to this Agreement, however, the terms of this Agreement shall apply.
* The Jurisdiction conferred by this Agreement is in addition to the area of extended jurisdiction granted to the Mint by Congress pursuant to Public Law Pub. L. 104-208, div. A, title I, Sec. 101(f) (title V, Sec. 517), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009-314, 3009-346, which provides the following, in pertinent part:
The authority of the special police officers of the United States Mint extends to the buildings and land under the custody and control of the Mint; to the streets, sidewalks and open areas in the vicinity to such facilities; to surrounding parking facilities used by Mint employees; and to the protection in transit of bullion, coins, dies, and other property and assets of, or in the custody of, the Mint.
C. Reports and Records
- Reporting Forms
- The Mint Police will adopt MPD reporting forms for its use in reporting arrests occurring in the jurisdiction. In addition, the Mint Police may prepare reports using its own forms.
- The Mint Police will utilize MPD central complaint numbers on all arrests in the jurisdiction and will have authority to draw MPD central complaint numbers from the MPD Communications Division.
- The Mint Police will be responsible for making such notifications as are required by MPD general orders in preparing reports.
- Report Processing:
- All MPD arrest reports processed by the Mint Police also will be processed at MPD Central Records.
- Records Access:
- Mint Police officials will have access to all MPD records that are necessary for the Mint Police to fulfill its responsibilities for the event in which it is involved. However, this does not include access to records or documents created or maintained by the MPD Office of Internal Affairs. Likewise, and when necessary, the records maintained by the Mint Police will be available to members of the MPD.
D. Arrests
- Arrest Authority:
- Within the jurisdiction defined in Part B1, when engaged in activities defined in Part B2, and at special events as defined in Part B3, Mint Police officers shall possess the same powers of arrest as the MPD officers.
- Arrest Procedures
- The MPD shall provide to the Mint Police:
- support services such as fingerprinting and photographing prisoners;
- detention and confinement facilities for all prisoners;
- prisoner transportation services, upon request, for the purposes of on-scene viewing, booking, and processing through the courts; and
- medical treatment and/or hospitalization for prisoners in accordance with the procedures outlined in General Order 502-7 (Medical Treatment and Hospitalization for Prisoners).
- MPD station personnel shall accept and process collateral according to department procedures.
- It shall be the responsibility of the MPD station clerk to arrange for the release of persons arrested by officers of the Mint Police, if the arrested person qualifies for release under the provisions of the Citation Release Program.
- The Mint Police officer who made the apprehension will be listed as the arresting officer and will be responsible for preparation of all required reports.
- The MPD shall provide to the Mint Police:
- Property and Evidence
- The MPD will retain and process all prisoner's property resulting from arrests by Mint Police officers.
- The MPD will provide services to the Mint Police for crime scene searches, evidence collection and identification, ballistics testing and examination, chemical testing, and narcotics testing. The MPD will retain evidence for presentation in court.
- As necessary, members of the MPD will provide expert or supportive court testimony in Mint Police court cases.
E. Appearing in Court
The Mint Police will establish its own procedures for checking in and out of court but will use the facilities of the Court Liaison Branch. It will be the responsibility of Mint Police officers to obtain from the Identification and Records Division such records as are necessary to prosecute cases in court.
F. Investigations
- The Mint Police will take appropriate police action to preserve the crime scene until the MPD responds. The MPD will determine who will take the lead in the investigations. If the MPD asks the Mint Police to take the lead in the investigation, the Mint Police may decline to do so, in which case the MPD shall take the lead in the investigation.
- If the MPD takes the lead in the investigation, the Mint Police will provide information necessary for MPD to conduct the investigation.
- The Chief of the MPD has found that misconduct by Mint Police officers should not be covered by the Citizen Complaint Review Board because of the attached certification from an appropriate representative of the Mint.
- Use of force investigations and investigations of complaints about Mint Police officers shall be handled by the Mint.
G. Warrants
Mint Police officials must coordinate with MPD, and may not act unilaterally, when applying for or executing search or arrest warrants related to their authority in the jurisdiction.
H. Handling Juveniles
- Mint Police officers who either arrest or contact juveniles shall follow MPD General Orders. Upon request by Mint Police officers, the MPD will provide transportation services.
- The Mint Police is responsible for ensuring that its officers understand the sensitive nature of juvenile processing and the need to protect against unwarranted disclosure of juvenile records.
I. Traffic and Towing
- Mint Police officers shall possess the same authority to enforce traffic and municipal regulations as the MPD officers.
- The Mint Police shall be responsible for prosecution of traffic tickets issued by its officers, including appearances before Bureau of Traffic Adjudication and/or the Superior Court.
- The towing of non-evidentiary vehicles remains the responsibility of the Mint Police.
