text:
Participating Organization(s)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Funding Opportunity Title
FaceBase 2: Craniofacial Development and Dysmorphology – Dataset, Tool, and Resource Development (U01)
Activity Code
U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
Announcement Type
Related Notices
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number
Companion Funding Opportunity
RFA-DE-14-005, U01 Research Project – Cooperative Agreements
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)
Funding Opportunity Purpose
The NIDCR-funded FaceBase Consortium (www.facebase.org) was established in 2009 to advance craniofacial research by creating comprehensive datasets on craniofacial development and dysmorphologies and disseminating them to the wider craniofacial research community. Operationally, the Consortium links individual "spoke" projects, each creating and contributing comprehensive datasets, analytic tools, and other resources to a central data management and integration hub which, in turn, disseminates them publicly. This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) solicits grant applications for a new round of spoke projects that will comprise the Consortium's second iteration. New projects should be consistent with FaceBase's overall goals of experimental data collection and annotation, data coordination, and integration. New projects should also be complementary to, rather than duplicative of, the types of data, analytic tools, and resources already available through FaceBase. The Consortium will continue to focus on normal craniofacial development and dysmorphology but this FOA is open to applications investigating parts of the skull beyond the midface and palate. High programmatic priority will be given to studies of facial, palatal, and cranial vault development and dysmorphology.
Posted Date
April 5, 2013
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date)
July, 22, 2013
Letter of Intent Due Date(s)
July 22, 2013
Application Due Date(s)
August 22, 2013, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
AIDS Application Due Date(s)
Not Applicable
Scientific Merit Review
Advisory Council Review
Earliest Start Date
May, 2014
Expiration Date
August 23, 2013
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
With the expiration of the current round of FaceBase cooperative agreements in April of 2014, the NIDCR seeks applications for a new set of FaceBase spoke projects to develop new datasets; data visualization, integration and analysis tools; and resources (such as innovative and experimentally useful animal models). These projects are intended to advance craniofacial research by moving beyond the types of datasets currently available through the FaceBase Consortium. Datasets, analytic tools and resources created by the new projects will be integrated into the FaceBase database and disseminated to the wider research community. A companion FOA solicits applications for the role of the FaceBase data management and integration hub (RFA-DE-14-005).
Background: The growing utilization of large, publicly available 'omics datasets (e.g., genomic, transcriptomic, or proteomic data) has made it clear that such data can be used to advance both focused, hypothesis-driven studies and global, systems-level analyses. The FaceBase Consortium was established to advance craniofacial research through the creation and wide prepublication dissemination of a variety of datasets and other resources whose nature and scope would generally place them outside the grasp of standalone labs. The Consortium's ultimate goal is managing and integrating those data in such a way that the broader research community can readily search for and analyze pertinent information using the approaches of systems biology and other state-of-the-art quantitative approaches. The current Consortium consists of 10 research/technology projects (spokes) and a central data management and integration hub working collaboratively to make data available to the wider community and to foster new collaborations both within and outside of the Consortium. Datasets and tools created by the current iteration of the Consortium are freely available to the wider scientific community through the FaceBase website, www.facebase.org.
Investigators interested in this FOA are encouraged to visit the FaceBase website to better understand the nature of the existing FaceBase datasets, the spoke and hub organization of the Consortium, and potential gaps within the existing Consortium that can be productively filled during its next iteration. Detailed descriptions of the current FaceBase projects can be found on the website and in the FaceBase white paper (Hochheiser et al., Dev Biol. 2011, 355:175-82).
Research Objectives: The main focus of FaceBase will remain craniofacial development and dysmorphology and, with this new FOA, the Consortium will expand its purview to parts of craniofacial anatomy outside of the midface and palate. An important consideration for projects investigating structures other than the midface/palate will be how well the results of those projects can be integrated with other FaceBase data in a way that will be useful to the broad craniofacial research community. High programmatic priority will be given to studies of facial, palatal, and cranial vault development and dysmorphology.
New projects should be consistent with FaceBase's overall goals of experimental data collection and annotation, data coordination and integration, and dissemination to the wider research community. Since FaceBase exists to advance research across the craniofacial community by making its resources freely available, FaceBase projects need not be hypothesis-driven in nature. Ideally, new projects should instead focus on generating data, analytic tools, or other resources of utility to a wide segment of the craniofacial research community and on the applicability of those new datasets/tools/resources to systems level analyses and translational/clinical applications. The output of new FaceBase projects must be complementary to, rather than duplicative of, the types of data already available through FaceBase.
Examples of potential research/technology topics include but are not limited to:
Bioinformatics expertise: Spoke projects that focus on data generation are expected to include personnel with expertise in bioinformatics sufficient to allow the spoke team to play a significant role in the development of effective web-based methods for search and display of their data. Spoke project informatics personnel will serve as their project's liaison to the software development team at the FaceBase hub and will work with the hub personnel to facilitate the transfer of spoke project data/tools to the hub's website.
Consortium organization: The current organizational structure (a hub and spoke arrangement) will be retained for the next iteration of FaceBase. The success of consortia such as FaceBase absolutely requires collegial interactions and robust collaborations between all members and components of the Consortium. All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PDs/PIs) in the Consortium are required to participate in Steering Committee activities and to cooperate with the NIDCR-appointed Project Scientists and Program Official as described in the Terms and Conditions of the cooperative agreements. Consortium PDs/PIs will meet annually with the Scientific Leadership Group and with NIDCR staff to showcase accomplishments and to negotiate milestones. The annual Consortium meeting is hosted on a voluntary and rotating basis by FaceBase PDs/PIs at their home institutions or in the Bethesda, MD area.
Applications submitted to this FOA should address how the proposed projects will form an integral part of the FaceBase Consortium in the Collaboration and Interaction Plan.
Projects that propose to analyze existing FaceBase data rather than generating new datasets or analysis tools will be considered unresponsive to this FOA. Investigators interested in secondary analysis of FaceBase data or craniofacial research outside the scope of FaceBase are encouraged to contact NIDCR program staff to discuss other FOAs that may be relevant to their research.
Funding Instrument
Cooperative Agreement: A support mechanism used when there will be substantial Federal scientific or programmatic involvement. Substantial involvement means that, after award, NIH scientific or program staff will assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities.
Application Types Allowed
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards
The NIDCR intends to commit up to $4.5 million total costs to this FOA in fiscal year 2014 in order to fund approximately 8 to 10 spoke projects.
Award Budget
Applicants are encouraged to keep the requested annual direct cost for each project under $400,000. Applications requesting annual direct costs of $500,000 or more will not be accepted.
Award Project Period
5 years
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account and should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate an existing account with the applicant organization's eRA Commons account. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the
skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research
as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited
to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support.
Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as
individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed within the past thirty-seven months (as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement), except for submission:
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the "Apply for Grant Electronically" button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions – Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Yasaman Shirazi, PhD
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
1DEM, Room 662, MSC 4878
6701 Democracy Boulevard
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 (Courier 20817)
Telephone: (301) 594-5593
Fax: (301) 480-8303
Email: email@example.com
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, required and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate "optional" components.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed. The cost of genotyping or sequencing may be included in the requested budget. For those projects involving next-generation sequencing or high throughput genotyping, it is strongly recommended that these projects consider services provided by the Center for Inherited Diseases Research. The cost of CIDR services should not be included in the project's budget. Project budgets should include funds supporting travel by the PD(s)/PI(s) and select project personnel to the annual Consortium meeting.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Research Strategy: The Research Strategy must address all the points below.
Milestones and Timeline: The application must include a timeline as well as PD/PI-determined, research-specific milestones for each proposed year of funding. These milestones must be concrete and provide quantitative project-specific targets; they should not be a restatement of the specific aims. Describe specific outcomes to be achieved and the metrics by which the accomplishment of the milestones will be assessed.
Informatics: Applications for the development of new FaceBase datasets should include a section describing how the team will address informatics issues such as data quality control, data security (for human subjects data), and organization of data for transfer to the FaceBase hub. This section should also be used to demonstrate that the project team includes personnel with expertise in both the project's biological and informatics aspects sufficient to allow them to effectively serve as a liaison to the FaceBase hub. Applicants proposing to create new datasets are encouraged to include innovative methods for displaying and disseminating their data through the FaceBase website.
Relationship to current FaceBase data or resources: Describe how the proposed new datasets or analytic tools will complement, enhance, or integrate with what is currently underway within the FaceBase Consortium and why the proposed project is not duplicative of current FaceBase projects. Describe how the dataset, analytic tools, or resources could be used by a wide segment of the craniofacial research community, and the applicability of those new datasets/tools to systems level analyses and translational/clinical applications. Applications should also describe how the proposed project could grow in concert with other potential FaceBase projects within the scope of this FOA. Describe how the project will be enhanced by FaceBase's consortium structure in ways that might not otherwise be afforded by a standalone project.
Collaboration and Interaction Plan: FaceBase's consortium structure mandates robust and productive collaborations among the constituent projects to achieve the Consortium's goals. Applicants should describe prior or ongoing experience in working as part of a research consortium or other collaborative activities to meet individual and collaborative study goals.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modifications:
Appendix: Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by NIDCR, NIH. Applications that are incomplete and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NIDCR Referral Office by email at email@example.com when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115, with the following modifications:
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Does the project present or identify unique opportunities or resources that are likely to be valuable to the broader craniofacial research community?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Is there evidence that the applicant has the ability to function collaboratively within a larger consortium, e.g., prior examples of collaborative work and output from those activities such as datasets, publications, and community resources?
Does the investigative team have expertise in bioinformatics sufficient to allow them to productively work with the FaceBase hub towards uploading and displaying their data?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
To what extent does the proposed dataset(s), tool(s), or resources complement or enhance what has already been created for FaceBase, and to what extent do they contribute to the further development of the Consortium?
Evaluate whether the proposed dataset(s), tool(s), or resources will be applicable to systems level/quantitative analyses, and/or translational/clinical applications.
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Milestones and Timeline
Are the milestones and timelines quantitative, reasonable and appropriate?
Are the methods described for data quality control and security, etc. both implementable and appropriate?
Are the proposed interfaces for displaying, searching, and disseminating the resulting data or tools innovative, intuitive and realistic?
Collaboration and Interaction
Are the plans for sharing research findings, tools, and methods among Consortium members adequate?
Is there a reasonable plan for collaboration and interaction with other projects within the Consortium?
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and
safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), convened by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Appeals of initial peer review will not be accepted for applications submitted in response to this FOA.
Applications will be assigned to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
The number and size of awards issued under this FOA are contingent upon the availability of funds and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, SAM Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is
applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other
HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an "acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities. Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
The PD/PI will have the primary responsibility for defining the details for the project within the guidelines of RFA-DE-14-004 and for performing the scientific activities. PDs/PIs will agree to accept close coordination, cooperation, and participation of NIDCR staff in those aspects of scientific and technical management of the project as described below under NIDCR staff Responsibilities. The PIs will:
NIDCR staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
NIDCR Program staff will have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below. However, the role of these staff members will be to facilitate and not to direct the activities. It is anticipated that decisions in all activities will be reached by consensus of the Steering Committee and that the NIDCR Project Scientists will be given the opportunity to offer input to this process. Other NIDCR staff may assist and advise the Consortium on relevant programmatic and scientific issues. The Project Scientist will:
Additionally, an NIDCR Program Official will be responsible for the normal scientific and programmatic stewardship of the award and will be named in the award notice. The NIDCR Program Official will:
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
None; all responsibilities are divided between awardees and NIH staff as described above.
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the annual Non-Competing Progress Report (PHS 2590 or RPPR) and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, submitting and tracking an application, documenting system
problems that threaten submission by the due date, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Web ticketing system: https://public.era.nih.gov/commonshelp
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions
regarding Grants.gov registration and submission, downloading forms and
application packages)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: email@example.com
Steven B. Scholnick, Ph.D.
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: (301) 594-3977
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Yasaman Shirazi, PhD
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: (301) 594-5593
Email: email@example.com
Diana Rutberg
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
Telephone: (301) 594-4798
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


