text:
Below are a number of best rated Palace Nails Georgetown Tx pictures on the internet. We identified it from reliable source. published by the author of this blog in category for this post: Nails, field. We feel this Palace Nails Georgetown Tx graphic can be the most trending content when we promote it in google plus or twitter.
We decide to presented in this article since this may be one of excellent resource for any Palace Nails Georgetown Tx choices. Dont you come here to know some new fresh Palace Nails Georgetown Txidea? We actually hope you can easily approve it as one of the reference and many thanks for your time for viewing our webpage. Make sure you distribute this picture for your precious mates, families, group via your social networking such as facebook, google plus, twitter, pinterest, or some other social bookmarking sites.
About ♦ Contact ♦ Privacy Policy ♦ Terms of Service ♦ Copyright/IP Policy
Copyright © 2017 · Jcpronet.com - Nail Designs for 2018. All Rights Reserved.
Any content, trademark/s, or other material that might be found on the Jcpronet.com website that is not Jcpronet.com's property remains the copyright of its respective owner/s.
In no way does Jcpronet.com claim ownership or responsibility for such items, and you should seek legal consent for any use of such materials from its owner.


text:
Come to the next DramaFever Meetup in Boston!
Due to overwhelming demand, this event has been postponed. We're planning something even bigger and better with H-mart for our fans, so stay tuned to DramaFever on Facebook, Twitter, and our email updates for details. Apologies for any inconvenience–we're looking forward to meeting you soon!
Come meet DramaFever at H-Mart's new store in Cambridge, MA. Thanks to our friends at H-mart, DramaFever will be visiting Cambridge on
Thursday, May 8th from 4-6PM. We'll have plenty of games and prizes for you to win along with giveaways and an in-store viewing of our coming soon dramas! We might even have a few surprises in store...
Best of all, this Meet and Greet event is FREE to attend!
Pre-Register for the event for free, and get automatically entered into our raffle to win DramaFever prizes including a Chromecast, 1-Month of Premium Membership, T-Shirts, Stickers and other hidden prizes!
Registration ends register HERE now!
Can't wait to see you all there!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Have Questions? Get Answers – 844-818-3415
Save the hassle of bringing your device in-store. Get it fixed from right where you are!
OneSupport has 20+ years of experience providing tech support to home and business computer users. If you are looking for assistance with a new computer, Windows tech support, scanning for and removing viruses, or looking for advice on new technology, our friendly U.S. based technicians can connect to your machine and provide help 24 hours a day.
Our mission is simple – create customer experiences that lead to better relationships. We believe that putting the customer first and always being accountable is how you gain trust and loyalty. No scripts, no robots, just answers from courteous and knowledgeable professionals who have your digital life's best interests in mind.
What kind of Microsoft Issue can we help you with?
Call OneSupport at (844) 818-3415 to talk about Plans and Pricing!
Most problems can be resolved with our remote services but in case there are unforeseen circumstances or you are not satisfied we have a 100% Money Back Guarantee
Support Products
OneTime Fix
1 Device
30 Days of Support
Computer Tune Up
Virus Scan
Network Troubleshooting
Most Popular
OneSupport Monthly
$14.99 /mo
Unlimited Support up to 5 devices
WiFi Connectivity
Computer Tune Up and Maintenance
Game Consoles
Much More...
OneSupport Yearly
Yearly Support for 5 devices
24/7/365 Tech Availability
Home Networking Support
Virus Removal and Tune-Ups
Much More...
Certified and BackGround Checked
Scheduled Around Your Time
Hardware and Software Technicians
Networking and WiFi Deployment
Much More...
Virus Removal
- Malware
- Adware
- Viruses
- Wireless
- Mobile Smartphone and Tablet support
- Routers, Hubs, Switches
- Ports (forwarding, triggering, DMZ)
- Homegroup/Workgroup
- Wifi Wireless Network Setup and Security
Hardware / Peripherals
- Printers
- Webcams
- Game Consoles
- WiFi Capable TV's
- Blu-ray Players
- Streaming Devices (Roku, Apple TV, etc.)
- Keyboard and Mouse


text:
Hiya guys. I got tagged by the lovely Jeann @ Happy Indulgence a while back and I've finally gotten around to doing it! (I know, I'm super behind on this…but I was on holidays, that's my excuse and I'm sticking with it).
What are your top three book pet hates?
- Bad, bad insta-love. oh and to make things worst, love triangle insta love. ):
- Spineless lead characters. For gosh sakes, stop whining and go do something about it!!
- Cope out endings. I love happy endings, but I'd rather have an ending that "sad" and makes sense than no sense at all to the rest of the book. That being said having "shocking" endings for the sake of shock value is a big no-no too.
Describe your perfect reading spot.
- Anywhere were I can bask in sunlight! Be that a beach, or in a big comfy chair inside. (I'm like a cat that way, lol)
Tell us three book confessions.
- I'm still embarrassed by some of the ridiculous covers of HR (despite loving them). I'm a little embarrass when the librarian sees me signing out a HR with a cover that consists of lots male (or female) chest, flowing hair and scandalous poses. I also read on the bus a lot. I don't want people to judge me. Hallelujah for e-readers!
- I still don't know some of the abbreviations used in the book/blogger world. PNR? Paranormal romance? Is it that easy? H/h?
- I always end up looking for the/a romance sub-plot in books. Even if there's no reason for it. I just always want someone to have a cute romance, so I just sort start thinking, "oh they make a cute couple" and try very hard to make something from nothing (then I get disappointed when nothing comes from it haha).
When was the last time you cried during a book?
- I usually don't cry during reading (or watching movies really…the one that always gets me is Lion King!) but I think the last book that brought the sniffles was definitely Code Name Verity by Elizabeth Wein…which I mean, it's a book set during the war about two best friends, of course it's asking for water works.
How many books are on your bedside table?
- Hmm, usually there's only one or two, the one(s) I'm reading, or most likely my Kindle.
What is your favourite snack whilst your reading?
- Goldfish or some sorta crackers. And tea! And fresh fruits.
Name three books you would recommend to everyone.
To only pick three is super hard…arg.
- And Then There Were None by Agatha Christie
- The Princess Bride William Goldman
- Cinder by Marissa Meyer / Dealing with Dragons by Patricia C Wrede (I'm surprised I only snuck one extra rec, ha.)
Show us a picture of your favourite bookshelf on your bookcase.
Umm… here's my "display" shelf, AKA the spot for my new books or really pretty cover books that I want to show off. Though the shelf is in my room, so it's really just for me. Also, a peek a the top shelf with a few of my favourite series! I just organize by books by author so it's hard to pick a favourite shelf, haha.
Write how much books mean to you in just three words.
- Place of discovery
What is your biggest reading secret?
- Sometimes I read the ending first…just so I know if it's worth going through the rest of the book…
TAG – You're it!
Okay, so I have no idea who has and hasn't done it yet, so I shall tag some peeps, feel free to do it, or if you already have link me up! And if I didn't tag you but you still wanna do it, go for it! Because I would love to see your answers (:
- Rachel @ Cuts of Paper
- Jess @ The Reading Rook Reviews
- Kirsty @ Studio Reads
- Allie @ Little Birdie Books
- Amiee @ Deadly Darlings
Author: Cyn
a bum OT, procrastinator. reader. eater. sleeper. music listen-er. movie go-er. Loves food too much.


text:
July 08, 2008
People news
Peter Dolan, who resigned from his post as CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2006 after a patent fight over Plavix went expensively awry, has joined the board of directors of Gemin X Pharmaceuticals, a privately held oncology drug firm based in Malvern, PA, and Montreal, Canada.
GSW Worldwide has hired Rich Levy away from Ogilvy Healthworld, where he was EVP, executive creative director, to lead creative at its New York office. He replaces co-creative directors Lisa Garrone and Mike DePirro, who left the firm in April.


text:
Introducing Deer Valley North – Deer Valley North is the newest addition to the Deer Valley community and features eight inspiring new floor plans.
One Bedroom Floorplans
Choose from 4 stylish, spacious and comfortable models offering both first floor and second floor master suites.
Two Bedroom Floorplans
Our 4 two bedroom models offer a variety of elegant and practical layouts that will make you feel at home.
Environmental Responsibility
Deer Valley North was designed
and built with our environment
in mind.


text:
Clues to Detecting Pain and The Aging Process in Your Dog
The following guest post comes from Kim Malonie, the Animal Communicator, at AnimalWhisper.com;
To protect themselves from predators, animals naturally hide their pain. Your dog may be suffering even though she isn't showing obvious signs. Observing your dog's behavior is vital to managing his or her pain. To help you understand your dogs body language:
Abnormal chewing habits– If your dog is showing abnormal chewing habits, such as dropping its food or chewing only on one side of the mouth, it may have a dental disorder or a mouth tumor. Additional signs may include weight loss, bad breath or excessive face rubbing
Drastic weight loss. – Pain directly influences your dogs eating habits. dogs with arthritis or muscle soreness may not want to access their food because bending over is uncomfortable. Arthritis pain may also cause dogs gain weight due to decreased activity.
Avoids affection or handling. – This may be a result of pain causing your dog to feel out-of-sorts and less social.
Decreased movement and exercise. – Arthritis or degenerative joint diseases is the most common cause of pain. dogs experiencing this may be reluctant to go up or down stairs, exercise, have difficulty standing up or lying down, increased stiffness, less willingly wanting to play with others.
"Accidents". –Although behavioral issues may cause unwanted surprises, urinating or defecating in inappropriate places may be caused by joint pain. Dogs with sore joints may not make it to a particular location due to painful obstacles like stairs.
Other signs to watch for that are signs of aging (please note some of these symptoms could also be a sign of serious illness in dogs)
- Bad breath (you may want to also check for rotten teeth as a cause)
- Excessive barking /vocalization
- Having trouble recognizing their normal routines or surroundings
- Change in bowel movements
- Stops greeting their family members
- Shows less interest when you pet them
- Sleeps more during the day and evening
- Do they wander aimlessly or pace
- Difficulty hearing or responds less quickly when called
- Difficulty seeing
- Increased urination
- Excessive panting
- Difficulty passing urine or having a bowel movement
- Losing or gaining weight
- Eating less or more
- Drinking more or less
If you notice any of these symptoms please have your dog checked out by a Veterinarian, you could save them a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering." You may want to give your beloved dog a natural blend of Glucosamine, Chondroitin and MSM which you can get at a health store. follow the directions for a child or use ¼ the dosage.
Too many elderly, senior or dogs with special needs end up given away to other homes, placed in Humane Societies or Shelters when they get old. As your dog ages they really need their beloved companions they have been with and have loved you to be with them to take care of them just as you would when you get old or have special needs. Remember they loved you unconditionally through the good and bad times and now as they age they ask only that you take a little extra time from your busy day to be with them, guide them with your loving voice as they take a little walk with you or do our business outside, get them a sweater or coat to wear and a cozy bed if we seem to have pain, arthritis or if they seem stiffer moving around then they use to."
If you have a chance and would like to adopt a senior or special needs dog from a Rescue, Shelter or Humane Society, make sure you know before what their condition is and you are able to handle their specific needs just think, that dog would reward you with unconditional love in their hearts even if only for a short time, they would find comfort in knowing someone loved them and cared for them and filled their last days with dignity and compassion.
Check out and follow @petcommunicator on twitter!
Kim Malonie, Internationally Acclaimed, helping all animals with Physical, Emotional and Behavior issues, 30 years experience, personal and long distance consultations available.