- The Mint and MPD may share and donate equipment, training and supplies with each other.
- The Mint Police and the MPD may operate on shared radio frequencies in order to communicate more accurately.
J. Notification
The public information program established by the "Federal Law Enforcement Officer Cooperation Act of 1999," DC Law 13-100, 47 DC Reg. 74 (Feb. 11, 2000), shall be supplemented as determined by MPD.
K. Liability
- The MPD and Mint understand that there are no special relationships created or third party beneficiaries established. The Mint and MPD retain all of its rights, privileges, immunities, and defenses provided under law. Furthermore, the Mint and MPD are responsible for any and all liabilities and costs that arise as a result of the actions of their respective police officers. Nothing in this letter shall be construed to create an agency relationship between the MPD and the Mint.
- Because the Mint has entered into a cooperative agreement with the MPD to assist the MPD in carrying out crime prevention and law enforcement activities pursuant to D.C. Code § 4-192 and the "Federal Law Enforcement Officer Cooperation Act of 1999, D.C. Law 13-100, 47 D.C. Reg. 74 (Feb. 11, 2000), a sworn federal law enforcement officer of the Mint Police who, in his or her official capacity, is authorized to make arrests, shall, when making an arrest in the District of Columbia for a nonfederal offense pursuant to this Agreement, have the same legal status and immunity from suit as an MPD officer.
L. Training on the District of Columbia Code
A Mint Police officer will be authorized to begin patrols in the jurisdiction pursuant to this Agreement only after the MPD Institute of Police Science has certified that the Mint Police officer has received the training on the District of Columbia Code that is required by the MPD.
M. Notification and Coordination with the United States Park Police (USPP) for Incidents on Federal Parkland
- Notwithstanding any other section in this Agreement, in the event of a felony or misdemeanor incident or an arrest by Mint Police officers on federal parkland subject to this Agreement, the Mint Police will immediately contact the USPP to allow them the opportunity to respond and provide assistance.
- If the USPP does not take the lead in the matter, Mint Police officers may proceed as provided in the other provisions of this Agreement.
- If the USPP does take the lead in the matter, USPP will be responsible for any prisoner transport, processing, property and evidence processing and custody, USPP report preparation, and related actions. The Mint Police will provide information pertinent to completion of USPP reports and necessary for USPP to conduct the investigation. The Mint Police will comply with MPD reporting and processing procedures, if any, as may be required by this Agreement.
- In the event of such an arrest or emergency on Federal parkland, the Mint Police will endeavor to immediately apprise the USPP Commander by contacting the USPP Communications Section.
- The Mint Police will notify, and provide any generated reports to, the USPP when Mint Police officers observe or have knowledge of any suspicious incidents, persons or items that occur on Federal parkland subject to this Agreement.
N. Effective Date
This Cooperative Agreement shall take effect on the date of execution by both parties and shall remain in effect until terminated by either party. Either party may terminate this Cooperative Agreement by providing 30 days written notice to the other agency.
(signed January 8, 2003)
Henrietta Holsman Fore
United States Mint
801 9th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20220
(signed January 8, 2003)
Charles H. Ramsey
Chief of Police
Metropolitan Police Department
300 Indiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Don't hate me, but I don't have a pic for this one. Silly me forgot to bring my camera to the cooking demo at my animal rights meeting. For the past 4 years, I've been involved with Memphis' only vegetarian/animal rights group, Food Awareness (also known as Memphis Area Animal Rights Acitivists). I'm actually one of the founding members. We meet monthly at Wild Oats (1st Thursday of each month) to plan social outings and AR actions.
Last month, someone suggested reserving some space at the end of the monthly meeting for a vegan cooking demo. Of course I volunteered! I wanted to choose something easy that resembled a common comfort food. So vegan mac & cheese seemed perfect!
Here's my recipe (kind of adapted from "The Garden of Vegan"):
1 lb. macaroni or rotini
3/4 cup nutritional yeast
1/4 cup unbleached flour
1 tsp. sea salt
1/2 tsp. garlic powder
2 cups water
1/4 cup non-hydrogenated soy margerine
1 tsp. Dijon mustard
Boil pasta according to package directions. In the meantime, combine yeast, flour, salt, and garlic powder in a saucepan. Whisk in 2 cups water, and turn heat on to medium. Stir continuously until sauce thickens and begins to bubble a little (like making gravy). Remove from heat and stir in margerine and mustard. Drain water from pasta and stir in cheese sauce.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
2 comments:
So how did the demo go? I wish I could've been there!! Were there lots of folks there? I hope so.
Perhaps one month I can plan to be in town for it as a guest cook or something...
I bet this recipe would be really good with some leftover chili mixed into it along with the cheeze for a chilimac type thing. - January 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM
- Bianca said...
