text:
If "Maximum Violence" was the point where Six Feet Under jumped the shark creatively then "True Carnage" is the point where they stopped caring altogether. Two years after their last recording embarrassment these Tampa, Florida natives return for another round of the most primitive, unassuming and lunk-headed death metal. "True Carnage" is a lot of things, but it isn't good by any stretch of the imagination. This was released in 2001, when death metal was going through a number of important changes. While everybody was seeking to improve themselves, Six Feet Under descended into a haze of weed smoke and cheap booze. No longer trying, and no longer caring they dished out a record that is actively offensive to the listener, and not in the way they probably intended. "True Carnage" is Six Feet Under's artistic death certificate and a sad reminder of what happens to bands that should never have had full label support from day one.
Let's get some obvious facts in the open first. 7 songs out of 11 don't reach the standard 3-minute mark. Where on the preceding albums the band at least tried to write actual songs, predictable as they might have been, here they just throw together a bunch of simplistic riffs and call it day. You play groove death metal, the most basic form of the genre – is it really that hard to piece together more than two riffs per "song"? I'm all for keeping things simple, but this is pushing it. Bolt Thrower has proven this in spades, with a handful of riffs per song and a sense of dynamics even this genre can be exciting, satisfying and brutal. Six Feet Under is the exact opposite of that modus operandi. With an intermediate of three riffs per song, there isn't a lot of substance to begin with – but even Steve Swanson is no longer trying here. This guy was in Massacre, a band that made simplicity its trademark. Apparently Swanson learned nothing from Rick Rozz.
The songs are messy, two riff affairs that embody everything that is wrong with death metal. What 'Impulse to Disembowel' is supposed to be I do not know, but it isn't good. When the band does get the equation right once every blue moon, the results are still amazingly average and unexciting. The thick bass grooves and lead/solo of 'The Day the Dead Walked' are the best parts of an otherwise far too mundane cut. Exactly how long can a band pass off the same riffs of the past three records as new ones? That is what happening here. Six Feet Under is cannibalizing itself once again, and they are recycling ideas, riffs and chord progressions wholesale. In 'The Murderers' Chris Barnes starts by stating the obvious: "it's all fucked up" and outside of the hiphop-like drum intro, exactly what is the point? Sure, the solo is halfway decent, but that's being generous. 'Waiting for Decay' is a retread of 'The Day the Dead Walked' and Barnes' deep vocals are about the only worthwhile aspect of what is a clear recycling of a song you heard earlier – on this very album. Exactly how much more shameless and flat out lazy can a band get?
Then there are the guest appearances of this maligned recording. 'One Bullet Left', the band's now expected vigilante song, features the Original Gangster Ice-T on a guest rap. Usually when Six Feet Under does vigilante/revenge songs they are about self-empowerment in some incoherent way. 'Human Target' and 'No Warning Shot' are popular for a reason. Above all these are easily recognizable scenarios for pea-brained metalheads to cling to. Whether it is about killing your enemies in 'Human Target', or shooting police officers in 'No Warning Shot'. Even 'One Bullet Left' is different in that regard, instead of having the protagonist killing his/her enemies, the character takes a family hostage and brutalizes them, before taking his/her own life with one bullet left.
Ice-T's expletive filled flow sounds self-deprecating and self-aware in levels that Chris Barnes sad little story is not. T flows about dealing damage to "You motherfuckin critic-ass bitch motherfuckers" and makes vows to kill them all with his gun. The surrounding lyrics, penned by Barnes, are incoherent at best. Starting off with the exclamation "I'll kill all the haters" and the entire verse that follows seems to hint at Barnes dishing out cold revenge to his band's many detractors. Then the Ice-T flow hits and the song suddenly switches subject to the earlier mentioned hostage situation. The song is poorly thought out on about every level, and Ice-T is sorely wasted on what should have been a potentially interesting pairing. T's delivery of the lyrics far more interesting than anything Barnes has done for the past two records. Alas, it is not able to redeem this sorry album. It is another sad reminder that Barnes was probably smoking too much ganja at the time, and things that seem cool when inebriated are rarely so when sober.