text:
Beats Rhymes & Life is a touching tribute to rappers A Tribe Called Quest
DVD review: Michael Rapaport's documentary Beats Rhymes & Life looks back on the career rap group A Tribe Called Quest and a golden age of hip hop.
Actor, comedian and hip hop fan Michael Rapaport's direct-orial debut – now finally available here – is a touching tribute to one of rap's most innovative and influential groups, A Tribe Called Quest.
Q-Tip, Phife Dawg, Jarobi and Ali Shaheed Muhammad pioneered raiding dusty jazz crates for samples and a trippily creative aesthetic – and were founding fathers of the early 1990s Native Tongues collective, celebrating black consciousness and positive vibes through deeply funky party music.
However, the tensions of fame and the personality clashes within ATCQ didn't take long to emerge, particularly between childhood best friends Q-Tip and Phife (who struggled increasingly with Type One diabetes) and the band split in 1998.
Rapaport submerges us in this golden age of hip hop, with fascinating insights for fans, and in the deeply human dramas of fracturing friendships and Phife's illness. It features candid interview material from all the members and fellow artists such as Pharrell, Beastie Boys and The Roots (as well as the late, lamented Chris Lighty). Bookended by the disastrous fallout of a 2008 reunion gig, it's also often quite heartbreaking.
Score: 4/5
VIDEO: Watch the Beats Rhymes & Life trailer


text:
OK, time to fill out the Hall of Fame ballot. I've been staring at it long enough. Procrastinating. Hoping maybe new information would surface. Maybe the rules would change. Maybe I'd get clarity pills for Christmas.
No. Nothing has changed. The ballot has to be mailed by the last day of the year. So, here goes . . .
I am voting for Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, and Greg Maddux.
This means I am not voting for (among others) Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Edgar Martinez, Fred McGriff, Mark McGwire, Mike Mussina, Rafael Palmeiro, Mike Piazza, Tim Raines, Lee Smith, Sammy Sosa, Alan Trammell, and Larry Walker. And I know that a case can be made for all of the above.
I've been voting since 1986 and I truly miss the good old days when we argued about home runs, batting averages, ERAs, World Series performances, All-Star Games, and a player's dominance at his position in his era. Things were so much simpler then. Saying yes to Ron Santo or no to Jim Kaat was a serious baseball debate. This was before PEDs and WAR and ALDS and Deadspin buying a Hall of Fame ballot. Now there is so much to consider, it makes one's head explode.
So, let's pass go, collect $200 (or send it to Deadspin), and advance directly to Rule 5 of the ballot. Rule 5 is the charge that makes it virtually impossible to cast a ballot with a clear conscience or a logical argument. Rule 5 makes it almost impossible to be consistent. Rule 5 makes voters look like jackasses. Rule 5 takes all the fun out of voting. Rule 5 gives me the feeling smokers get when they see the surgeon general's warning on a pack of smokes.
Rule 5 states: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contribution to the team(s) on which the player played.''
Got that? Integrity, sportsmanship, and character.
Now I don't know your thoughts, but my position would be that there is probably no group on this planet less equipped to pass judgment on folks' character than the membership of the Baseball Writers' Association of America (BBWAA).
Tea Party and ACLU members think they are targets for ridicule? Try being a member of the BBWAA. Baseball season stretches from February to October, but it is always open season for harpooning the BBWAA. We are a group incapable of unanimous agreement on the Hall of Fame candidacy of a player such as Willie Mays. We give Jim Rice 29.8 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot, then ultimately elect him with more than 75 percent of the vote. We cannot get all members to agree that today is Sunday. This promotes the image of The Lodge. Now we have Deadspin standing up for Everyfan, purchasing a ballot from a thus far anonymous (big surprise there) BBWAA member.
Even the ballot itself is hideously old-timey. No online voting for the BBWAA. Our Hall ballot looks like something that was used at the Groton Town Hall when voters had to choose between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams in 1828.
Now that all of that is out of the way, let's go back to the 2013 candidates for admission to Cooperstown.
Morris is a holdover vote. This is his 15th and final year on the ballot. He got 67.7 percent of the vote last year. The sun-starved stat geeks hate him because — according to the new metrics — winning games and pitching well in clutch situations is wildly overrated. His ERA (3.90) is too high. He is probably not going to make it.
Schilling inspires good baseball debate. The second half of his career was much better than the first. His 216-win total is shy for Cooperstown, but he was one of the great strike machines of the modern era and his postseason dominance is beyond question. I consider a vote for Schill a demonstration that BBWAA members do not use the ballot to settle scores. Sometimes I think I vote for him because I can't stand him.
Thomas, Glavine, and Maddux are on the ballot for the first time. All have Hall numbers. None was tainted by the steroid era.
The numbers are obvious. Thomas hit 521 homers, same as Ted Williams and Willie McCovey. Glavine and Maddux were 300-game winners. Those are magic plateaus . . . unless you cheated.
Nobody thinks Glavine or Maddux cheated. That's probably because of their body types. Glavine looked athletic, but nothing out of the ordinary. Maddux looked like he played slow-pitch softball. He should be unanimous. But, of course, he won't be unanimous.
Thomas had a Popeye body, but was never suspected of being a 'roids guy. Lucky him.
This is where we go off the rails. Like Thomas, guys such as Piazza and Bagwell have Hall of Fame numbers and never tested positive for PEDs. But they look dirty. Something doesn't make sense. Thomas makes sense.
This is where it gets unfair and subjective. I don't vote for the PED guys, so it's easy to say no to Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, McGwire, and Palmeiro. They have positive tests and/or admissions and/or multiple appearances in the Mitchell Report. Piazza and Bagwell have none of that. They just don't look right.
The rest of the list of players I reject are good old-fashioned baseball arguments. Biggio got 68.2 percent of the vote last year, but I don't think of him as Hall-worthy (only one 200-hit season). Same for Mussina and his 270 wins (he always pitched for good teams) and Smith and his 478 saves (saves are overrated and often artificial). Not voting for Raines and Martinez also feels totally unfair. I just never thought of them as Hall of Famers. They fail the "I know it when I see it" test.
It would be easy to vote for all of them. But the Hall is for guys who were more than very good. It's for those who dominated at their position in their time. And it's in the eye of the beholder.
Let the arguments continue . . .Dan Shaughnessy is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow him on Twitter @Dan_Shaughnessy.