There were about 10 to 12 people there. Only Diana, Truth, me, Vaughan, Max, and Rita were regulars. Everyone else was new! You should TOTALLY come and do a demo. That would be sooo cool!
I think next month, Diana's going to show us her mock tuna salad. - January 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Home Page Chess Life Online 2010 May Larry Larkins: 2010 US Armed Forces Champion
Larry Larkins: 2010 US Armed Forces Champion |
By Lt Col Douglas Taffinder | |
October 25, 2010 | |
Larkins annotated his key victory for CLO: Going into the 6th round, Leroy and I were tied for first with 4.5 points. There were 4 others with 4.0 points being paired. I saw that I had a nice tiebreak advantage over Leroy but two of the players at 4.0 were very close to me. I decided that a draw might cost me a chance at the championship. Therefore, I needed to imbalance the position when the opportunity arise and create some chaos on the board. Of course, this can lead to losing too. Rather have a shot at winning than no chance at all. Unfortunately for me the chaos started a little too early as I was due white but ended up playing black. 5022 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 Not afraid of 9. Nf4 as this allows the type of imbalanced game I am seeking. 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Bg5 0-0 13.Bh4 Nh5 14.Bg3 14. Qc2 is played more frequently 14...Nxg3 According to the database Black and White have equal chances of winning here. 15.hxg3 a6 Technically out of book, but I find that a6 is very useful. 15)...Qb6 is interesting alternative here. 15)...g6 is book. 16.Rc1 g6 17.Qd2 Qg7 18.Qe3 Bd7 19.Rfe1 Rae8 20.Nc3 Re7 Need to guard the white bishop with the rook to discourage any Na4 move. 21.Re2 21.Na4 Nxd4 22.Nxd4 Bxa4 Rybka 4 gives Black .74 advantage 21...Ref7 22.Rd2 Decision time, h6 or Bb8 are definitely playable or 22...Rxf3 This opportunity to imbalance the position might not come around again. This complicates the position and creates tactical possibilities available for both sides. Exactly what I wanted. 23.gxf3 Nxd4 23....g5 is considered stronger by Rybka4 but it is still pretty even. 24.Be2 24.f4 should be considered. 24...Bc5 25.Qd3 Not entering the complicated Nxd5 line. Maybe assuming that the two rooks will eventually tell later in the game. 25...Bb6 Rybka 4 likes Ba7 a little more, I like the Bishop here as it has more diagonals but it is more exposed 26.Kg2 Bc6 27.Re1 e5 28.Bd1 An almost ideal position for Black, the knight is dominating the White position. The question is how to proceed. 28...g5 This move while not best does pressures the white king and the f3 square. 29.Qe3? If 29. Na4 simply Ba7 keeps the pressure on. 29. Rh1 seems best but h6 and the white rook looks misplaced. Unfortunately for White 29. Qe3 is a mistaken calculation. 29...Nxf3 30.Qxb6 Here White is expecting ...Nxe1+ with a relatively even game, but 30...Nxd2! This move gives Black the material advantage and threatens to win material and mate threats. 31.Bb3 Qf7 Two threats exist, Nxb3 if Qxb3 then f2 is unguarded, if ab3 then d4+ and f2 is again unguarded. 31...Qf6 is considerably stronger. 32.Rxe5 32. Nd1 is forced but it still is over. 32...Nxb3 33.Rxg5+ Kh8 34.f4 d4+ 35.Kh2 dxc3 36.bxc3 Qd7 37.Qf2 Qd2 38.Qxd2 Nxd2 39.Rc5 Rf6 40.Kg1 Rh6 41.Ra5 Rh1+ 42.Kf2 Rh2+ 43.Ke1 Bb5 0–1 The USAFOCC is the nation's largest, free, Military-oriented Chess tournament and is open to all Active Duty, Retired and Reserve players. The U.S. Chess Federation's Military Chess Committee is the supervising body for this event, which is always held in the DC area on a rotating schedule between volunteer representatives (usually retirees) from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. The USAFO typically has between 60 and 80 participants from across the nation. The event also features the Service Academy Chess Championship where Cadets, Midshipmen and ROTC (with DOD ID) will battle for the "Commander in Chief's Trophy" (sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton) as well as representing their respective services in the team competition. Other scheduled events include the Friday night Warm-up tournament and the annual USAFO Blitz (speed chess) championship. The USAFO is a full weekend that offers the unique opportunity to meet and compete with previous, current and future military chess champions. We have developed a novel team scoring system that allows an individual event such as the USAFOCC to determine a team championship (Commander in Chief's Trophy) at the same time. The Military Chess Committee is working a proposal to incorporate this system into the next USCF Rulebook. The Military Chess Committee wishes to recognize and extend special thanks to the Joint Base Andrews Commander and supporting staff for extending hospitality to the Military Chess community for this event. The United States Marine Corps will host the 52nd USAFOCC during Columbus Day Weekend of 2011. Mr John Farrell, as the next Military Chess Committee Chairman, is that event's chief organizer. This year's event coincided with National Chess Day. USCF board member and National Chess Day and military chess advocate (for a CLO blast from the past, see his article on the US Armed Forces Championship from 2006!) Michael Atkins attended the event and took a few photos, including the one of Larkins at the board. Atkins recently received a framed copy of the National Chess Day resolution, signed by West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, "I'm so glad this passed." We are too! |
Larry Larkins won the 51st U.S. Armed Forces Open Chess Championship (USAFOCC) at Joint Base Andrews MD, 9-11 October 2010. This marks his third championship in four years. Franco Jose and John Farrell finished a half point back (5-1) to tie for 2nd-3rd. The U.S. Air Force Academy also won the Commander in Chief's Trophy, narrowly outscoring the U.S. Military Academy. Samuel Perez won the Armed Forces Open Blitz Championship while Kiel Russell and Franco Jose tied for 2nd-3rd.