text:
Artists M. River and T. Whid formed MTAA in 1996 and soon after began to explore the internet, video, software and sculpture as mediums for their conceptually-based art. The duo's exhibition history includes group shows and screenings at The New Museum of Contemporary Art, Postmasters Gallery and Artists Space, all in New York City, and at The Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles. In "New Media Art" (Taschen, 2006), authors Mark Tribe and Reena Jana describe MTAA's "One Year Performance Video (aka samHsiehUpdate)" as "a deftly transparent demonstration of new media's ability to manipulate our perceptions of time." The collaboration has earned grants and awards from Creative Capital, Rhizome.org, Eyebeam, New Radio & Performing Arts, Inc. and The Whitney Museum of American Art.
Looking for nine fiction writers
I'm looking for nine fiction writers who want to collaborate with me on an artwork that has been commissioned by Turbulence.org. I don't want to give too much away, but I can say that the work will involve writing collaborative, improvisational fiction online. I can't honestly say how good the final product will be, but I think it'll make a fascinating experiment—provided, of course, I'm lucky enough to have good writers to work with.
Each writer will receive a $200 stipend for participation. Participating in this artwork will require a light, but ongoing commitment: perhaps an hour a week, from March to June.
No particular experience, or publications, are necessary. However, you should be mildly comfortable with technology, enough to use a website like MySpace or a blog host like Blogspot. It would also be okay if you had a friend who could help you with the technical stuff. Basically, the project involves a little tech setup, and I don't want to have to do a lot of tech support for other people.
Mute Magazine -- new publishing, networked economy
Mute Magazine - new publishing, networked economy +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We've crossed oceans of time for you to find us.
Summary =======
For years, it has been Mute's dream to conduct its publishing on a more participatory platform. Starting with our mini-manifesto Ceci N'est Pas Un Magazine (Sept 2001), we plotted the project as it moved through various developmental stages and now, after years of planning and building, it is alive and kicking at brand new site Metamute.org.
Open Call - Bent 2006 Circuit Bending Festival
The Tank is currently accepting proposals for: Bent 2006 : The Third Annual Circuit Bending Festival April 19-23, 2006 Proposal Deadline: February 10, 2006
Each year the festival features daily workshops, art installations, and evening concerts from a wide variety of international performers and artists. This year we are working in collaboration with Harvestworks as part of their "Benders and Coders
Biennial Blah Blah
On Monday, January 23rd, Artforum is hosting a panel talk with past and present Whitney Biennial curators at the New School. Panel members include 2006 curators Chrissie Iles and Philippe Vergne, along with past curators Klaus Kertess, Louise Neri, Lisa Phillips, and Elisabeth Sussman.
This could be an interesting talk, the Whitney Biennial is always so contentious. The talk could shed some light onto the inscrutable selection process, personally I think that curating the Biennial has got to be one of the toughest challenges in the world of art. There are over 200 biennials in the world today, plus the rise of hundreds of art fairs around the world. Still though, at least here in the US, the Whitney Biennial still seems to regularly kick up more furor than any other museum show.
Event Details:
Artforum Roundtable: Curating the Whitney Biennial
Monday, 23 January, 6:30PM
Tishman Auditorium @ The New School
66 West 12th Street, NYC
Tickets are $10, Call 212.229.5488 or email firstname.lastname@example.com for reservations.
West 27th Street preview
We were fans of the people now relocated to 27th Street before Time Out New York did its big spread this week.
A lot of the galleries had "previews" tonight before the joint openings tomorrow. Tomorrow should be busy, with at least 20 Chelsea openings listed on ArtCal for tomorrow night.
We dropped by Foxy Production, Wallspace, and the "annex" of ATM tonight. Some highlights:
Hallway connecting Wallspace and Foxy
Kirsten Stoltmann work at Wallspace
Jacob Ciocci at Foxy Production, installation detail