text:
Our Vision
Hack Reactor's vision is to transform higher education to be more transparent, accessible and outcomes-driven.
Our Programming Bootcamp Turns Motivated Individuals into Industry-Ready Software Engineers
Hack Reactor's vision is to transform higher education to be more transparent, accessible and outcomes-driven.
Hack Reactor's mission is to empower students to succeed in new careers in Software Engineering through our accelerated, best-in-class programs and our strong, caring community.
People leave our web development program as solution-oriented engineers. They become individuals that can distill and solve any complex problem thrown at them resulting in better careers, better work, and better lives.
We are focused on a quality experience for our students. By constantly iterating and tweaking our software engineering curriculum, we ensure sustained industry relevance. We judge the success of everything we do by the accomplishments of our students.
When you attend Hack Reactor you find yourself in a community of passionate and forward looking professionals with a common life-changing experience. A community of friends, job connections, and support.
We work tirelessly to provide industry-relevant skills to our students and help them get their dream jobs as software engineers. In 2015, 98% of our students got a job within 6 months with an average salary of $104,000.Check our Students Projects
We provide a hiring pipeline via our alumni and enterprise programs to solve the talent gap many organizations are facing. We work closely with companies like J.P. Morgan Chase, SolarCity and Slack.Visit our Employer Partnerships
We make in-demand careers like software engineering more accessible to underserved communities through partnering with programs like Code.7370, RBK, and many more. Whenever possible, we enjoy using our resources to give back.Visit our Community Partnerships
Inspired by his language-learning experience in Korea, our Co-Founder Tony Phillips had a revelation about the unique power of immersive education. After coming back to the U.S. and learning to code from his brother (and future Co-Founder) Marcus, Tony realized he could apply the principle of immersion to create a new kind of school. With some encouragement from Co-Founder Shawn Drost, the three of them embarked on the monumental task of starting a school. Today, they continue to juggle Hack Reactor's overarching management and minute details as they run an organization with five campuses, hundreds of employees and over 3,000 alumni.
What started with moving furniture and adding final touches to the curriculum the night before the first students arrived has grown into an organization that powers a life-altering educational program. Hack Reactor has been through countless changes, but at its core, it has always been about changing lives by applying the best analytical and development processes to education. Since 2012, we have steadily refined our outcomes-focused approach, and our third-party verified numbers pace the industry.
In 2014, an experiment to accommodate one student being held up by visa issues blossomed into a unique educational offering. Hack Reactor Remote was the first online coding bootcamp, and allows students to access our transformative course from anywhere in the world. We have educated students from over 20 countries and counting.
The Moringa School creates a pathway to Kenya's growing tech sector. Hack Reactor provided curriculum, consulting and staff support to this powerful immersive program.
Code.7370, built in concert with The Last Mile, seeks to reduce recidivism, by training prisoners in marketable coding skills.
As we grew, we got to know others in the coding bootcamp space, and one school clearly saw education the same way we do. Eventually we joined forces by acquiring MakerSquare, which had locations in San Francisco and Austin. Since then, we have expanded to L.A. and New York.
In coordination with the White House EQUIP program, Hack Reactor launched Telegraph Academy, an intensive coding course geared toward underrepresented minorities.
Teaching high schoolers to code is rightfully a big focus today, and Hack Reactor worked with Mission Bit, a non-profit started by alum Tyson Daugherty, to create classes and internships for public school students.
With thousands of careers radically improved, we have come a long way from the early, sleep-deprived days. But the most exciting chapters in our history are the ones we are writing right now.
All of this is working toward an ambitious goal: transforming higher education with accountable, results-oriented methods. We have already made great strides on this front. In 2016, we published the Standard Student Outcomes Methodology (SSOM), the most airtight system for tracking and reporting student outcomes. Later that year, we received exciting news: we have been selected to participate in the EQUIP pilot program that allows federal aid to be used at our Austin location.
Recognizing the shared values, curriculum and quality throughout every location and program in our network, we rebranded all of our schools to share the Hack Reactor name. This brings clarity and assurance to students, employers and our ever-growing alumni network.
Promoting diversity and inclusion is a core value for Hack Reactor. We are built on the belief that anyone can transform their lives through education and become a Software Engineer. Learning should be lifelong and flexible. We are committed to shifting the foundation of the future, contributing to an evolving system of education.
Diversity and Inclusion have always been a strong thread in the fabric of our organization. Over the years, Hack Reactor has fostered partnerships with programs that support underrepresented communities, distributed Scholarship awards to those in need, and expanded product accessibility. Now, more than ever, we are committed to turning that natural inclination into deliberate action. Our vision is to make Hack Reactor a more welcome place for people from all backgrounds.
To make this vision a reality, we are taking a moment to evaluate our progress by producing the programming bootcamp industry's first Diversity and Inclusion Report. We invite you to share your feedback and join us on this growth journey as we revolutionize the tech industry.


text:
With the increase of tourists in Dubrovnik since the beginning of the year comes news that the sales of the Dubrovnik City Card has also had a huge increase. In the first three months of 2017 sales of the card have increased by an impressive 30 percent compared to the same period from last year.
And hand in hand with this there has also been a healthy increase in the revenue from the sale of the Dubrovnik City Card, this time by 44 percent compared to the same period from last year. "Based on previous indicators a significant increase in revenues can be expected this year compared to 2016," read a statement from the organisation.
The 1-Day Dubrovnik Card is a unique pass allowing entry into 9 cultural-historical monuments, the top attractions of Dubrovnik. The 3-Day and 7-Day Dubrovnik Card are a unique pass allowing entry into 10 cultural-historical monuments, 9 top attractions of Dubrovnik, and 1 gallery in Cavtat. By purchasing a Dubrovnik Card, you will get a bus card valid throughout the city of Dubrovnik, and also coupons for a suburban ride by purchasing 3 – Day and 7 – Day Dubrovnik Card.


text:
The most internationally-famous Czech female performer started her career by winning the Seeking for New Singers competition in 1964. In the following year, she won the Golden Nightingale prize and signed up for Rokoko theatre, where she met Marta Kubišová and Václav Neckář. The three later formed the Golden Kids group. Thanks to her talent, she was appreciated by both Czech and foreign audience. Even abroad she won many significant prizes. She performed in Japan, Canada, Brazil, Australia, vast majority of European countries, and twice in famous New York-based Carnegie Hall. She has recorded over fifty studio albums, appeared in hundreds of TV shows, played in Les Misérables (Fantine), Cats (Grizabella), Bratislava`s production of Hello, Dolly! (top-rated Dolly Levi role), and Donna Sheridan in Mamma Mia! musicals. She acted in the Šíleně smutná princezna fairy-tale. Her stage performances are usually spiced up with tap-dancing and Helena playing various musical instruments, especially conga. In order to show appreaciation of her work in the pop-music field, she was introduced into the Czech Academy of Popular Music`s Hall of Fame in 2001. In the very same year, Vondráčková won Female Singer of the Year prize. During her over 50-year-long career, she sung over 1,500 songs; many of them becoming No. 1 hits. Let us list at least some: Červená řeka, Páta, To se nikdo nedoví, Oh, baby baby, Stín katedrál, Kam zmizel ten starý song, Dvě malá křídla tu nejsou, Lásko, má, já stůňu, Každá trampota má svou mez, A ty se ptáš, co já, Čas je proti nám, Sladké mámení; in recent years: Dlouhá noc, Tvou vůni cítím dál, Vodopád, Samba, Neuč slunce hřát, Já vítám déšť, Mít rád až k zblánění, Stín po nás dvou, Nemůžu bez tebe žít, and Jablko, Černé Labutě or Já z tebou hlavu ztrácím (from her last studio CD Dávno vím svý).
For more information please visit www.vondrackova.cz and www.helena50.cz.
Czech pop star, one of the most famous 1960s & `70s singers and two-time winner of the Golden Nightingale prize. He used to be a singer and actor of Semafor and Rokoko theatres. In 1986, he moved abroad, where he already had many fans - whom he started to gain shortly after the beginning of his career. After the Velvet revolution, he paid many visits to his homeland - his concerts were always sold-out. In 1999, the Czech Academy of Popular Music introduced Matuška to its Hall of Fame. Among Waldemar`s No. 1 hits, we find the following songs: Tereza, Sbohem lásko, Do věží, Slavíci z Madridu, A tak dál nosíš po kapsách sny mládí, Co všechno odnes čas, and duets: Láska nebeská, To se nikdo nedoví, Mám malý stan, and many more… His songs will remain appreciated by the audience as well as Waldemar will stay in our hearts.
Sportovní 122, 252 03 Řitka
ID No.: 27145123, VAT Reg No.: CZ-27145123 (VAT payer)
File No.: C 99679 housed at Municipal Court in Prague
Tel: +420 604 113 111
E-mail: email@example.com
Tel: +420 604 143 615
E-mail: email@example.com
Communication is possible in Czech, Slovak, English and Russian.
Tel: +420 604 907 264
E-mail: email@example.com
Tel: +421 903 705 243
Tel: +420 605 284 371
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Tel: +421 903 300 626
Tel: +420 603 912 891
Somolického 4, 960 01 Zvolen
Tel: +421 905 804 852
Tel: +48 603 881 314
Tel, Fax: +49 303 064 36 81
Tel: +49 172 386 39 37
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Tel: +420 602 310 731


text:
Grant showed up at Olivia's house dressed as a hot dog to ask her to prom. Suddenly, a group of other students showed up in costume and attacked him. When Grant emerged from the fake fight he was only wearing a skimpy mankini and had prom written on his buttocks.
5600 Avenue A
Lubbock, TX. 79404
(806) 744-1414
(806) 744-1414EEO Report Closed Captioning
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2018 Raycom Media. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service, and Ad Choices.


text:
Our feet are certainly resilient– but only up to a point. If you are experiencing some minor-to-moderate pain right now, then this guide will help you figure out what's wrong until you get to your doctor's appointment. Before we go into the different areas of the foot where the pain emanates, here are some important foot pain identifier questions to take note of:
- Is the site of the pain warm to the touch?
- Is my foot feeling tender?
- How does it look? Is it red?
- Does the foot look swollen?
- Does the pain worsen when I walk or stand?
- Is it difficult to walk to stand?
When you're going through this foot identifier list, remember to only use it as a guide and not as means to self-diagnose and more importantly, self-medicate.


text: These tweezers feature a reverse grip to help prevent strain and fatigue while crafting. The compact design and non-stick coating make this tool essential for pick up and precision placement of small die cuts, sequins, beads, and other hard to delicate items. This package contains one 5" pair of tweezers.