text:
WaPo 'On Faith' Blogger Compares Gun Lobby to 'Moloch'
"Americans trust their guns, not God," and the gun lobby is sacrificing children to a pagan god. That's the message of Washington Post 'On Faith' theological train-wreck Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's plea for gun control in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Thistlethwaite complained in a December 17 post: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Americans realize the unfettered flow of guns into our society is making us less free not more. These guns find their way far too easily into the hands of the mentally unstable and the school and mall-type massacres are increasingly the result. But these guns also circulate easily in cities like Chicago, and more carnage results. There are numerous deaths, including the deaths of children and young people, and they make horrifying statistics. Read this list of homicide victims, most of them from guns in Chicago, just from 2012. This must not be."
Left unmentioned by Thistlethwaite is the fact that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, effectively disarming law-abiding citizens. The very measures she argues are necessary for halting gun violence are in part responsible for the rash of violence in Chicago in the first place. (Also left unsaid is the fact that the Sandy Hook shooting took place in Connecticut, which also has some of the nation's strictest gun laws.)
"Americans are the most heavily armed nation in the world, with 90 guns per every 100 people per a 2007 study," she complained. "In that study, U.S. citizens owned 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms. Imagine what that number is now, four years later? Does it approach 100 guns for every 100 Americans?"
This raises the question of why exactly such high levels of ownership are bad – apparently, guns induce innocent people to commit murder. (This statistic also raises the question of how exactly disarmament of American citizens is to be achieved, considering the popularity of firearms.) She cited author Gary Wills to make an overblown comparison of the gun lobby to a pagan deity: "Gary Wills, in an extraordinary piece in the New York Review of Books blog, calls guns "Our Moloch." "Moloch," a pagan deity, demanded the sacrifice of living children. Obeisance to the gun industry, according to Wills, demonstrates "our fealty, our bondage, to the great god Gun."
Her conclusion: "Americans trust their guns, not God."
Her admission of disdain for American gun-owners as idolaters is refreshing for it's honestly, if revealing. But the "Moloch" rhetoric might come with more weight from a woman who doesn't actively defend the murder of thousands of children in the womb each day.
But liberals trust their government, not God, and Thistlethwaite appropriately cited the Barack Obama, as the potential savior of America from tragedies like Sandy Hook:
"And to Obama, one American father, this was the final straw.
He raised the policy bar, not only by claiming that failing to protect our children is a national failure, but also by directly challenging the main argument of the pro-gun lobbies and their politicians.
The 'freedom' argument.
Repeated mass shootings are not freedom. 'Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?' Obama asked."
She concluded: "No, we are not."
Never mind the fact that even liberal writers such as Washington Post writer Ezra Klein admitted that stricter gun control measures would not necessarily stop tragedies like the one at Sandy Hook. Thistlethwaite concluded with an emotional appeal: "Here is a moral red line in the sand. No more deaths of children from gun massacres. Not even one is acceptable."
Any shooting death is never acceptable, let alone the unimaginable tragedy of Sandy Hook. But implementing counterproductive policy is no way to help children; adopting failed Chicago-style gun control policies in order to stop gun violence in Chicago is little short of insanity.
Perhaps Thistlethwaite, with her long history of theological lunacy, doesn't recognize the lack of logic inherent in her position. She made the same argument for gun control after the shooting at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.


text:
Virginia Beach MC
The best masonry contractor in Virginia Beach. Offers brickwork, stone and concrete masonry, pavers and hardscaping. Free estimates.