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Starbucks has apologized to a Louisiana woman who complained about satanic symbols drawn in her coffee foam.
Megan Pinion posted the complaint and a photo of her two beverages to the coffee giant's Facebook page, The Advertiser newspaper in Baton Rouge reported.
One beverage had a star drawn in the foam similar to a pentagram. The number 666 was drizzled on top of the other beverage in caramel.
"I unfortunately can't give the young man's name who served it, because I was so appalled that I could not bring myself to look at him," Pinion wrote in her post. "I am in no way judging his beliefs or dis-meriting his beautiful artwork, I am however judging his lack of professionalism and respect for others."
Starbucks has since issued a formal apology.
"This obviously is not the type of experience we want to provide any of our customers, and is not representative of the customer service our partners provide to millions of customers every day," the company said.


text:
Do you plan on passing your research down to relatives? What are your plans for your research when you are gone from this world? Do you want a future researcher to know how you found the record? Do you plan to publish? This is why citations are important. Yes, you want to be able to figure out where you found the record. However, other people should be able to figure it out too.
I've been conducting research on a particular surname and came across a five volume book set written by one author (I'll keep the surname and author name private). At least four of the books were easily over a thousand pages. This was a lot of research, work, time and money. An impressive feat to be sure. Sadly, there was a glaring lack of citations. Only vague references occasionally to deeds, wills, and other books.
I found the particular lineage within the books I was looking for, but was left having no idea how the author got the facts. At the beginning of the passage that was pertinent to my research, was the mention of a book which I've requested through inter-library loan. I would have preferred that a will, gravestone, bible record or some other source had been properly cited. Then I would have something to go on. Instead I wait hoping this book will give me better clues for evidence to track down.
So, it's important to cite your sources not only for you, but for those that come after! I know that you have spent a lot of time and effort to gather your information. You don't want it to be disregarded.


text:
O.k the hours are ticking down on reservations for the Saturday Night Collins House Dinner ( 5-3-14).
Looking forward to May 9th mark your calendar and reserve NOW for our broiled and steamed seafood night. Serving for the May 9th dinner is at 6:30pm Call today for May 9th Seafood at the Inn May 9th (276) 781-0250


text:
Tim Herold knew that massage would come naturally to him. He had been doing it within his family circle since he was 11. He'd rub his mother's shoulders and his cousins' backs. It made them feel better, and Herold felt he was helping them.
He didn't let the fact he'd been legally blind since birth deter him.
Herold and his employer, Rosalyn Coggins of Beauti Central Salon and Day Spa, have received state honors for their work.
A rehabilitation counselor for Arkansas Services for the Blind nominated Herold for Consumer of the Year for outstanding achievement in his career, and Coggins for Employer of the Year for an eight-county area. The statewide winner will be announced in December.
Herold says he now has his "dream job" and couldn't be happier. The styles of massage he offers include reflexology on the feet, deep tissue massage and Swedish massage. The salon and day spa is equipped for Herold to give brief chair massages of the head, back and shoulders, too.
Coggins says she wasn't hiring when Herold first contacted her about a job, but he asked for a meeting anyway and his professional way of presenting himself convinced her to give him a chance.


text:
BSM India
Order Now : +91-09310423242
Customer Log In
Your Language:
About us
Contact us
Fully Automatic Hot Air Seam Sealing Machine for PPE
Special Offer
-> Free shipping in Delhi NCR.
-> Discount on Bulk Purchase.
-> Many more...
Product Description
You may also be interested in the following product(s)
Counter Molding Machine (With Cooling & Heating Forming)
Automatic Hydraulic Sole Attaching Machine
Double Decker Pasting Conveyor
Hot Melt Toe Puff Attaching Machine.
Angular Outsole Stitching Machine
Pasting Conveyor
Lasting Conveyor
Sandal Assembling Machine.
EVA Hot and Cold Embossing Machine.
Pad Printing Machine (Motorized)
Motorized Pad Printing Machine (Double Color)
Slipper Strap Printing Machine.
Packing Conveyor
Tape Cutting and Sealing Machine (Angle Cutting)
© 2012 BSM India. All Rights Reserved.
About Us
Contact Us
Hydraulic Cutting Press (HCP)
Travel Head Clicker
Swing Arm Clicker
Beam Cutting Press
Multi purpose cutting & Plating Machine
Lasting Line Machine (LLM)
Toe Lasting Machine
Seat Lasting Machine
Toe Moulding Machine.
Sole Press Machine
Counter Moulding Machine
Laser Cutting & Engraving Machine (LCM)
Laser Die Cutting Machine
Camera Positioned Cutting Machine
Fiber Laser Marking Machine
Flight Marking Machine
Laser Cutting & Engraving Machine
High Speed Laser Marking & Cutting
Computerized Sewing Machine (CSM)
Single/Double Needle Roller-Feed with Servo Motor (Automatic Thread Trimmer & Reverse Sewing)
D Making and Multi Design Sewing Machine
Computerized single Needle Walking Foot Lockstitch Machine
Computerized Pattern Sewing Machine
Adhesive Applicator Machine (AAM)
Latex Adhesive
Thick Adhesive
Hot Melt Adhesive
Water Base Adhesive
Pressurized Container Adhesive Applicators.
Cutting & Finishing Machine (CAF)
Cutting & Finishing Machine
Support & Finishing Machine (SAF)
Support & Finishing Machine
Sewing Machine (SM)
Special Sewing Machine
Sole Stitching
Zig-Zag Machine
Post Bed Machine
Cylinder Bed Machine
Flat Bed Machine
Disc Feed Machine
Printing Stamping & Embossing (PSE)
Printing Stamping & Embossing Series
Footwear and Leather Testing Machine (FLT)
Footwear and Leather Testing Machine.
Special Machine Series (SMS)
Special Machine Series
Double Decker Pasting Conveyor
Pasting Conveyor
Lasting Conveyor
Packing Conveyor
Garment Machines
Garment Macihnes
Complete Footwear Projects
Hawai Chappal Plant


text:
I really love the way this movie is shot and the way it cuts; for example there is one scene in the movie where the camera is placed in front of the main characters head as he walks through town in a nightmarish haze while it jump cuts almost as if it was shot in stop motion. It also makes me hawt because it has Oval in the soundtrack.A portrait of the effects of schizophrenia on family life is the central focus.
It has major potential for being witchy.