text:
The Atlanta Fed's macroblog provides commentary and analysis on economic topics including monetary policy, macroeconomic developments, inflation, labor economics, and financial issues.
Authors for macroblog are Dave Altig, John Robertson, and other Atlanta Fed economists and researchers.
Useful Links
Government Resources
- BLS Handbook of Methods
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- Bureau of Labor Statistics
- Congressional Budget Office
- Economic Data - FRED® II, St. Louis Fed
- Office of Management and Budget
- Statistics: Releases and Historical Data, Board of Governors
- U.S. Census Bureau Economic Programs
- White House Economic Statistics Briefing Room
April 19, 2017
The Fed's Inflation Goal: What Does the Public Know?
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) has had an explicit inflation target of 2 percent since January 25, 2012. In its statement announcing the target, the FOMC said, "Communicating this inflation goal clearly to the public helps keep longer-term inflation expectations firmly anchored, thereby fostering price stability and moderate long-term interest rates and enhancing the Committee's ability to promote maximum employment in the face of significant economic disturbances."
If communicating this goal to the public enhances the effectiveness of monetary policy, one natural question is whether the public is aware of this 2 percent target. We've posed this question a few times to our Business Inflation Expectations Panel, which is a set of roughly 450 private, nonfarm firms in the Southeast. These firms range in size from large corporations to owner operators.
Last week, we asked them again. Specifically, the question is:
What annual rate of inflation do you think the Federal Reserve is aiming for over the long run?
Unsurprisingly, to us at least—and maybe to you if you're a regular macroblog reader—the typical respondent answered 2 percent (the same answer our panel gave us in 2015 and back in 2011). At a minimum, southeastern firms appear to have gotten and retained the message.
So, why the blog post? Careful Fed watchers noticed the inclusion of a modifier to describe the 2 percent objective in the March 2017 FOMC statement (emphasis added): "The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal." And especially eagle-eyed Fed watchers will remember that the Committee amended its statement of longer-run goals in January 2016, clarifying that its inflation objective is indeed symmetric.
The idea behind a symmetric inflation target is that the central bank views both overshooting and falling short of the 2 percent target as equally bad. As then Minneapolis Fed President Kocherlakota stated in 2014, "Without symmetry, inflation might spend considerably more time below 2 percent than above 2 percent. Inflation persistently below the 2 percent target could create doubts in households and businesses about whether the FOMC is truly aiming for 2 percent inflation, or some lower number."
Do such doubts actually exist? In a follow-up to our question about the numerical target, in the latest survey we asked our panel whether they thought the Fed was more, less, or equally likely to tolerate inflation below or above its targe. The following chart depicts the responses.
One in five respondents believes the Federal Reserve is more likely to accept inflation above its target, while nearly 40 percent believe it is more likely to accept inflation below its target. Twenty-five percent of firms believe the Federal Reserve is equally likely to accept inflation above or below its target. The remainder of respondents were unsure. This pattern was similar across firm sizes and industries.
In other words, more firms see the inflation target as a threshold (or ceiling) that the Fed is averse to crossing than see it as a symmetric target.
Lately, various Committee members (here, here, and in Chair Yellen's latest press conference at the 42-minute mark) have discussed the symmetry about the Committee's inflation target. Our evidence suggests that the message may not have quite sunk in yet.
April 19, 2017 in Business Inflation Expectations, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Inflation, Monetary Policy | Permalink
Maybe the message hasn't sunk in because actions speak louder than words, and the Fed seems to act like 2% is a ceiling?
Posted by:
Mark Witte |
April 22, 2017 at 11:33 PM
September 08, 2016
Introducing the Atlanta Fed's Taylor Rule Utility
Simplicity isn't always a virtue, but when it comes to complex decision-making processes—for example, a central bank setting a policy rate—having simple benchmarks is often helpful. As students and observers of monetary policy well know, the common currency in the central banking world is the so-called "Taylor rule."
The Taylor rule is an equation introduced by John Taylor in a seminal 1993 paper that prescribes a value for the federal funds rate—the interest rate targeted by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—based on readings of inflation and the output gap. The output gap measures the percentage point difference between real gross domestic product (GDP) and an estimate of its trend or potential.
Since 1993, academics and policymakers have introduced and used many alternative versions of the rule. The alternative forms of the rule can supply policy prescriptions that differ significantly from Taylor's original rule, as the following chart illustrates.
The green line shows the policy prescription from a rule identical to the one in Taylor's paper, apart from some minor changes in the inflation and output gap measures. The red line uses an alternative and commonly used rule that gives the output gap twice the weight used for the Taylor (1993) rule, derived from a 1999 paper by John Taylor. The red line also replaces the 2 percent value used in Taylor's 1993 paper with an estimate of the natural real interest rate, called r*, from a paper by Thomas Laubach, the Federal Reserve Board's director of monetary affairs, and John Williams, president of the San Francisco Fed. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen also considered this alternative estimate of r* in a 2015 speech.
Both rules use real-time data. The Taylor (1993) rule prescribed liftoff for the federal funds rate materially above the FOMC's 0 to 0.25 percent target range from December 2008 to December 2015 as early as 2012. The alternative rule did not prescribe a positive fed funds rate since the end of the 2007–09 recession until this quarter. The third-quarter prescriptions incorporate nowcasts constructed as described here. Neither the nowcasts nor the Taylor rule prescriptions themselves necessarily reflect the outlook or views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta or its president.
Additional variables that get plugged into this simple policy rule can influence the rate prescription. To help you sort through the most common variations, we at the Atlanta Fed have created a Taylor Rule Utility. Our Taylor Rule Utility gives you a number of choices for the inflation measure, inflation target, the natural real interest rate, and the resource gap. Besides the Congressional Budget Office–based output gap, alternative resource gap choices include those based on a U-6 labor underutilization gap and the ZPOP ratio. The latter ratio, which Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart mentioned in a November 2015 speech while addressing the Taylor rule, gauges underemployment by measuring the share of the civilian population working their desired number of hours.
Many of the indicator choices use real-time data. The utility also allows you to establish your own weight for the resource gap and whether you want the prescription to put any weight on the previous quarter's federal funds rate. The default choices of the Taylor Rule Utility coincide with the Taylor (1993) rule shown in the above chart. Other organizations have their own versions of the Taylor Rule Utility (one of the nicer ones is available on the Cleveland Fed's Simple Monetary Policy Rules web page). You can find more information about the Cleveland Fed's web page on the Frequently Asked Questions page.
Although the Taylor rule and its alternative versions are only simple benchmarks, they can be useful tools for evaluating the importance of particular indicators. For example, we see that the difference in the prescriptions of the two rules plotted above has narrowed in recent years as slack has diminished. Even if the output gap were completely closed, however, the current prescriptions of the rules would differ by nearly 2 percentage points because of the use of different measures of r*. We hope you find the Taylor Rule Utility a useful tool to provide insight into issues like these. We plan on adding further enhancements to the utility in the near future and welcome any comments or suggestions for improvements.
September 8, 2016 in Banking, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Monetary Policy | Permalink
September 21, 2015
What Do U.S. Businesses Know that New Zealand Businesses Don't? A Lot (Apparently).
A recent paper presented at the Brookings Institute, picked up by the Financial Times and the Washington Post, suggests that when it comes to communicating their inflation objective, central banks have a lot of work to do. This conclusion is based primarily on two pieces of evidence.
The first piece is that when businesses in New Zealand are asked about their expectations for changes in "overall prices"—which presumably corresponds with their inflation expectation—the responses, on average, appear to be much too high relative to observed inflation trends. And the responses vary widely from business to business. According to this survey, the average firm in New Zealand expects 4 to 5 percent inflation on a year-ahead basis, and 3.5 percent inflation over the next five to 10 years. Those expectations are for the average firm. Apparently, about one in four firms in New Zealand think inflation in the year ahead will be more than 5 percent, and about one in six firms believe inflation will top 5 percent during the next five to 10 years. Certainly, these aren't the responses one would expect from businesses operating in an economy (like New Zealand) where the central bank has been targeting 2 percent inflation for the past 13 years, over which time inflation has averaged only 2.2 percent (and a mere 0.9 percent during the past four years).
But count us skeptical of this evidence. In this paper from last year, we challenge the assumption that asking firms (or households, for that matter) about expected changes in "overall prices" corresponds to an inflation prediction.
The second piece of evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of inflation targeting is more direct—the authors of this paper actually asked New Zealand businesses a few questions about the central bank and its policies, including this one:
What annual percentage rate of change in overall prices do you think the Reserve Bank of New Zealand is trying to achieve? (Answer: ______%)
The distribution of answers by New Zealand firms is shown in the chart below. According to the survey, the median New Zealand firm appears to think the central bank's inflation target is 5 percent. Indeed, more than a third of firms in New Zealand reported that they think the central bank is targeting an inflation rate greater than 5 percent. Only about 12 percent of the firms were able to correctly identify their central bank's actual inflation target of 2 percent (actually, the New Zealand inflation target is a range of between 1 and 3 percent, centered on 2 percent).
If this weren't embarrassing enough for central bankers, the study also reports that New Zealand households (like U.S. households) don't seem to know who the head of the central bank is. In fact, the authors show that there are more online searches for "puppies" than for information about macroeconomic variables.
OK, to be honest, we don't find that last result very surprising. Puppies are adorable. Central bankers? Not so much. But we were very surprised to see just how high and wide-ranging businesses in New Zealand perceived their central bank's inflation target to be. We're surprised because that bit of information doesn't fit with our understanding of U.S. firms.
In December 2011, the month before the Fed officially announced an explicit numerical target for inflation, we wanted to know whether firms had already formed an opinion about the Fed's inflation objective. So we asked a panel of Southeast businesses the following question:
What we learned was that 16 percent of the 151 firms who responded to our survey had no opinion regarding what rate of inflation the Federal Reserve was aiming for. But of the firms that had an opinion, 58 percent identified a 2 percent inflation target.
But perhaps this isn't a fair comparison to the recent survey of New Zealand businesses. In our 2011 survey, firms had only six options to choose from (including "no opinion"). It could be that our choice of options biased the responses away from high inflation values. So last week, we convened another panel of firms and asked the question in the same open-ended format given to New Zealanders:
What annual rate of inflation do you think the Federal Reserve is aiming for over the long run? (Answer: ______%)
The only material distinction between their question and ours is that we substituted the word "inflation" for the phrase "changes in overall prices." (For this special survey, we polled a national sample of firms that had never before answered one of our survey questions.) The chart below shows what we found relative to the results recently reported for New Zealand firms.
Our survey results look very similar to our results of four years ago. About one in five of the 102 firms that answered our survey was unsure about the Fed's inflation target. But almost 53 percent of the firms that responded answered 2 percent. (On average, U.S. firms judged the central bank's inflation target to be 2.2 percent, just a shade higher than our actual target.)
Furthermore, the distribution of responses to our survey was very tightly centered on 2 percent. The highest estimate of the Fed's inflation target (from only one firm) was 5 percent. So again, our results don't at all resemble what has been reported for the firms down under.
Why is there a glaring difference between what the survey of New Zealand firms found and what we're finding? Well, as noted earlier, we've got our suspicions, but we'll keep studying the issue. And in the meantime, have you seen this?
Editor's note: Learn more about inflation and the consumer price index in an ECONversations webcast featuring Atlanta Fed economist Brent Meyer.
September 21, 2015 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Inflation | Permalink
One possibility is that U.S. executives are better at parroting stated Fed goals, while holding diverse interpretations of the phrase. For example, how many executives know the difference between PCE and CPI indices? And is 2% an aspirational upper limit, or a target with symmetrical Fed responses?
It would be interesting to ask U.S. business members what they view as the Fed's acceptable inflationary range.
Posted by:
September 21, 2015 at 05:35 PM
So you compare a small open economy with a massive, relatively closed one - and are "surprised" that the massive, closed one has more stable expectations. Try something - take a seat on the outside of big roundabout - then one towards the inside. Notice anything?
Posted by:
reason |
September 28, 2015 at 03:50 AM
September 04, 2015
5-Year Deflation Probability Moves Off Zero
Since 2010, our Bank has regularly posted 5-year deflation probabilities derived from prices of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) on our Deflation Probabilities web page. Each deflation probability, which measures the likelihood of a decline in the Consumer Price Index over a fixed five-year window, is estimated by comparing the price of a recently issued 5-year TIPS with a 10-year TIPS issued about five years earlier. Because the 5-year TIPS has more "deflation protection" than the 10-year TIPS, the implied deflation probability rises when the 5-year TIPS becomes more valuable relative to the 10-year TIPS. (See this macroblog post for a more detailed explanation, or this appendix with the mathematical details.)
From early September 2013 to the first week of August 2015, the five-year deflation probability estimated with the most recently issued 5-year TIPS was identically 0 as the chart shows.
Of course, we should not interpret this long period of zero probability of deflation too literally. It could easily be the case that the "true" deflation probability was slightly above zero but that confounding factors—such as differences in the coupon rates, maturity dates, or liquidity of the TIPS issues—prevented the model from detecting it.
Since August 11, however, the deflation probability has had its own "liftoff" of sorts, fluctuating between 0.0 and 1.3 percent over the 16-day period ending August 26 before rising steadily to 4.1 percent on September 2. Of course, this rise off zero could be temporary, as it proved to be in the summer of 2013.
How seriously should we take this recent liftoff? We can look at options prices on Consumer Price Index inflation (inflation caps and floors) to get a full probability distribution for future inflation; see this published article by economists Yuriy Kitsul and Jonathan Wright or a nontechnical summary in this New York Times article. An alternative is simply to ask professional forecasters for their subjective probabilities of inflation falling within various ranges like "1.0 to 1.4 percent," "1.5 to 1.9 percent," and so forth. The Philly Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters does just this, with the chart below showing probabilities of low inflation for the Consumer Price Index excluding food and energy (core CPI) from each of the August surveys since 2007.
Although the price index, and the horizon for the inflation outcome, differs from the TIPS-based deflation probability, we see that the shape of the curves is broadly similar to the one shown in the first chart. In the most recent survey, the probability that next year's core CPI inflation rate will be low was small and not particularly elevated relative to recent history. However, the deadline date for this survey was August 11, before liftoff in either the TIPS-based deflation probability or the recent volatility in global financial markets. So stay tuned.
September 4, 2015 in Deflation, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Inflation | Permalink