Virginia Beach MCis a highly reputable masonry service provider in Virginia Beach, specializing in a broad spectrum of residential and commercial projects. Our expertise ranges from complex brickwork and stonework, to reliable tuckpointing, and sensitive historical restoration. With a team of dedicated professionals, we are committed to delivering superior quality workmanship, maintaining the utmost safety standards, and providing exceptional customer service. Each project is carefully tailored to meet our clients' specific needs and design aesthetics. For consultation or more information about our services, please contact us at 757-997-7537. Our top-tier solutions will help you achieve your masonry vision.
Virginia Beach is an independent city located on the southeastern coast of Virginia, United States. The population was 459,470 at the 2020 census. Although mostly suburban in character, it is the most populous city in Virginia, fifth-most populous city in the Mid-Atlantic, ninth-most populous city in the Southeast and the 42nd-most populous city in the U.S. Located on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia Beach is the largest city in the Hampton Roads metropolitan area which includes 6 other cities. This area, sometimes referred to as "America's First Region", also includes the independent cities of Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Suffolk, as well as other smaller cities, counties, and towns of Hampton Roads.Virginia Beach is a resort city with miles of beaches and hundreds of hotels, motels, and restaurants along its oceanfront. Every year the city hosts the East Coast Surfing Championships as well as the Something in the Water music festival.


text:
If you're looking for information on the evolution and function of jaws, University of Notre Dame researcher Matt Ravosa is your man.
His integrative research program investigates major adaptive and morphological transformations in the mammalian musculoskeletal system during development and across higher-level groups. In mammals, the greater diversification and increasingly central role of the chewing complex in food procurement and processing has drawn considerable attention to the biomechanics and evolution of this system. Being among the most highly mineralized, and thus well-preserved, tissues in the body, craniodental remains have long been used to offer novel insights into the behavior and affinities of extinct organisms.
Ravosa feels that the study of mandibular symphysis, which is the midline joint between the left and right lower jaws, is one of the most interesting and complex articulations in the bodies of mammals. This is due to the remarkable evolutionary and postnatal variation in the degree of fusion, or the amount of hard versus soft tissue, in this joint. For instance, humans, apes and monkeys all have a bony symphysis, which differs from the condition observed in most other living and fossil primates.
In two papers about adaptive and non-adaptive influences on mandibular evolution with his postdoctoral fellow Jeremiah Scott, Ravosa and his colleagues present analyses based on more than 300 species and 2,900 individual mandibles from highly diverse mammal groups where the feeding behavior of living species is well-documented.
Ravosa is particularly interested in determining if there is a relationship between the properties of food being consumed and the degree of fusion of the jaw. His recent paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology is the most broad-based examination to date relating dietary properties of mammals to the degree of fusion. His research reveals that in the case of marsupials, carnivorans and strepsirrhine primates that eat harder, tougher and bigger foods have a lesser degree of fusion. By contrast, animals that consume softer, smaller foods do not have as great a degree of fusion. This supports biomechanical arguments that fusion strengthens the symphyseal joint during postcanine chewing and biting.
In another paper appearing in the journal Evolution, Ravosa reports that in some bat lineages, the fusing of the jaw can be evolutionarily constrained as its morphology does not vary as a function of dietary products. Such evidence about limits on musculoskeletal variation is typically rare in mammals, with these findings having important implications regarding the evolution of the feeding apparatus in humans and other anthropoids. Though dietarily diverse, all members of this primate group exhibit a fused symphysis that also does not vary with diet.
Ravosa notes that similar analysis of other species would further help our understanding of the evolution and development of the mammalian skull, which includes his lab's ongoing anatomical, imaging, cellular, molecular and engineering approaches to determinants of jaw-joint formation, aging and pathology.
Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Notre Dame. Original written by William Gilroy. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Cite This Page:


text:
IEEE History Center
Since its inception, IEEE has had a standing History Committee advising the IEEE Board of Directors on matters of the legacy and heritage of IEEE and its members and their related professions and technologies, and carrying out some activities in those areas.
In 1980, in anticipation of its Centennial celebration in 1984, IEEE established the IEEE History Center to be the staff arm of the History Committee. In 1990, the Center moved to the campus of Rutgers University, which became a cosponsor. In 2014, the Center moved to Stevens Institute of Technology. Today, IEEE's central historical activities are carried out largely by the staff of the History Center, under the guidance of the History Committee.
The IEEE History Center is a not-for-profit organization which relies on your support to preserve, research, and promote the legacy of electrical engineering and computing.