text:
But success brings no happiness. Of course, he should give up the Deni-zen and move somewhere less blighted, where the air conditioning, as described by an elderly Chinese woman in the lobby, does not smell of the stench of corruption. 'Bad men build this building,' she warned Hermann, wagging an admonishing finger, as though he were somehow responsible. But the apartment proved unsellable and worse, unmarketable. However many times it was put on Rightmoves, the details failed to appear. Apparently it was the same with other Deni-zens. By then there was a stampede to offload, yet it was as though they were living in a phantom building. Hamptons. Foxtons. Felicity J. Green. Hermann tried them all and they failed, throwing up their hands. 'We just can't get it to upload. It may as well not exist.'
Tag: I Forgot To Rember To Forget


text:
Services on Demand
Related links
- Cited by Google
- Similars in Google
SA Journal of Radiology
On-line version ISSN 2078-6778
Print version ISSN 1027-202X
S. Afr. J. radiol. (Online) vol.18 n.1 Johannesburg Oct. 2014
An audit of elective outpatient magnetic resonance imaging in a tertiary South African public-sector hospital
Francois van Schouwenburg; Christelle Ackermann; Richard Pitcher
Division of Radiodiagnosis, Department of Medical Imaging and Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University, South Africa
BACKGROUND: Increasing demand for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has resulted in longer waiting times for elective MRI, particularly in resource-limited healthcare environments. However, inappropriate imaging requests may also contribute to prolonged MRI waiting times. At the time of the present study, the waiting time for elective MRI studies at Tygerberg Hospital (TBH), a tertiary-level public-sector healthcare facility in Cape Town (South Africa), was 24 weeks.
OBJECTIVES: To document the nature and clinical appropriateness of scheduled TBH outpatient MRI examinations.
METHOD: A retrospective analysis of the referral forms of all elective outpatient MRI examinations scheduled at TBH from 01 June to 30 November 2011 was conducted. Patient age, gender, clinical details, provisional diagnosis, examination requested and referring clinician were recorded on a customised data sheet. Two radiologists independently evaluated the appropriateness of each request by comparing the clinical details and the provisional diagnosis provided with the 2012 American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines for the appropriate use of MRI.
RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-six patients (median age 42 years; interquartile range 19-55) who had 561 examinations were scheduled in the review period; 70 (15%) were children less than 6 years old. Neurosurgery (n = 164; 35%), orthopaedic (n = 144; 31%), neurology (n = 53; 11%) and paediatric (n = 27; 6%) outpatients accounted for the majority (81%) of referrals; 464 (99.6%) were from specialist clinics. MRIs of the spine (n = 314; 56%), brain (n = 152; 27%) and musculoskeletal system (n = 70, 13%) accounted for more than 95% of the investigations. In 455 cases (98%), the referral was congruent with published ACR guidelines for appropriate MRI utilisation.
CONCLUSION: Scheduled outpatient MRI examinations at TBH reflect optimal clinical use of a limited resource. MRI utilisation is largely confined to traditional neuro-imaging. Any initiative to decrease the elective MRI waiting time should focus on service expansion.
As a diagnostic modality, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) affords unsurpassed tissue contrast without exposing patients to the harmful effects of ionising radiation.1 In the 35 years since its first clinical use, MRI has established a pivotal role in central nervous system (CNS) imaging.2, 3, 4 Furthermore, as a result of ongoing technical advances that have consistently increased spatial resolution, decreased scan times and contributed to the development of new imaging sequences, MRI currently plays a burgeoning role in musculoskeletal, cardiac, hepatobiliary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, gynaecological, fetal, vascular and paediatric imaging.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
The ever-increasing clinical applications of MRI have resulted in a proliferation of scanners in well-resourced countries. Japan and North American and Western European countries now have between 6 and 41 MRI scanners per million population. Given the high capital and operating costs of MRI systems, this relative plethora of scanners has raised concerns of overuse and fears of unsustainable increases in healthcare expenditure.11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Whilst the South African private healthcare sector has adequate MRI resources, those in the public sector are limited. In the public healthcare sector of Western Cape Province, where this study was conducted, only three 1.5-Tesla MRI scanners serve approximately 4.4 million people, equating to 0.7 scanners per million population.16
One of the Western Cape's public-sector MRI scanners is installed at Tygerberg Hospital (TBH), a tertiary-level teaching facility offering a broad range of medical, surgical, paediatric, obstetric, oncological and psychiatric specialist and subspecialist services. At the time of this study, TBH possessed a 1.5-T Siemens Magnetom Symphony MRI scanner, commissioned in 2002. Elective outpatient MRI scans were scheduled during normal working hours (weekdays 08h00-16h00). The waiting time for elective MRI scans was 24 weeks.
The present study was prompted by an initiative of the Department of Health of the Provincial Government of Western Cape Province to increase access to specialised radiological services, and particularly MRI, in the knowledge that early access to appropriate MRI improves patient outcomes. Furthermore, MRI waiting time represents a key performance indicator for modern radiology departments and healthcare systems.17, 18, 19
Long MRI waiting times are not the exclusive domain of resource-limited healthcare environments, and have been documented in well-resourced countries,18, 19, 20, 21 being attributed to ever-increasing clinical indications for MR examinations, a growing clinician dependence on diagnostic imaging, and inappropriate imaging requests.18 The nature of scans performed has also been shown to affect patient throughput and thus indirectly influence access. Prolonged scanning time is associated with the body region scanned, conducting several examinations on a single patient, use of oral and intravenous contrast agents, and the scanning of young children.20
Waiting times may be shortened by matching supply with demand. Reduced demand could be achieved by eliminating inappropriate investigations, whilst an increase in supply requires service expansion.20 The present study was undertaken from the standpoint that inappropriate examinations should be eliminated prior to considering service changes. At the time of the study, all TBH MRI requests were screened and approved by a consultant radiologist. Although departmental protocols were available for the validation of emergency MR scans, no formal guidelines governed the approval of elective scans; this was seen as the prerogative of the duty consultant, based on the clinical merit of each case. No formal quality assurance procedures were in place to assess the appropriateness of elective scan validation.
Coinciding with the commencement of the study, guidelines for the appropriate clinical use of MRI were published by the American College of Radiologists (ACR).22 Studies of MRI utilisation in well-resourced countries have shown that referral patterns are determined by ease of access to the modality.23 To the best of our knowledge, there is no comparable data from resource-limited healthcare environments, where a different disease burden and more stringent resource constraints may affect MRI utilisation. Knowledge of the utilisation of capital-intensive healthcare resources is important at provincial and national government level to facilitate planning for optimal public-sector resource allocation, particularly in resource-restricted environments. It was hypothesised that inadequate vetting of clinical referrals contributed substantially to the long waiting times for elective TBH MRI examinations.
To document the nature and clinical appropriateness of scheduled TBH outpatient MRI examinations.
A retrospective analysis of the referral forms of all elective outpatient MRI examinations scheduled at TBH from 01 June - 30 November 2011 was conducted. Patient age, gender, clinical details, provisional diagnosis, the examination requested and referring clinician were recorded on a customised data sheet. Two radiologists independently evaluated the appropriateness of each MR request by comparing the clinical details and the provisional diagnosis provided on the request form, with the 2012 ACR guidelines for the appropriate use of MRI.22 Where radiologists differed in their individual assessment of the appropriateness of an imaging request, consensus was reached after discussion.
Ethical considerations
The study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences at Stellenbosch University and by TBH Management.
Patient load
Four hundred and sixty-six outpatients (female = 267; 57%) with a median age of 42 years (interquartile range 19-55), had 561 elective examinations scheduled in the review period. Multiple examinations were requested for 72 (16%) patients; 70 (15%) patients were below the age of six years and required sedation or general anaesthesia for a technically optimal study.
Referring departments
The neurosurgery (n = 164; 35%), orthopaedic (n = 144; 31%), neurology (n = 53; 11%) and paediatric (n = 57; 6%) outpatient clinics accounted for the majority (81%) of referrals. With the exception of two cases from general outpatients, referrals (n = 464; 99.6%) were from specialist or subspecialist clinics (Table 1).
Scheduled examinations
Examinations of the spine (n = 314; 56%), brain (n = 152; 27%) and musculoskeletal system (n = 70, 13%) accounted for more than 95% of investigations (Table 2).
Clinical indications for referrals
Magnetic resonance imaging spine
More than 90% (n = 284) of examinations were referred from the neurosurgery, (153/314; 49%), orthopaedic (108/314; 34%) and neurology (23/314; 7%) outpatient clinics. More than half were for degenerative disease of the spine (161/314; 51%) (Table 2).
Magnetic resonance imaging brain
Referrals from neurosurgery (48/152; 32%), neurology (41/152; 27%), paediatrics (28/152; 18%) and endocrinology (18/152; 12%) predominated. Definitive evaluation of an intracranial mass was the most common indication (61/152; 40%), whilst familial syndromes (22/152; 15%) and perinatal insults (20/152; 13%) together accounted for more than a quarter of referrals.
Musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging
The majority of referrals were from orthopaedic outpatients (n = 54/65; 83%) and indications included follow-up for joint trauma, congenital abnormalities and soft-tissue tumours (Table 2).
Appropriateness of scheduled examinations
In 11 cases (n = 11/466; 2.4%), the clinical details provided were considered insufficient to justify approval of the MRI request. In all other cases (n = 455; 97.6%), the clinical indication was congruent with published ACR guidelines for appropriate use of the modality.22
To our knowledge, the present study is the first of its kind in a tertiary hospital in a resource-restricted environment, and provides important insights into the utilisation of MRI in such a setting.
We have shown only limited use of MRI by clinicians other than neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and neurologists, suggesting that, in a resource-limited environment, utilisation is confined to the more established clinical indications, and the role of MRI in areas such as oncology, cardiology, urology, hepatobiliary, gastro-enterology, female imaging and fetal medicine is constrained.
The study has also shown that the vast majority (97.6%) of scheduled TBH elective outpatient MRI examinations had sound clinical indications, representing optimal use of a limited resource. A number of recent studies have outlined management options when attempting to align imaging capacity with demand.19,21
Given the appropriateness of TBH clinical referrals and the knowledge that MRI utilisation at TBH was confined to a relatively narrow spectrum of 'classical' brain, spine and musculoskeletal studies, it was felt that the only way to address the waiting list was to extend the hours of operation. Of note is that no attempt was made to modify institutional imaging protocols for marginal savings in scan time, since we had shown that TBH used a limited number of standard examinations that had been consistently refined and optimised by both the vendor and international users over more than 30 years of clinical application.
From September 2012, MRI scanning hours were extended by nine hours per week (Tuesday - Thursday, 16h00 -19h00). This intervention stabilised the waiting time but did not reduce it (Figure 1). Unforeseen barriers to successful utilisation of the additional scanning hours were transport problems amongst patients in getting to and from TBH in the early evening, and patient concerns for personal safety when travelling home.
From February 2013, TBH hospital management sanctioned a further 13 scanning hours per week, from 08h00 - 16h00 on Saturdays and 08h00 - 13h00 on Sundays. This resulted in an immediate and striking decrease in waiting time, from 125 working days in January 2013 to 59 days in May 2013 and 31 days in August 2013 (Figure 1).
The additional scanning hours were implemented at an estimated annual operating cost of R371 000 (about R7500/ weekend) for additional radiographic and nursing services. This represents approximately 2.5% of the current capital outlay for an MRI machine and approximates the 'cost-to-company' of one fulltime entry-level public-sector radiographer.
Some important considerations relating to the provision of capital-intensive imaging services in a resource-limited healthcare environment have been highlighted. These include the imperative to constantly evaluate the appropriateness of clinical utilisation of a scarce resource, the ongoing challenge of matching clinical need with system capacity, the importance of collaboration between hospital management and the radiology department in addressing service pressures, and the potential for minor, affordable service changes to yield major clinical benefits.
Our experience suggests that the artificial barrier separating 'normal hours' and 'after hours' imaging services should be annulled in a resource-constrained environment, and that capital-intensive equipment should be fully utilised, seven days a week.1 We have demonstrated the substantial service benefits resulting from a small additional investment in key personnel. We recommend that all capital-intensive equipment be commissioned with budgetary provision for the personnel required to run an optimal service seven days a week.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that might have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors' contributions
F.J.v.S (Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University) was solely responsible for data collection and collation. F.J.v.S (Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University) and C.A. (Tygerberg Hospital and Stellenbosch University) evaluated the appropriateness of all clinical requests. F.J.v.S and R.D.P. prepared the manuscript. C.A and R.D.P supervised the research project.
1. Runge VM. Current technological advances in magnetic resonance with critical impact for clinical diagnosis and therapy. Invest Radiol. 2013;48(12):869-877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.rli.0000434380.71793.d3 [ Links ]
2. Hayempour BJ, Cohen S, Newberg A. Brain disorders: Evaluation by radiological techniques and nuclear medicine of the primitive major neuropsychiatry disorders. J Alzheimers Dis Parkinsonism. 2013;3(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0460.1000117 [ Links ]
2. Cheong JL, Coleman L, Hunt RW, et al. Infant cooling evaluation collaboration. Prognostic utility of magnetic resonance imaging in neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy: Substudy of a randomized trial. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med. 2012;166(7):634-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.284 [ Links ]
4. Tourbah A. Contribution of imaging to the diagnosis of optic neuropathies. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2012;168(10):702-705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neurol.2012.07.012 [ Links ]
5. Conaghan PG, Ostergaard M, D'Agostino MA, et al. Proceedings from the 5th Annual International Society for Musculoskeletal Imaging in Rheumatology Annual Conference. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2013;42(4):433-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2012.10.003 [ Links ]
6. Moschetti K, Muzzarelli S, Pinget C, et al. Cost evaluation of cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus coronary angiography for the diagnostic work-up of coronary artery disease: Application of the European American College of Radiology Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards. Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine. 2013;26(1):S1-S150. [ Links ]
7. Frydrychowicz A, Lubner MG, Brown JJ, et al. Hepatobiliary MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(3):492-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.22833 [ Links ]
8. Trompoukis P, Papantoniou N, Chlapoutaki C, Mesogitis S, Antsaklis AJ. Fetal MRI: Is it really helpful? Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(11):2363-2368. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.696161 [ Links ]
9. Lee CH, Weinreb JC. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2004;1(3):176-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2003.12.008 [ Links ]
10. Martin DR, Kalb B, Sauer CG, Alazraki A, Goldschmid S. Magnetic resonance enterography in Crohn's disease: Techniques, interpretation, and utilization for clinical management. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18(4):374-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4893-11.2 [ Links ]
11. Ip IK, Schneider L, Seltzer S, et al. Impact of provider-led, technology-enabled radiology management program on imaging. Am J Med. 2013;126(8):687-692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.11.034 [ Links ]
12. Robinson JD, Hippe DS, Hiatt MD. The effect of a no-denial policy on imaging utilization. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(7):501-506. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.01.022 [ Links ]
13. Hendee WR. Addressing overutilization in medical imaging. Radiology 2010;257(1):240-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100063 [ Links ]
14. Perez FA, Jarvik JG. Evidence-based imaging and effective utilization: Lessons in neuroradiology. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2012;22(3):467-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nic.2012.05.002 [ Links ]
15. Gonzales JM. Imaging professionals' beliefs on overutilization of CT and MRI exams. Radiol Manage. 2011;33(6):41-46. [ Links ]
16. Census 2011 Statistical release P0301.4. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. [ Links ] [cited 22 February 2012]. Available from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/Publications/P03014/P030142011.pdf
17. Ondategui-Parra S, Bhagwat JG, Zou KH, et al. Practice management performance indicators in academic radiology departments. Radiology. 2004;233(3):716-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031147 [ Links ]
18. Barter S, Drinkwater K, Remedios D. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(3):284-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.09.008 [ Links ]
19. Nuti S, Vainieri M. Managing waiting times in diagnostic medical imaging. BMJ Open. 2012;2(6):e001255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001255 [ Links ]
20. Tokur S, Lederle K, Terris DD, et al. Process analysis to reduce MRI access time at a German university hospital. Int J Qual Health Care. 2012;24(1):95-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzr077 [ Links ]
21. MacDonald SL, Cowan IA, Floyd RA, Graham R. Measuring and managing radiologist workload: A method for quantifying radiologist activities and calculating the full-time equivalents required to operate a service. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2013;57(5):551-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1754-9485.12091 [ Links ]
22. American College of Radiology. ACR quality and safety guidelines. Updated June 2012. [ Links ] [cited 30 June 2013]. Reston: American College of Radiology. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Appropriateness-Criteria
23. Rosen MP, Oake N, Forster AJ, Goelman A, Levy F. The effect of imaging capacity on the imaging workup of patients with stroke: A preliminary case for a crosscountry comparison. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(6):428-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2011.02.012 [ Links ]
Francois van Schouwenburg
20 Boschendal Terrace, Van
Riebeeckshof, Bellville 7530
South Africa
Email: email@example.com
Received: 14 July 2014
Accepted: 27 Oct. 2014
Published: 09 Dec. 2014