I just wrote a note to investors citing 'deflation' as 'public enemy number one' , in contradistinction to the market's seemingly relentless concern about a hike in rates by the Fed, and a reaction in which equity markets and long-term bonds sell off. With deflation being more of a risk, as clear from your article, the expectation that long rates will rise seems unfounded.
I wish I had seen your article before launching my note as i would have cited it w/proper attribution.
I look forward to seeing more of your work on this topic.
Posted by:
Ed L. |
September 08, 2015 at 11:48 AM
November 04, 2014
Data Dependence and Liftoff in the Federal Funds Rate
When asked "at which upcoming meeting do you think the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee] will FIRST HIKE its target for the federal funds rate," 46 percent of the October Blue Chip Financial Forecasts panelists predicted that "liftoff" would occur at the June 2015 meeting, and 83 percent chose liftoff at one of the four scheduled meetings in the second and third quarters of next year.
Of course, this result does not imply that there is an 83 percent chance of liftoff occurring in the middle two quarters of next year. Respondents to the New York Fed's most recent Primary Dealer Survey put this liftoff probability for the middle two quarters of 2015 at only 51 percent. This more relatively certain forecast horizon for mid-2015 is consistent with the "data-dependence principle" that Chair Yellen mentioned at her September 17 press conference. The idea of data dependence is captured in this excerpt from the statement following the October 28–29 FOMC meeting:
[I]f incoming information indicates faster progress toward the Committee's employment and inflation objectives than the Committee now expects, then increases in the target range for the federal funds rate are likely to occur sooner than currently anticipated. Conversely, if progress proves slower than expected, then increases in the target range are likely to occur later than currently anticipated.
If the timing of liftoff is indeed data dependent, a natural extension is to gauge the likely "liftoff reaction function." In the current zero-lower bound (ZLB) environment, researchers at the University of North Carolina and the St. Louis Fed have analyzed monetary policy using shadow fed funds rates, shown in figure 1 below, estimated by Wu and Xia (2014) and Leo Krippner.
Unlike the standard fed funds rate, a shadow rate can be negative at the ZLB. The researchers found that the shadow rates, particularly Krippner's, act as fairly good proxies for monetary policy in the post-2008 ZLB period. Krippner also produces an expected time to liftoff, estimated from his model, shown in figure 1 above. His model's liftoff of December 2015 is six months after the most likely liftoff month identified by the aforementioned Blue Chip survey.
I included Krippner's shadow rate (spliced with the standard fed funds rate prior to December 2008) in a monthly Bayesian vector autoregression alongside the six other variables shown in figure 2 below.
The model assumes that the Fed cannot see contemporaneous values of the variables when setting the spliced policy—that is, the fed funds/shadow rate. This assumption is plausible given the approximately one-month lag in economic release dates. The baseline path assumes (and mechanically generates) liftoff in June 2015 with outcomes for the other variables, shown by the black lines, that roughly coincide with professional forecasts.
The alternative scenarios span the range of eight possible outcomes for low inflation/baseline inflation/high inflation and low growth/baseline growth/high growth in the figures above. For example, in figure 2 above, the high growth/low inflation scenario coincides with the green lines in the top three charts and the red lines in the bottom three charts. Forecasts for the spliced policy rate are conditional on the various growth/inflation scenarios, and "liftoff" in each scenario occurs when the spliced policy rate rises above the midpoint of the current target range for the funds rate (12.5 basis points).
The outcomes are shown in figure 3 below. At one extreme—high growth/high inflation—liftoff occurs in March 2015. At the other—low growth/low inflation—liftoff occurs beyond December 2015.
One should not interpret these projections too literally; the model uses a much narrower set of variables than the FOMC considers. Nonetheless, these scenarios illustrate that the model's forecasted liftoffs in the spliced policy rate are indeed consistent with the data-dependence principle.
By Pat Higgins, senior economist in the Atlanta Fed's research department
November 4, 2014 in Economics, Employment, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Forecasts, Inflation, Monetary Policy | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference Data Dependence and Liftoff in the Federal Funds Rate:
September 29, 2014
On Bogs and Dots
Consider this scenario. You travel out of town to meet up with an old friend. Your hotel is walking distance to the appointed meeting place, across a large grassy field with which you are unfamiliar.
With good conditions, the walk is about 30 minutes but, to you, the quality of the terrain is not so certain. Though nobody seems to be able to tell you for sure, you believe that there is a 50-50 chance that the field is a bog, intermittently dotted with somewhat treacherous swampy traps. Though you believe you can reach your destination in about 30 minutes, the better part of wisdom is to go it slow. You accordingly allot double the time for traversing the field to your destination.
During your travels, of course, you will learn something about the nature of the field, and this discovery may alter your calculation about your arrival time. If you discover that you are indeed crossing a bog, you will correspondingly slow your gait and increase the estimated time to the other side. Or you may find that you are in fact on quite solid ground and consequently move up your estimated arrival time. Knowing all of this, you tell your friend to keep his cellphone on, as your final meeting time is going to be data dependent.
Which brings us to the infamous "dots," ably described by several of our colleagues writing on the New York Fed's Liberty Street Economics blog:
In January 2012, the FOMC began reporting participants' FFR [federal funds rate] projections in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP). Market participants colloquially refer to these projections as "the dots" (see the second chart on page 3 of the September 2014 SEP for an example). In particular, the dispersion of the dots represents disagreement among FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee] members about the future path of the policy rate.
The Liberty Street discussion focuses on why the policy rate paths differ among FOMC participants and across a central tendency of the SEPs and market participants. Quite correctly, in my view, the blog post's authors draw attention to differences of opinion about the likely course of future economic conditions:
The most apparent reason is that each participant can have a different assessment of economic conditions that might call for different prescriptions for current and future monetary policy.
The Liberty Street post is a good piece, and I endorse every word of it. But there is another type of dispersion in the dots that seems to be the source of some confusion. This question, for example, is from Howard Schneider of Reuters, posed at the press conference held by Chair Yellen following the last FOMC meeting:
So if you would help us, I mean, square the circle a little bit—because having kept the guidance the same, having referred to significant underutilization of labor, having actually pushed GDP projections down a little bit, yet the rate path gets steeper and seems to be consolidating higher—so if it's data dependent, what accounts for the faster projections on rate increases if the data aren't moving in that direction?
The Chair's response emphasized the modest nature of the changes, and how they might reflect modest improvements in certain aspects of the data. That response is certainly correct, but there is another point worth emphasizing: It is completely possible, and completely coherent, for the same individual to submit a "dot" with an earlier (or later) liftoff date of the policy rate, or a steeper (or flatter) path of the rate after liftoff, even though their submitted forecasts for GDP growth, inflation, and the unemployment rate have not changed at all.
This claim goes beyond the mere possibility that GDP, inflation, and unemployment (as officially defined) may not be sufficiently complete summaries of the economic conditions a policymaker might be concerned with.
The explanation lies in the metaphor of the bog. The estimated time of arrival to a destination—policy liftoff, for example—depends critically on the certainty with which the policymaker can assess the economic landscape. An adjustment to policy can, and should, proceed more quickly if the ground underfoot feels relatively solid. But if the terrain remains unfamiliar, and the possibility of falling into the swamp can't be ruled out with any degree of confidence...well, a wise person moves just a bit more slowly.
Of course, as noted, once you begin to travel across the field and gain confidence that you are actually on terra firma, you can pick up the pace and adjust the estimated time of arrival accordingly.
To put all of this a bit more formally, an individual FOMC participant's "reaction function"—the implicit rule that connects policy decisions to economic conditions—may not depend on just the numbers that that individual writes down for inflation, unemployment, or whatever. It might well—and in the case of our thinking here at the Atlanta Fed, it does—depend on the confidence with which those numbers are held.
For us, anyway, that confidence is growing. Don't take that from me. Take it from Atlanta Fed President Lockhart, who said in a recent speech:
I'll close with this thought: there are always risks around a projection of any path forward. There is always considerable uncertainty. Given what I see today, I'm pretty confident in a medium-term outlook of continued moderate growth around 3 percent per annum accompanied by a substantial closing of the employment and inflation gaps. In general, I'm more confident today than a year ago.
Viewed in this light, the puzzle of moving dots without moving point estimates for economic conditions really shouldn't be much of a puzzle at all.
By Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director of the Atlanta Fed
September 29, 2014 in Economic conditions, Economics, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Forecasts | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference On Bogs and Dots:
August 12, 2014
Are We There Yet?
Editor's note: This macroblog post was published yesterday with some content inadvertently omitted. Below is the complete post. We apologize for the error.
Anyone who has undertaken a long road trip with children will be familiar with the frequent "are we there yet?" chorus from the back seat. So, too, it might seem on the long post-2007 monetary policy road trip. When will the economy finally look like it is satisfying the Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) dual mandate of price stability and full employment? The answer varies somewhat across the FOMC participants. The difference in perspectives on the distance still to travel is implicit in the range of implied liftoff dates for the FOMC's short-term interest-rate tool in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP).
So how might we go about assessing how close the economy truly is to meeting the FOMC's objectives of price stability and full employment? In a speech on July 17, President James Bullard of the St. Louis Fed laid out a straightforward approach, as outlined in a press release accompanying the speech:
To measure the distance of the economy from the FOMC's goals, Bullard used a simple function that depends on the distance of inflation from the FOMC's long-run target and on the distance of the unemployment rate from its long-run average. This version puts equal weight on inflation and unemployment and is sometimes used to evaluate various policy options, Bullard explained.
We think that President Bullard's quadratic-loss-function approach is a reasonable one. Chart 1 shows what you get using this approach, assuming a goal of year-over-year personal consumption expenditure inflation at 2 percent, and the headline U-3 measure of the unemployment rate at 5.4 percent. (As the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics defines unemployment, U-3 measures the total unemployed as a percent of the labor force.) This rate is about the midpoint of the central tendency of the FOMC's longer-run estimate for unemployment from the June SEP.
Notice that the policy objective gap increased dramatically during the recession, but is currently at a low value that's close to precrisis levels. On this basis, the economy has been on a long, uncomfortable trip but is getting pretty close to home. But other drivers of the monetary policy minivan may be assessing how far there is still to travel using an alternate road map to chart 1. For example, Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart has highlighted the role of involuntary part-time work as a signal of slack that is not captured in the U-3 unemployment rate measure. Indeed, the last FOMC statement noted that
Labor market conditions improved, with the unemployment rate declining further. However, a range of labor market indicators suggests that there remains significant underutilization of labor resources.
So, although acknowledging the decline in U-3, the Committee is also suggesting that other labor market indicators may suggest somewhat greater residual slack in the labor market. For example, suppose we used the broader U-6 measure to compute the distance left to travel based on President Bullard's formula. The U-6 unemployment measure counts individuals who are marginally attached to the labor force as unemployed and, importantly, also counts involuntarily part-time workers as unemployed. One simple way to incorporate the U-6 gap is to compute the average difference between U-6 and U-3 prior to 2007 (excluding the 2001 recession), which was 3.9 percent, and add that to the U-3 longer-run estimate of 5.4 percent, to give an estimate of the longer-run U-6 rate of 9.3 percent. Chart 2 shows what you get if you run the numbers through President Bullard's formula using this U-6 adjustment (scaling the U-6 gap by the ratio of the U-3 and U-6 steady-state estimates to put it on a U-3 basis).
What the chart says is that, up until about four years ago, it didn't really matter at all what your preferred measure of labor market slack was; they told a similar story because they tracked each other pretty closely. But currently, your view of how close monetary policy is to its goals depends quite a bit on whether you are a fan of U-3 or of U-6—or of something in between. I think you can put the Atlanta Fed's current position as being in that "in-between" camp, or at least not yet willing to tell the kids that home is just around the corner.
In an interview last week with the Wall Street Journal, President Lockhart effectively put some distance between his own view and those who see the economy as being close to full employment. The Journal's Real Time Economics blog quoted Lockhart:
"I'm not ruling out" the idea the Fed may need to raise short-term interest rates earlier than many now expect, Mr. Lockhart said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. But, at the same time, "I'm a little bit cautious" about the policy outlook, and still expect that when the first interest rate hike comes, it will likely happen somewhere in the second half of next year.
"I remain one who is looking for further validation that we are on a track that is going to make the path to our mandate objectives pretty irreversible," Mr. Lockhart said. "It's premature, even with the good numbers that have come in ... to draw the conclusion that we are clearly on that positive path," he said.
Mr. Lockhart said the current unemployment rate of 6.2% will likely continue to decline and tick under 6% by the end of the year. But, he said, there remains evidence of underlying softness in the job sector, and, he also said, while inflation shows signs of firming, it remains under the Fed's official 2% target.
Our view is that the current monetary policy journey has made considerable progress toward its objectives. But the trip is not yet complete, and the road ahead remains potentially bumpy. In the meantime, I recommend these road-trip sing-along selections.
By John Robertson, a vice president and senior economist in the Atlanta Fed's research department
August 12, 2014 in Economics, Employment, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Inflation, Labor Markets, Monetary Policy, Pricing, Unemployment | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference Are We There Yet?:
Major problems with U6 include the fact that someone working 34 hours but wants to work 35 or more is considered unemployed (not partially unemployed) -- a very loose definition of an unemployed person. Also, some policymakers conflate marginally attached with discouraged workers. Only one-third of the marginally attached are discouraged about job prospects (the other two-thirds didn't look for work because of illness, school, etc. -- i.e., for reasons monetary policy cannot address). So there are very good reasons for President Bullard's objective function to be based on U3 rather than U6. Additionally, what policymakers should consider, to follow through with your analogy, is when you arrive at your destination should you still have the accelerator pressed to the floor? Or does it not make sense to let off of the gas a bit as you approach your destination (to avoid driving the minivan right through your home).
Posted by:
Conrad DeQuadros |
August 14, 2014 at 12:57 PM
August 08, 2014
Getting There?
To say that last week was somewhat eventful on the macroeconomic data front is probably an exercise in understatement. Relevant numbers on GDP growth (past and present), employment and unemployment, and consumer price inflation came in quick succession.
These data provide some of the context for our local Federal Open Market Committee participant's comments this week (for example, in the Wall Street Journal's Real Time Economics blog, with similar remarks made in an interview on CNBC's Closing Bell). From that Real Time Economics blog post:
Although the economy is clearly growing at a respectable rate, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Dennis Lockhart said Wednesday it is premature to start planning an early exit from the central bank's ultra-easy policy stance.
"I'm not ruling out" the idea the Fed may need to raise short-term interest rates earlier than many now expect, Mr. Lockhart said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. But, at the same time, "I'm a little bit cautious" about the policy outlook, and still expect that when the first interest rate hike comes, it will likely happen somewhere in the second half of next year.
"I remain one who is looking for further validation that we are on a track that is going to make the path to our mandate objectives pretty irreversible," Mr. Lockhart said. "It's premature, even with the good numbers that have come in...to draw the conclusion that we are clearly on that positive path," he said.
Why so "cautious"? Here's the Atlanta Fed staff's take on the state of things, starting with GDP:
With the annual benchmark revision in hand, 2013 looks like the real deal, the year that the early bet on an acceleration of growth to the 3 percent range finally panned out. Notably, fiscal drag (following the late-2012 budget deal), which had been our go-to explanation of why GDP appeared to have fallen short of expectations once again, looks much less consequential on revision.
Is 2014 on track for a repeat (or, more specifically, comparable performance looking through the collection of special factors that weighed on the first quarter)? The second-quarter bounce of real GDP growth to near 4 percent seems encouraging, but we are not yet overly impressed. Final sales—a number that looks through the temporary contribution of changes in inventories—clocked in at a less-than-eye-popping 2.3 percent annual rate.
Furthermore, given the significant surprise in the first-quarter final GDP report when the medical-expenditure-soaked Quarterly Services Survey was finally folded in, we're inclined to be pretty careful about over-interpreting the second quarter this early. It's way too early for a victory dance.
Regarding labor markets, here is our favorite type of snapshot, courtesy of the Atlanta Fed's Labor Market Spider Chart:
There is a lot to like in that picture. Leading indicators, payroll employment, vacancies posted by employers, and small business confidence are fully recovered relative to their levels at the end of the Great Recession.
On the less positive side, the numbers of people who are marginally attached or who are working part-time while desiring full-time hours remain elevated, and the overall job-finding rate is still well below prerecession levels. Even so, these indicators are noticeably better than they were at this time last year.
That year-over-year improvement is an important observation: the period from mid-2012 to mid-2013 showed little progress in the broader measures of labor-market performance that we place in the resource "utilization" category. During the past year, these broad measures have improved at the same relative pace as the standard unemployment statistic.
We have been contending for some time that part-time for economic reasons (PTER) is an important factor in understanding ongoing sluggishness in wage growth, and we are not yet seeing anything much in the way of meaningful wage pressures:
There was, to be sure, a second-quarter spike in the employment cost index (ECI) measure of labor compensation growth, but that increase followed a sharp dip in the first quarter. Maybe the most recent ECI reading is telling us something that hourly earnings are not, but that still seems like a big maybe. Outside of some specific sectors and occupations (in manufacturing, for example), there is not much evidence of accelerating wage pressure in either the data or in anecdotes we get from our District contacts. We continue to believe that wage growth is most consistent with the view that that labor market slack persists, and underlying inflationary pressures (from wage costs, at least) are at bay.
Clearly, it's dubious to claim that wages help much in the way of making forward predictions on inflation (as shown, for example, in work from the Chicago Fed, confirming earlier research from our colleagues at the Cleveland Fed). And in any event, we are inclined to agree that the inflation outlook has, in fact, firmed up. At this time last year, it was hard to argue that the inflation trend was moving in the direction of the Committee's objective (let alone that it was not actually declining).
But here again, a declaration that the risks have clearly shifted in the direction of overshooting the FOMC's inflation goals seems wildly premature. Transitory factors have clearly elevated recent statistics. The year-over-year inflation rate is still only 1.5 percent, and by most cuts of the data, the trend still looks as close to that level as to 2 percent.
We do expect measured inflation trends to continue to move in the direction of 2 percent, but sustained performance toward that objective is still more conjecture than fact. (By the way, if you are bothered by the appeal to a measure of core personal consumption expenditures in that chart above, I direct you to this piece.)
All of this is by way of explaining why we here in Atlanta are "a little bit cautious" about joining any chorus singing from the we're-moving-on-up songbook. Paraphrasing from President Lockhart's comments this week, the first steps to policy normalization don't have to wait until the year-over-year inflation rate is consistently at 2 percent, or until all of the slack in the labor market is eliminated. But it is probably prudent to be fairly convinced that progress to those ends is unlikely to be reversed.
We may be getting there. We're just not quite there yet.
By Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director of the Atlanta Fed
August 8, 2014 in Economic conditions, Economics, Employment, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, GDP, Inflation, Labor Markets | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference Getting There?:
June 02, 2014
How Discouraged Are the Marginally Attached?
Of the many statistical barometers of the U.S. economy that we monitor here at the Atlanta Fed, there are few that we await more eagerly than the monthly report on employment conditions. The May 2014 edition arrives this week and, like many others, we will be more interested in the underlying details than in the headline job growth or unemployment numbers.
One of those underlying details—the state of the pool of "discouraged" workers (or, maybe more precisely, potential workers)—garnered special attention lately in the wake of the relatively dramatic decline in the ranks of the official labor force, a decline depicted in the April employment survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That attention included some notable commentary from Federal Reserve officials.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York President William Dudley, for example, recently suggested that a sizeable part of the decline in labor force participation since 2007 can be tied to discouraged workers exiting the workforce. This suggestion follows related comments from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen in her press conference following the March meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee:
So I have talked in the past about indicators I like to watch or I think that are relevant in assessing the labor market. In addition to the standard unemployment rate, I certainly look at broader measures of unemployment… Of course, I watch discouraged and marginally attached workers… it may be that as the economy begins to strengthen, we could see labor force participation flatten out for a time as discouraged workers start moving back into the labor market. And so that's something I'm watching closely.
What may not be fully appreciated by those not steeped in the details of the employment statistics is that discouraged workers are actually a subset of "marginally attached" workers. Among the marginally attached—individuals who have actively sought employment within the most recent 12-month period but not during the most recent month—are indeed those who report that they are out of the labor force because they are discouraged. But the marginally attached also include those who have not recently sought work because of family responsibilities, school attendance, poor health, or other reasons.
In fact, most of the marginally attached are not classified (via self-reporting) as discouraged (see the chart):
At the St. Louis Fed, B. Ravikumar and Lin Shao recently published a report containing some detailed analysis of discouraged workers and their relationship to the labor force and the unemployment rate. As Ravikumar and Shao note,
Since discouraged workers are not actively searching for a job, they are considered nonparticipants in the labor market—that is, they are neither counted as unemployed nor included in the labor force.
More importantly, the authors point out that they tend to reenter the labor force at relatively high rates:
Since December 2007, on average, roughly 40 percent of discouraged workers reenter the labor force every month.
Therefore, it seems appropriate to count some fraction of the jobless population designated as discouraged (and out of the labor force) as among the officially unemployed.
We believe this logic should be extended to the entire group of marginally attached. As we've pointed out in the past, the marginally attached group as a whole also has a roughly 40 percent transition rate into the labor force. Even though more of the marginally attached are discouraged today than before the recession, the changing distribution has not affected the overall transition rate of the marginally attached into the labor force.
In fact, in terms of the propensity to flow into employment or officially measured unemployment, there is little to distinguish the discouraged from those who are marginally attached but who have other reasons for not recently seeking a job (see the chart):
What we take from these data is that, as a first pass, when we are talking about discouraged workers' attachment to the labor market, we are talking more generally about the marginally attached. And vice versa. Any differences in the demographic characteristics between discouraged and nondiscouraged marginally attached workers do not seem to materially affect their relative labor market attachment and ability to find work.
Sometimes labels matter. But in the case of discouraged marginally attached workers versus the nondiscouraged marginally attached workers—not so much.
By Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director,
John Robertson, a vice president and senior economist, and
Ellyn Terry, a senior economic analyst, all of the Atlanta Fed's research department
June 2, 2014 in Employment, Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Labor Markets, Unemployment | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference How Discouraged Are the Marginally Attached?:
I think this note usefully shows that the categories of unemployment are vague, the distinctions arbitrary, but then we knew that. But what is to be done?
Posted by:
Tom Shillock |
June 03, 2014 at 03:05 PM
There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings about the labor force participation rate and discouraged workers floating around - http://politicsthatwork.com/blog/labor-force-participation-rate.php
Posted by:
politics that work |
December 05, 2014 at 12:38 PM
May 16, 2014
Which Flavor of QE?
Yesterday's report on consumer price inflation from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics moved the needle a bit on inflation trends—but just a bit. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank appears to be locked and loaded to blast away at its own (low) inflation concerns. From the Wall Street Journal:
The European Central Bank is ready to loosen monetary policy further to prevent the euro zone from succumbing to an extended period of low inflation, its vice president said on Thursday.
"We are determined to act swiftly if required and don't rule out further monetary policy easing," ECB Vice President Vitor Constancio said in a speech in Berlin.
One of the favorite further measures is apparently charging financial institutions for funds deposited with the central bank:
On Wednesday, the ECB's top economist, Peter Praet, in an interview with German newspaper Die Zeit, said the central bank is preparing a number of measures to counter low inflation. He mentioned a negative rate on deposits as a possible option in combination with other measures.
I don't presume to know enough about financial institutions in Europe to weigh in on the likely effectiveness of such an approach. I do know that we have found reasons to believe that there are limits to such a tool in the U.S. context, as the New York Fed's Ken Garbade and Jamie McAndrews pointed out a couple of years back.
In part, the desire to think about an option such as negative interest rates on deposits appears to be driven by considerable skepticism about deploying more quantitative easing, or QE.
A drawback, in my view, of general discussions about the wisdom and effectiveness of large-scale asset purchase programs is that these policies come in many flavors. My belief, in fact, is that the Fed versions of QE1, QE2, and QE3 can be thought of as three quite different programs, useful to address three quite distinct challenges. You can flip through the slide deck of a presentation I gave last week at a conference sponsored by the Global Interdependence Center, but here is the essence of my argument:
- QE1, as emphasized by former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, was first and foremost credit policy. It was implemented when credit markets were still in a state of relative disarray and, arguably, segmented to some significant degree. Unlike credit policy, the focus of traditional or pure QE "is the quantity of bank reserves" (to use the Bernanke language). Although QE1 per se involved asset purchases in excess of $1.7 trillion, the Fed's balance sheet rose by less than $300 billion during the program's span. The reason, of course, is that the open-market purchases associated with QE1 largely just replaced expiring lending from the emergency-based facilities in place through most of 2008. In effect, with QE1 the Fed replaced one type of credit policy with another.
- QE2, in contrast, looks to me like pure, traditional quantitative easing. It was a good old-fashioned Treasury-only asset purchase program, and the monetary base effectively increased in lockstep with the size of the program. Importantly, the salient concern of the moment was a clear deterioration of market-based inflation expectations and—particularly worrisome to us at the Atlanta Fed—rising beliefs that outright deflation might be in the cards. In retrospect, old-fashioned QE appears to have worked to address the old-fashioned problem of influencing inflation expectations. In fact, the turnaround in expectations can be clearly traced to the Bernanke comments at the August 2010 Kansas City Fed Economic Symposium, indicating that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was ready and willing pull the QE tool out of the kit. That was an early lesson in the power of forward guidance, which brings us to...
- ...QE3. I think it is a bit early to draw conclusions about the ultimate impact of QE3. I think you can contend that the Fed's latest large-scale asset purchase program has not had a large independent effect on interest rates or economic activity while still believing that QE3 has played an important role in supporting the economic recovery. These two, seemingly contradictory, opinions echo an argument suggested by Mike Woodford at the Kansas City Fed's Jackson Hole conference in 2012: QE3 was important as a signaling device in early stages of the deployment of the FOMC's primary tool, forward guidance regarding the period of exceptionally low interest rates. I would in fact argue that the winding down of QE3 makes all the more sense when seen through the lens of a forward guidance tool that has matured to the point of no longer requiring the credibility "booster shot" of words put to action via QE.
All of this is to argue that QE, as practiced, is not a single policy, effective in all variants in all circumstances, which means that the U.S. experience of the past might not apply to another time, let alone another place. But as I review the record of the past seven years, I see evidence that pure QE worked pretty well precisely when the central concern was managing inflation expectations (and, hence, I would say, inflation itself).
By Dave Altig, executive vice president and research director of the Atlanta Fed
May 16, 2014 in Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy, Monetary Policy | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to blogs that reference Which Flavor of QE?:
Google Search
Recent Posts
- Does Loyalty Pay Off?
- Immigration and Hispanics' Educational Attainment
- Are Tariff Worries Cutting into Business Investment?
- Improving Labor Market Fortunes for Workers with the Least Schooling
- Part-Time Workers Are Less Likely to Get a Pay Raise
- Learning about an ML-Driven Economy
- Hitting a Cyclical High: The Wage Growth Premium from Changing Jobs
- Thoughts on a Long-Run Monetary Policy Framework, Part 4: Flexible Price-Level Targeting in the Big Picture
- Thoughts on a Long-Run Monetary Policy Framework, Part 3: An Example of Flexible Price-Level Targeting
- Thoughts on a Long-Run Monetary Policy Framework, Part 2: The Principle of Bounded Nominal Uncertainty
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- Africa
- Americas
- Asia
- Australia
- Banking
- Books
- Business Cycles
- Business Inflation Expectations
- Capital and Investment
- Capital Markets
- Data Releases
- Deficits
- Deflation
- Economic conditions
- Economic Growth and Development
- Economics
- Education
- Employment
- Energy
- Europe
- Exchange Rates and the Dollar
- Fed Funds Futures
- Federal Debt and Deficits
- Federal Reserve and Monetary Policy
- Financial System
- Fiscal Policy
- Forecasts
- Health Care
- Housing
- Immigration
- Inequality
- Inflation
- Inflation Expectations
- Interest Rates
- Katrina
- Labor Markets
- Latin America/South America
- Monetary Policy
- Money Markets
- Pricing
- Productivity
- Real Estate
- Regulation
- Sarbanes-Oxley
- Saving, Capital, and Investment
- Small Business
- Social Security
- Sports
- Taxes
- Technology
- This, That, and the Other
- Trade
- Trade Deficit
- Unemployment
- Wage Growth
- Web/Tech