Support the Center's projects, such as REACH, Milestones, and Oral History Collection
Mission and resources
The mission of the IEEE History Center is to preserve, research and promote the history of information and electrical technologies. The Center maintains many useful resources for the engineer, for the historian of technology, and for anyone interested in the development of electrical and computer engineering and their role in modern society. The History Center building is not a museum, and does not contain artifacts or exhibits, being merely offices and the library. Visiting scholars and researchers are welcome to use our research library and archives, by appointment only. To make an appointment, please contact firstname.lastname@example.com.
Most of the Center's resources are available online at the Engineering and Technology History Wiki. The Center's holdings include the IEEE Archives, which consist of the unpublished records of IEEE and a collection of historical photographs relating to the history of electrical and computer technologies, and a collection of oral history transcripts of pioneering engineers. Within IEEE, the History Center is part of IEEE Corporate Activities, and it is co-sponsored by Stevens Institute of Technology, where it is affiliated with the College of Arts and Letters.


text:
5.8: Late Precambrian Period
- Page ID
- 6531
What did early eukaryotic life look like?
Some looked like this. This is a fossil of an ammonite. Ammonites are excellent index fossils, and it is often possible to link the rock layer in which they are found to specific geological time periods.
Multicellular Life: Setting the Stage
Nearly 80% of Earth's history passed before multicellular life evolved. Up until then, all organisms existed as single cells. Why did multicellular organisms evolve? What led up to this major step in the evolution of life? To put the evolution of multicellularity in context, let's return to what was happening on planet Earth during this part of its history.
The Late Precambrian
The late Precambrian is the time from about 2 billion to half a billion years ago. During this long span of time, Earth experienced many dramatic geologic and climatic changes.
- Continents drifted. They collided to form a gigantic supercontinent and then broke up again and moved apart. Continental drift changed climates worldwide and caused intense volcanic activity. To see an animation of continental drift, go to this link:http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html.
- Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose and fell. This was due to volcanic activity and other factors. When the levels were high, they created a greenhouse effect. More heat was trapped on Earth's surface, and the climate became warmer. When the levels were low, less heat was trapped and the planet cooled. Several times, cooling was severe enough to plunge Earth into an ice age. One ice age was so cold that snow and ice completely covered the planet. Earth during this ice age has been called snowball Earth(see Figure below).
Snowball Earth. During the late Precambrian, Earth grew so cold that it was covered with snow and ice. Earth during this ice age has been called snowball Earth.
Life During the Late Precambrian
The dramatic changes of the late Precambrian had a major impact on Earth's life forms. Living things that could not adapt died out. They were replaced by organisms that evolved new adaptations. These adaptations included sexual reproduction, specialization of cells, and multicellularity.
- Sexual reproduction created much more variety among offspring. This increased the chances that at least some of them would survive when the environment changed. It also increased the speed at which evolution could occur.
- Some cells started to live together in colonies. In some colonies, cells started to specialize in doing different jobs. This made the cells more efficient as a colony than as individual cells.
- By 1 billion years ago, the first multicellular organisms had evolved. They may have developed from colonies of specialized cells. Their cells were so specialized they could no longer survive independently. However, together they were mighty. They formed an organism that was bigger, more efficient, and able to do much more than any single-celled organism ever could.
The Precambrian Extinction
At the close of the Precambrian 544 million years ago, a mass extinction occurred. In a mass extinction, many or even most species abruptly disappear from Earth. There have been fivemass extinctions in Earth's history. Many scientists think we are currently going through a sixth mass extinction. What caused the Precambrian mass extinction? A combination of climatic and geologic events was probably responsible. No matter what the cause, the extinction paved the way for a burst of new life, called the Cambrian explosion, during the following Paleozoic Era.
- During the late Precambrian, continents drifted, carbon dioxide levels fluctuated, and climates changed. Many organisms could not survive the changes and died out.
- Other organisms evolved important new adaptations. These include sexual reproduction, cell specialization, and multicellularity.
- The Precambrian ended with a mass extinction, which paved the way for the Cambrian explosion.
Explore More
Use the time slider in this resource to answer the questions that follow.
- Evolution at http://johnkyrk.com/evolution.swf.
- Two billion years ago, what was the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere?
- When did multicellular organisms first appear?
- When did photosynthesis begin on land?
- When did sponges and fungi first evolve?
- What was the time of the Snowball Earth? What caused the Earth to thaw?
- When was the late Precambrian?
- Describe geologic and climatic changes that occurred during the late Precambrian.
- What is a greenhouse effect?
- What three significant evolutionary events occurred during the late Precambrian?
- What is a mass extinction?


text:
Editor's note: Engineers love to take things apart to learn how they work. They call this a teardown. In his ongoing series of TC Teardowns guest author Steven Carpenter takes apart popular business models to see how they work. He's done this with Groupon, Chegg, and Zynga. This time, he looks at handmade goods marketplace Etsy.