text:
At The Plate – After battling back from an early 4-0 hole the Iowa Cubs found themselves leading heading into the late innings, that's when things fell apart in 9-8 loss to Tucson. Hits were all over the place in this one as the Cubs pounded out eighteen hits, and scored eight runs, they left 11 men on base as well. Logan Watkins was 1-for-4 with a walk, his third home run of the season, an RBI, and a run scored. Brett Jackson had a breakout game going 4-for-5 with a double, and a run, he's now hitting .265 on the season. Josh Vitters had a solid game as well going 3-for-3 with a double, an RBI, and a run scored. Darnell McDonald, Brent Lillibridge, and J.C. Boscan each had two hits in the loss.
On The Mound – Guillermo Moscoso got the start for the Cubs, and pitched in and out of trouble having one costly inning. Moscoso went five innings giving up four runs, two earned, on nine hits while striking out eight. Esmailin Caridad was sub par to say the least, he worked two-thirds of an inning giving up three runs on four hits to take the loss. Casey Coleman was roughed up a bit as well, he worked 2.1 innings giving up two runs on four hits while walking one. Hisanori Takahashi worked a scoreless ninth inning to give the Cubs a shot to no avail.
At The Plate – The Smokies jumped on top of the Lookouts with four runs in the second and couldn't add on the rest of the way, even still they were able to hang on for a 4-3 win. Matt Szczur continues to find ways get on base for the Smokies as their lead-off man, he was 2-for-5 in this one, and he is now hitting .294 on the season. Ronald Torreyes provided the production for the Smokies, he was 1-for-5 with two RBI's in the win. Christian Villanueva had a huge game, he was 3-for-4 with two doubles, an RBI, and a run scored.
On The Mound – Kyle Hendricks has been so very good this year, and he was again in this one, he worked seven innings giving up three runs on six hits while walking one and striking out three to earn his third win of the season. Tony Zych did a solid job out of the pen going one scoreless inning while striking out one. Zach Rosscup was good as usual working a scoreless ninth inning for his first save of the season, he walked one and struck out the side.
At The Plate – Daytona owned game one, and it was nice to see them put together a team game and get a win given their recent struggles. As you will read, this day was owned by Jorge Soler and Dustin Geiger, maybe May 17 shall be known as Soler Geiger day moving forward. Soler was a monster in game one, he was 4-for-4 with his sixth home run of the season, and three runs scored. He scored three times because Dustin Geiger was hitting behind him, and he didn't want Soler to have all the glory. Geiger was outstanding, he was also 4-for-4 with three doubles, a triple (slugging madness!), and four RBI's. That was it, those two guys won the game for the D-Cubs.
On The Mound – Yeiper Castillo was all Daytona needed on the mound. He spun a gem, going the distance (7 innings for DH's), he worked seven innings giving up one run on four hits while walking one and striking out two. He improved his record to 1-0 on the season, and lowered his ERA to 2.33, very impressive.
At The Plate – Daytona owned game one, and battled for a character win in game two to sweep the double-header. Javier Baez was 2-for-5 with a walk, a triple, and three runs scored, he also had three errors, bring his 2013 total to seventeen. Jorge Soler was a beast in game two as well, he went 3-for-6 with a double, and a run scored, he was 7-for-10 in the double-header and is now hitting .297 on the season. Back to the other hero of the day Dustin Geiger, he was 3-for-4 in game two with a double, two walks, an RBI, and two runs scored. He was 7-for-8 in the double-header with four doubles, and a triple, he is hitting .331 on the season. Taiwan Easterling was 2-for-6 with a triple, a double, and two RBI's in the win.
On The Mound – Tough to have a second game of a double header go twelve innings, if not for the bullpen in game two the D-Cubs would have been in trouble, they came through big time. Eduardo Figueroa got the start and was roughed up, he worked three innings giving up four runs on four hits while walking two and striking out one. The bullpen took over and worked a combined nine scoreless innings giving up four hits while walking two and striking out six. Austin Reed worked two of those innings, walking one and striking out two. Sheldon McDonlad was outstanding working four innings giving up two hits while walking one and striking out one. Frank Del Valle worked the final three innings to earn his first win of the season, he gave up two hits while striking out three.
At The Plate – The Cougars fought hard in this one against the best team in the league only to fall short in twelve innings. Bijan Rademacher continues to hit, he was 3-for-5 with a double, and two runs scored, he is now hitting .350 on the season. Jeimer Candelario was 2-for-5 with a double, and a run scored, he also made his twelfth error of the season. Gioskar Amaya was 2-for-5 with two singles in the loss.
On The Mound – Dillon Maples had a solid outing, and again, finished the day healthy, which is the most important thing right now. Maples worked five innings giving up two runs on two hits while walking one and striking out five. Lendy Castillo took over and was solid as well, he worked five innings giving up on run on five hits while walking three and striking out four. Nathan Dorris struggled with his command, which is rare, he suffered the loss as a result. Dorris worked 1.1 innings giving up one run on two hits while walking two and striking out two.