text:
There is a mistake in the summary: at the very beginning, it says Antonio would be the father of Beatrice. Actually, he is most likely only her uncle, just as Leonato. Why else is Leonato the first who concerns of her marriage instead of Antonio? (He tries to convince her (2.1) and Don Pedro addresses him with this issue (2.1).) It is because he is her closest male relative (in the printed edition I have this is even written within an annotation) and therefore responsible for her.
These are only evidences but I could not find any indicator of a father-daughter-relationship. Let me know if you find one.


text:
Webcasts Home
- Biography, History
- Culture, Performing Arts
- Education
- Government
- Poetry, Literature
- Religion
- Science, Technology
More Audio, Video Resources at the Library
mediaObjectId: "292C1BA2BB010094E0538C93F1160094",
playerWidth: "490",
mediaType: "V",
playerSize: "largeStandard"
TITLE: Now It Can Be Told: The Unknown Irving Berlin
SPEAKER: Jeffrey Magee
RUNNING TIME: 69 minutes
TRANSCRIPT: View Transcript (link will open in a new window)
The Music Division of the Library of Congress and the American Musicological Society, in joint partnership, presented the third in a series of lectures highlighting musicological research conducted in the division's collections. Jeffrey Magee presented "Now It Can Be Told: The Unknown Irving Berlin."
After Jerome Kern famously pronounced that "Irving Berlin is American music" in 1925, Berlin continued for several decades more to define many of America's most distinctive musical idioms, from Tin Pan Alley to Broadway to Hollywood. Berlin's death 20 years ago at the age of 101 accelerated an ever-expanding cottage industry of commentary, reflection and scholarship on a legendary figure.
In an effort to amplify patterns in Berlin's stage and screen career, the talk will aim to draw connections among unknown (or little-known) materials--including songs, scripts, "plot treatments," and other notable documents--and Berlin's better-known work.
Speaker Biography: Jeffrey Magee is an associate professor and chair of musicology at the School of Music in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is the author of "The Uncrowned King of Swing: Fletcher Henderson and Big Band Jazz" (Oxford, 2005), which won the Irving Lowens Award for Best Book in American Music from the Society for American Music, as well as an award for excellence in Historical Recorded Sound Research from the Association for Recorded Sound Collections. He is now writing a book about Irving Berlin, which has been supported as a "We the People Project" of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Before joining the Illinois faculty, he taught at Indiana University (1997-2006), and served as executive editor of the score series "Music of the United States of America" (1993-97). He has been an editorial board member for American Music, the Journal of Musicology, Jazz Perspectives and the Center for Black Music Research, and is co-editor of the book series "Profiles in Popular Music" for Indiana University Press.