A few weeks ago, Etsy, the New York-based marketplace for handmade goods around the world, raised $20 million in new capital at a $300 million valuation—3 times the valuation of its last round in January, 2008. In contrast to the meteor-like rise of Groupon and Zynga, Etsy's revenues have grown consistently since its launch in 2005, while establishing a trusted brand and international platform for makers of all kinds of wares to sell their products. Based on my analysis, Etsy will do $380 million in gross merchandise volume (GMV) and generate $30 million in revenues this year, up from $180 million in GMV and $15 million in revenue in 2009. This implies a 10X revenue multiple in the company's latest valuation, compared to EBay's 3.6 multiple.
The two key questions for Etsy are: How big is the market for handmade products? And can it continue to take share from eBay's marketplace business?
Let's take a look at how Etsy makes money and how it can reach $100 million in revenues.
What is Etsy?
Etsy provides an online marketplace where artisans can sell their wares to people looking for one-of-a-kind, handmade goods. Unlike sites such as eBay, Etsy does not run any auctions. All goods are for sale at a fixed-price.
Based on data from Compete, 5.6 million people visit the site each month, up from 4.4 million a year ago, and that is after rebounding from a rapid fall-off in traffic following the holiday shopping season. (Click on charts to enlarge). The good news appears to be that Etsy is able to retain new buyers and sellers who try it out, presumably due to a great shopping experience.
Etsy has over 6.7 million products listed for sale, half of which fall into just three categories: jewelry, art supplies, and vintage. Jewelry alone, with 1.5 million listings, accounts for nearly 25% of all of Etsy's products.
While this is trivial compared to eBay's 117 million listings, Etsy's 6.7 million products are more than double eBay's 3.2 million listings for similar handmade goods. Ebay's largest crafts categories appear to center more on hobbies such as sewing and scrapbooking, suggesting Etsy is attracting new sellers into the market.
In a little over four years, Etsy has firmly established itself as the place to buy and sell items such as art, glass, jewelry and art supplies, among others. This suggests further that eBay continues to be vulnerable across other categories where 1) community is a core part of the selling-buying experience, and 2) the company has been unable to attract higher-end sellers.
For a company of its age, Etsy has gone international exceptionally fast. It has sellers in over 150 countries and supports 23 currencies. It is rare for a startup to have garnered international demand so quickly and it is operationally very difficult to support. This is a huge competitive advantage.
How is Etsy Doing?
Etsy makes money in two ways: it charges sellers $0.20 to list a product for 4 months, regardless of the price of the item, and then it receives a flat 3.5% commission for each completed transaction. This contrasts starkly with eBay's complex listing and commission structure.
I compiled and analyzed the data Etsy releases in its monthly "Weather Report" since 2008. Based upon my projections for the upcoming quarter, Etsy will do close to $30 million in revenues this year, up 80% year-over-year. (This is on the low end of the $30 million to $50 million range CEO Rob Kalin himself projects)
When you look at my estimates of where Etsy derives its revenue from on a monthly basis, two interesting things emerge. One, similar to other retailers, Etsy generates a disproportionate percentage of its revenues during the fourth quarter, suggesting the company is largely seen as a site for gifts. And two, while the business is driven by commissions, Etsy is seeing incremental revenue by keeping listing fees low so that sellers keep products on the system longer (ie, "Legacy Listing Revenue").
Let's look a little deeper at each of Etsy's revenue components. Gross merchandise value (GMV) is the total value of goods sold. Looking at this metric each month since January, 2008, this has been steadily growing, with December witnessing the largest sales volume. Last December, Etsy achieved its highest total of $25.6 million. After reaching a new plateau, the company sold $25.6 million worth of good. This holiday season should see 2X-2.5X last year's sales.
Etsy is achieving these gains by increasing both the volume of transactions as well as seeing a higher average price point. The number of items sold each month has risen steadily from under 400,000 in January, 2008 to 1.4 million in August, 2010. Meanwhile, Etsy's average sale price has increased from $12.25 to $18.16 in that same time period
Etsy is also seeing steady growth in attracting new listings. As evidenced in the data, new listings are growing at a much faster rate than new members joining the site. This suggests that legacy sellers are continuing to value Etsy as a sales platform, but that it has to do more to attract both newbie sellers and buyers. Once consumers interact with the site and find something to either buy or sell, they seem to become loyal customers.
In terms of the team and profitability, Etsy has not had to spend resources on advertising and marketing. Etsy is an engineering and support-driven company, 90% of the people are either building the platform or supporting buyers and sellers. To put a fine point on this, Etsy has more people dedicated to its community (12) than it does to marketing (8). This suggests the company should be able to scale the business profitably without an outsized investment in customer acquisition.