text:
The world class IT organizations we serve demonstrate time and time again, that their competitive edge derives from their ability to deliver more compelling value to customers, and adapt to opportunities and challenges quickly and efficiently. As a result, they achieve a differentiating capability for their business by identifying and articulating their unique differentiators.
At InfoVision we have emulated this approach and have institutionalized a vision and a set of guiding principles we call Integrated Value Delivery.
Intergrated Value Delivery dictates that we offer exceptional and differentiating competencies for our clients, using the right combination of InfoVision strengths:
Proven technical talent is the basis for our Strategic Resources offering. Our technical expertise and delivery discipline extends our proven talent to create the differentiating competency our clients need in complex Enterprise Applications projects. We provide customers with the foundation to drive process innovation, while enhancing competitive differentiators.
Our domain expertise further extends our differentiating competency and assembles for our clients highly Technology Solutions, in areas such as Mobility Solutions, Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics, Visualization and Collaboration and Wireless and IP and Communications.
Our Integrated Value Delivery System provides a flexible and scalable plan that offers options and choices for our clients to undertake development work at the place of their choosing – on client premises, in one of our several US facilities or at our offshore facility in Bangalore, India.
Our approach is straightforward and proven successful. By embracing and practicing Integrated Value Delivery System, we are able to assess and serve our clients' IT development needs at any level, every stage and across the world. The process is measured, monitored and structured based on customer objectives.


text:
This page was last updated on 12th April 2017
Kenya's west coast - Lake Victoria Safari Village
[ Home | Our Rates | Contact Us | Activities | The Lake | The Islands |
Ruma park |Area Map | Other Mbita Hotels ]
The resort is up and running with all facilities, rooms, tents, restaurant and bar
Our contacts are as follows:
e-mail: email@example.com
Mobile phone:
Loice: 0720 716 665 , Direct line to Director (daytime only 8 a.m - 8 p.m. strictly)
At other times please send SMS to same numberor e-mail, we will come back to you next morning.
Thank you for your understanding.
FIND US ON facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mbita-Kenya/Lake-Victoria-Safari-Village/125580620826110?ref=mf
This homepage was established with the purpose to promote tourism in the region around Lake Victoria in Western Kenya in general and in Mbita, South Nyanza in particular. We promote the area as:
Kenya's West-coast.
For a Kenya Safari with a difference, head west and experience the magnificent beauty of Lake Victoria.
In order to assist you reach Kenya's west-coast, we organize and advice you on what can be done . For your safari needs do not hesitate to contact us for more information. We will arrange all your overland transport, guiding, accommodation and will develop a specialised itinerary to suit your wishes.
Lake Victoria Safari Village is situated on the eastern shore of Lake Victoria in quiet and nice surroundings, 3 km from Mbita town and just inland of Rusinga and Mfangano islands.
A description how to reach us is given on the Area Map page
Balmly tropical weather and the clear cool waters of Lake Victoria, make Mbita an ideal place for relaxing on the shores. Wide warm sandy beaches, perfect for swimming fringe the lake, surrounded by quiet fishing villages and lush green hills. The lake is ideal for exploration by boat and is regarded as Africa's finest fishing grounds. The place is a paradise for birdwatchers.
The village consists of attractive round traditional huts thatched with papyrus reeds. Each double room has its own bathroom with shower and a private veranda overlooking the lake. It is a comfortable place with a friendly and relaxing atmosphere. The perfect place to sniff the breeze, while gazing out on the lake and the islands beyond.
The Village also has a Lighthouse - a Honeymoon Suite - built on rocks next to the lakeshore.
Western Kenya is one of Kenya's least known and visited regions. The area has a lot to offer visitors and is an undiscovered world of wonders. The west coast is endlessly diverse and has lush green highlands, tropical rainforests, the great expanse of Lake Victoria - the legendary source of the Nile, and much, much more. The region is home to fascinating cultures, mythology and a history that lives and breathes in sacred sites and thriving traditional festivals. Stunning landscapes, wonderful wildlife, adventures, bird watching and more await the visitor/s to Kenya's west coast.
Take a safari west and embark on a journey of discovery...................................
You may read about the Lake Victoria Safari Village in both "The Lonely Planet" and "The Rough Guide" books, both updated in 2009
There are links to some Newspaper articles about Safari Village and Mbita area on the Links page
Photo Albums from some of the activities arranged can be seen on our facebook page (link on top of this page)
We have collected some information about the nearby islands, the lake itself, Ruma National Park, some popular activities and a map to show you how to get here and for you to acquaint yourself with the area beforehand.
Some useful information:
The Village is located 00° 26' 44" S and 34° 11' 53" E at an altitude 1137 meters above sea level. The temperature varies between 15-20° C at night to 25-30° C during the day. The days are normally sunny and warm. Rainfall can be experienced during the months of May-June and October-November, normally late afternoon or during the night.
The people of Mbita are friendly and unspoiled by modern tourism. The area is the perfect place to meet "Black Africa". Mbita is stated by the "Lonely Planet travel books" to be as far out in the Wilderness as you can come in Kenya.
Some photos from the Village:
During my compilation of these pages I have requested various people to use their material, photographs, etc. in order to cover the subjects well. I want to thank everybody for their encouraging support and I have tried to acknowledge such assistance by making a link to their homepage at an appropriate place. In particular I want to thank my old friend from the schooldays, Dag Paus for letting me use several of his photographs that he has taken during his countless visits to Kenya's west coast.
[ Home | Our Rates | Contact Us | Activities | The Lake | The Islands |
Ruma park | Area Map | Other Mbita Hotels ]