text:
This link is an article from the Standford University in the USA.
The Article talks about how the technology is affecting the use of electricty and consequently, how this brings bigger amount of CO2 to the envioronment. Technology in Australia uses 7% of the countrys electricty, leading to 2.7% of carbon emission to the atmosphere


text:
Grant heads up the firm's Intellectual Property, Technology and Outsourcing practice. A commercial contracts lawyer with over 20 years' experience, Grant handles transactional and advisory work for an impressive list of clients drawn from the finance, technology, aviation and engineering sectors, and has an established reputation in the marketplace for delivering sound, commercially focused advice. He is commended for his "open and collaborative style".
A specialist in intellectual property law accredited by the Law Society of Scotland, Grant is also rated for his work in both information technology and data protection fields by Chambers & Partners.
"Really knows his stuff" and is "very helpful and supportive."
Chambers & Partners 2016
"Practice head Grant Campbell 'inspires confidence and trust' and is 'easy to work with'."
The Legal 500 2015


text:
SSC - Eng > Study sustainability > Programmes
Educational opportunities
On this page you can find information on academic or professional programmes at University of Copenhagen that integrate sustainability issues. The list includes bachelor programmes, Master degreesand collaborative programmes with other universities.
Bachelor programmes (in Danish)
- operates in between natural science and the societal sciences. What matters is how we may work with and in nature: how do we obtain what we need without destroying nature for future generations.
Master degrees
Master of Science in Climate Changecombines the natural and social sciences to give you the knowledge and tools to take up job functions associated with local, national and international efforts to deal with climate change.
Sustainable Forest and Nature Management (SUFONAMA)lets you work with the enormous challenges of balancing the use of natural resources, e.g. for agricultural production, and society's demand and need for forests, nature and landscapes, e.g. for recreational purposes.
- Globalisation has radically changed the way people live. Massive economic growth in emerging markets has lifted billions of people from poverty while many stay poor. The MSc in Global Development provides graduates with the qualifications required to understand, analyse and act in this new globalised world.
Environmental Science in Europeis a two-year MSc focusing on soil, water and biodiversity related to use of natural resources, ecosystems and environmental mangement in Europe. It is developed by University of Copenhagen and three other European universities.
- integrates the fields of natural science with sociology, law and spatial planning. The programme provides you with competences in both scientific methods and practical management skills in the fields of nature, biodiversity, spatial planning and landscape management.
- enables you to work with the many interrelated determinants impacting human global health and disease - ranging on a scale from individual to society. This includes politics, policies, trade and economy, frameworks, socio-cultural issues, and climate change.
The Forest and Nature Managementprogramme is a modern and international management course which enables you to develop the world's forests and natural areas in a sustainable manner.
- gives you an insight into the potential impacts of the many thousands of chemicals affecting the environment. You gain knowledge on how substances move and are degraded in the environment, and most importantly, how to find solutions to the challenges.
Environmental and Natural Resource Economicsenables you to assess the economic value of the environment. You know how best to limit pollution using economic instruments, and how we can achieve as much nature restoration as possible for the money. Also, you can work with how to use green taxes to limit pollution.
- teaches you about the development of forestry and farming and foods in developing countries. As an MSc in Agricultural Development, you will be making sustainable positive changes to the lives of some of the poorest people in the world.
(SUTROFOR) is a world-class programme with the objective of preparing qualified graduates to deal with the complex aspects of contemporary tropical forestry. Tropical forestry has a recognised potential to contribute to sustainability.
Master programmes (1 year or part time)
- is based on Disaster Risk Reduction, Response and Recovery. This programme aims to provide national and international aid workers, government officials and other professionals with an interdisciplinary background who understand the complex context of acting and working before, during and after a disaster.
Collaborative programmes between UCPH and other universities
MSc Courses in Sustainability are offered at CBS in a collaboration with DTU and UCPH. Students are brought together and taught by faculty from all three universities. Students will be exposed to a systems thinking approach in relation to sustainability, drawing from business studies, engineering and science. Students from UCPH must apply for credit transfer at their local study board in advance.
The Global Environmental Governance program can be followed by students enrolled at a MSc program at a university in Denmark or abroad. Students participating in the GEG program will gain inter-disciplinary competences. They will learn social, political, legal, and natural science aspects of global environmental governance hereby complementing the professional skills taught in the master's program in which the student is enrolled.
North Sea Energy Law programme is an advanced part-time 2-year curriculum on energy law by the Universities of Groningen (the Netherlands), Oslo (Norway), Aberdeen (United Kingdom) and Copenhagen (Denmark).
Stabilizing Kenya by Solving Forest Related Conflicts (STAKE) is a PhD programme between the University of Nairobi and Faculty of Law at University of Copenhagen. It seeks to improve our understanding of how to build inclusive governance that furthers stability and prosperity by investigating the drivers of forest related conflicts in the Mau Forest Complex, and the role of the Forest Act 2005 in changing patterns of conflict.
MSc Eng in Aquatic Science and Technology at DTU adresses the challenges associated with sustainable aquaculture and capture based production of fish and shellfish, small and large scale environmental change and the conservation of aquatic ecosystems.
On-line courses
Environmental Management in Europe is an interdisciplinary 15 ECTS online MSc course offered by the University of Copenhagen, with contributions from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, the University of Hohenheim and the European Environment Agency. The course can be followed from anywhere in the world.