If you look at Etsy's online marketing efforts, it spends next to nothing on customer acquisition.
Etsy's Growth Opportunities
While eBay saw its marketplace growth stagnate at just over $1 billion a quarter, I see several areas Etsy must optimize to pass $100 million a quarter in business:
- Expand Internationally with localized platforms. Etsy experienced unusual organic international demand from the outset. While the majority of usage still occurs in the US, Etsy needs to take a page from Groupon and get into the local markets and establish a strong local presence quickly. Scaling and supporting an international platform is difficult so if it can figure it out over the next 12 months, it will provide a strong competitive advantage
- Attract More Sellers and Listings. As I discussed above, new users are not keeping pace with new listings. The company is already running local meetups, which is a smart strategy to take from eBay's playbook. I am not sure if Etsy yet has an annual awards ceremony or eBay Live equivalent but there are many incentives the company could employ to encourage current power sellers to bring in new sellers and perhaps get a cut of their sales.
- Increase Merchandise Value. Etsy has done a good job of providing a trusted platform for sellers, which will naturally lead to higher-priced goods. It needs to continue in this direction and explore additional categories than are consistent with its brand position.
- Better matching of local supply-demand to avoid shipping charges. One of the biggest challenges to additional sales is expensive shipping rates. Etsy has to match local supply and demand and act as a matchmaker for similar or related products by geographic area.
- Improve Discovery On Site and Personalization. Etsy has a common problem for marketplaces in that it is very difficult to find certain products. I anticipate that the company will continue to improve in this area as well as in personalizing product and artisan recommendations. Last December, the company acquired a company called Adtuitive to presumably spearhead these efforts.
- Leverage Community Self-Selling and Sellers Groups. Etsy's competitive advantage is that it has now reached the inflection point of a community of artisans. The company needs to allow those artisans to form collective seller's groups and merchandise and advertise their wares together. The more Etsy can distribute its marketing efforts to the sellers themselves, the more it reinforces the community ethos and its economics.
- Address Seasonal Nature. With nearly 50% of gross sales come during Q4, Etsy needs to merchandise products around other gift-giving occasions, such as birthdays and holidays, and have its sellers market them.
- Create Additional Value and Revenue Streams. In May, 2008, Etsy launched a compelling service called Alchemy, that allows customers to put out a bid for custom-made goods. I looked at two random days over the past 2 weeks and counted 193 and 192 respective bids for goods. Right now Etsy allows this to be done for free, but this is an area where I can see a lot of promise. Furthermore, at some point in the near future it might make sense, given its international footprint, to create its own payment method.
Bugatti teardown photo credit: Flickr/David Villarreal Fernández


text:
The Tanach, Jewish Publication Society tr. [1917], at sacred-texts.com
1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel, and reigned nine years. 2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him. 3 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and brought him presents. 4 And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and offered no present to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. 5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away unto Assyria, and placed them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
7 And it was so, because the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, 8 and walked in the statutes of the nations, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they practised; 9 and the children of Israel did impute things that were not right unto the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city; 10 and they set them up pillars and Asherim upon every high hill, and under every leafy tree; 11 and there they offered in all the high places, as did the nations whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD; 12 and they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them: 'Ye shall not do this thing'; 13 yet the LORD forewarned Israel, and Judah, by the hand of every prophet, and of every seer, saying: `Turn ye from your evil ways and keep My commandments and My statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by the hand of My servants the prophets'; 14 notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their neck, like to the neck of their fathers, who believed not in the LORD their God; 15 and they rejected His statutes, and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies
wherewith He testified against them; and they went after things of nought, and became nought, and after the nations that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them that they should not do like them; 16 and they forsook all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal; 17 and they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and gave themselves over to do that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him; 18 that the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. 19 Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they practised. 20 And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until He had cast them out of His sight. 21 For He rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king; and Jeroboam drew Israel away from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin. 22 And the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; 23 until the LORD removed Israel out of His sight, as He spoke by the hand of all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away out of their own land to Assyria, unto this day.
24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. 25 And so it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them. 26 Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: `The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.'
27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying: `Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.' 28 So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the LORD. 29 Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. 30 And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31 and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 So they feared the LORD, and made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. 33 They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away.
34 Unto this day they do after the
former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law or after the commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel; 35 with whom the LORD had made a covenant, and charged them, saying: `Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow down to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them; 36 but the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, Him shall ye fear, and Him shall ye worship, and to Him shall ye sacrifice; 37 and the statutes and the ordinances, and the law and the commandment, which He wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods; 38 and the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not forget; neither shall ye fear other gods; 39 but the LORD your God shall ye fear; and He will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.' 40 Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. 41 So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images; their children likewise, and their children's children, as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.