text:
We have been through census records and talked about what information do they want to collect (for Family Tree Maker) and have given them a couple of interesting clues you can pick up when looking at that image.
This week it was a non-computer person's turn. His information got my attention because of where his family was located and that I saw two females in the chart with surnames as middle names, AND that I know those surnames. Right surnames, right location.
I found a Public Record Index that listed 5 locations where this person had lived. I showed the importance of the Map feature, as I did a Person view in the Map to show him where he as lived based on that record (an Index now less). His eyes lit up as what I found was right, and they all loved that the record nailed his locations.
There was a Hint on our "home" person for a 1940 Census Record. Right time, right place, so we looked at the image and talked about what to capture and who all was in the household. BUT the names we all different in the household. So we had a discrepancy. The name was listed as:
Surname, Initial, "middlename" as expected. So I nudged the home person, I thought your first name was Ralph. Here it says that your middle name is Ralph. The class looked and notice the 'known' first names were listed as the "middle" name.
I had the image blown up so they could see it, and I asked, is this a Census Taker problem or an Informant problem. What is unique about the 1940 census I asked? The informant was the Head of Household came out of the class. Who was that? "My father", was the reply.
Another class member asked me to scroll up the image a bit and his observation was "everyone" is Initial First, then the first name.
So, we have a conflict, right? Record what you see, right? Why not put this observation in the Name Fact Notes for this entry and use the Preferred Fact to be the "conclusion" or hypothesis for now and the Name Fact Note would reflect how the conflict was resolved.
Name Fact Note: In the 1940 Census, the entire page reflected Surname, Initial, name spelled out, where for this family, that name was the First Name. The census page was consistant in how the names were recordedHappy dance of a different kind. Proud of the class!!
Copyright © 2013 by H R Worthington


text:
Skip to Content
Rush Copley Medical Center
Home > Our Doctors > Profile
New Search
To schedule an appointment with Edward W. Lipman please call 630-851-6440 or use our online form.
Dr. Edward Lipman specializes in electrophysiology or heart rhythm disorders. Helping patients with heart rhythm disorders achieve an improved quality of life is at the heart of Dr. Lipman's practice. He offers patients the latest diagnostics and specialty procedures along with a friendly practice environment that fosters communication.
New devices and technology are advancing cardiac diagnosis and treatment
Edward Lipman, M.D., electrophysiologist with Fox Valley Cardiovascular Consultants, and the Heart Rhythm Center staff discuss what atrial fibrillation is, the symptoms, long term risks, diagnosis and treatment options. Learn more at www.rushcopley.com/heart.
© Copyright 2020 Rush Copley Medical Center • 2000 Ogden Avenue; Aurora, IL 60504
Main: 630-978-6200 • Physician Referral & Information: 630-978-6700 or 866-4COPLEY (866-426-7539)


text:
Relationships with
Photo Credit: Adrienne Barbeau's picture is courtesy of NNDB. Photographic illustrations of Adrienne Barbeau are copyright © by their respective holders. The images are published with permission or as allowed by the copyright law's fair use or quotation provisions. If any copyright holder objects to an image being included, please notify us and it will be removed immediately.
Disclaimer: This information about Adrienne Barbeau is derived from astrological interpretation of Adrienne Barbeau's date, time, and place of birth.


text:
Let me see -- how shall I put this without sounding downright raunchy, tasteless, and disgusting?! (Never mind, it can't be done.)
Um, Kanye West apparently posted a tweet bragging about his sexcapades with Kim Kardashian, and his choice of language was anything but romantic and flattering to his lady love. In fact, with this particular tweet, he pretty much came right out and said that Kim is his personal piece of meat whose sole purpose is to satisfy his manly desires whenever the urge should strike him.
Brace yourself -- this one's a real doozie.
He and Kim must have had one seriously memorable roll in the hay, because Kanye posted the following statement on Twitter:
"I just fu%*ed Kim so hard."
(Way to keep it classy and clean, Kanye.)
More from The Stir: Kim Kardashian & Kanye West Have Never Looked Worse
Oh. My. GAWDDDD. Are you kidding me?! Who posts something like that on Twitter -- wait a minute -- forget Twitter -- what kind of boyfriend actually says something like that in any capacity about his girlfriend and thinks it's going to be well received?!
The tweet supposedly got taken down just as fast as it went up, but not before 39,777 of West's followers "favorited" it, and 7,410 people retweeted it. (And that was obviously more than enough to get the comment noticed.)
Oh man -- Kim Kardashian has to be one seriously pissed off lady right about now, and if she isn't upset, she should be. I know that men talk about their girlfriends with their buddies, and we gals definitely dish on what goes on between the sheets with our close girlfriends -- but nobody in their right mind should be publicly boasting about those things!
Kanye's tweet was nothing short of disrespectful, and if Kim's smart, she'll take it as a huge red flag and think long and hard about whether or not this is someone she wants to continue a serious relationship with.
And if she does let his actions slide this time, at the very least she should demand one hell of an apology. Heck, she may even want to think about regulating his tweets for the time being -- or at least forbidding him from going anywhere near a smartphone or computer after they've done the deed.
Do you think Kanye's actions are forgivable?
Image via Pacific Coast News


text:
Another precious little boy has entered the world.
According to her personal website, Tori Spelling and husband Dean McDermott welcomed a son, the couple's fourth child together, tonight, and first shared the news on Twitter when she posted, "It's a boy!!!!"
"We are so excited to announce the birth of the newest member of the McDermott family," she wrote. "Please join us in welcoming Finn Davey McDermott."
U.S. & World
Aw, Finn! (Anybody else having a Gleek moment right now?)
Giuliana and Bill welcomed a son, too!
Finn arrived at 5:39 p.m., weighing 6 pounds, 6 ounces and measuring 20 inches long.
Spelling and McDermott announced the pregnancy back in March. "DeanLiam,Stella Hattieand I are beyond thrilled to announce that another little McDermott is on the way!" Tori posted on her website. "We feel truly blessed that another angel has found us."
The couple are already parents to Liam, 5, Stella, 4, and Hattie, 10 months.
Congratulations to the growing family!


text:
The following day I had this exchange with Tom.
narrativedilettante wrote:WHY DID YOU PUT ALL OF THE ECHOES IN PLACES WITH NO PARKING?
Tom wrote:Haha
Tom wrote:I can't guarantee that one is even still there...
narrativedilettante wrote::-( Is there any way we could see it, then? Pretty please?
Tom wrote:Yeah I guess. It's honestly the worst one
Then today, he sent me the following email, with the attachment you see below.
Tom wrote:Remember that, for most of the Echoes, we were working with traditional comic book artists, with all that implies about the way women are portrayed in comics.
After the artist delivered this image, we sent back directions to change the costume to be a little more reasonable. Those directions were followed for the subsequent images, but we'd already paid for this one, and Eddie didn't want to pay again. Most of us found this image disappointing, so none of us were really sad when it was the only echo not found.
Though I can understand why the Puppet Masters weren't as pleased with this image as they were with the others, I am still VERY glad to finally get a hold of it. This whole thing was just hanging over me like so much unfinished business.