'Knife, Gun, Axe' starts off with a decent drum intro, but the rehashing of past material becomes more clear once again. 'Snakes', the following song, is even more stripped down and basic. It has Barnes on a stream of conscious singing words loosely related to the song title, and the chorus itself has him grunting the title over the most unexciting base groove riffs yet created in this band's already bulging arsenal of banality. Did the band cash the advance from the label and spent it on booze and weed – and a week before recording realized they had no actual material? This record certainly sounds like it. "True Carnage" appears rushed, clumsily arranged, and only getting by on the barest of essentials. To think that this is one of Metal Blade's priority bands (along with Cannibal Corpse) makes it even more insulting. Why should fans shell out hard currency for a poorly put together product that the band in question doesn't even care about?
Much ado was about the song 'Sick and Twisted', a track that features Karyn Crisis on what was promised to be a death metal male-female "duet". Now I don't want to sound exceedingly elitist here, but what exactly was so revolutionary about this concept? Women had been involved in the underground metal scene, death – and black metal included, long before Chris Barnes got this idea in his dreadlocked head. By the time this record rolled out of the studio, women had been involved in the scene and their own bands for a good three decades. Since the '80s women have been fronting death – and black metal bands, and at the time of this album German-Swedish outfit Arch Enemy were a poster child for this very thing. In the 1980s there were American death/doom metal bands as Derkéta and Mythic, and its black metal offspring Demonic Christ. In the 90s in Europe there were bands like Acrostichon, Dracena, Opera IX, Astarte and later Darkened Nocturn Slaughtercult, which were all fronted by women. Six Feet Under was just cashing in on another trend – like they always have done. Nothing to see here, really.
If Barnes was attempting to make an important statement about gender roles in extreme metal, I'm not sure what message he was trying to convey, or what the point is supposed to be. 'Sick and Twisted' is a gore-drenched love song, nothing more – it isn't the kind of thing you want to use if you want to say something meaningful about gender roles and gender politics with an industry and fandom that is largely male-dominated. Hetero-normative relationships are the accepted status-quo, and a pathetic and inconsequential little ditty like this isn't going to change anything about that. The patriarchy of and rampant sexism in the extreme metal scene is one of its many problems that need to be adressed, but Six Feet Under is not nearly eloquent enough, nor are they in the possession of then needed mental facilities for such a delicate task.
Like the album before it "True Carnage" has more effort and care put into its design and presentation than in its actual musical contents. The design and lay-out is absolutely superb on every level, and the photography and artwork matches, if not surpasses, the incredible glossy looking "Maximum Violence". The artwork by tattoo artist Paul Booth is simply wasted on an asinine, mundane and bottom-feeding act like this. If Six Feet Under only put as much care in the songwriting and musicianship as the level of artisan craftsmanship that their presentation got, they would actually be a halfway decent band. What we have now is a mediocre band with an inflated budget, a ginormous ego and a warped sense of entitlement and importance. This is where Six Feet Under became a parody of itself, a caricature and the embodiment of underachievement, redundancy and pointlessness. From here on onward the band would descent into even more comic levels of asininity and irrelevance with the even more terrible "Bringer Of Blood". For my own sanity's sake, I will not venture that deep into the looming chasms of the yawning abyss. This is where you enter at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you…


text:
1–1 of 1 个
Clear All
Midridge Office Estate Block E International Business Gateway Cnr 6th St & New Rd
South Africa
Phone: +27 (0) 11 206 5600
解决方案: Information Management - Performance Monitoring; Microsoft Platform Management; One Identity - Active Directory Management
服务: Active Roles; Asset Manager; ChangeBASE; Coexistence Manager for Notes; Exchange Pro; Foglight; GroupWise Migrator; Migration Manager for AD; Migration Manager for Exchange; Migrator for Notes to Exchange; On Demand Migration for Active Directory; On Demand Migration for M365
Please enter your contact information below. A representative from this company will be in touch with you shortly.
Thanks for your submission!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
One big cluster: How CloudFlare launched 10 data centers in 30 days
With high-performance computing, "pixie-booting" servers a half-world away.
by Sean Gallagher - Oct 19 2012, 0:13am -200
Big Data Cloud Open Source Supercomputing The Web
The inside of Equinix's co-location facility in San Jose—the home of
CloudFlare's primary data center.
Photo: Peter McCollough/Wired.com
On August 22, CloudFlare, a content delivery network, turned on a brand new
data center in Seoul, Korea—the last of ten new facilities started across
four continents in a span of thirty days. The Seoul data center brought
CloudFlare's number of data centers up to 23, nearly doubling the company's
global reach—a significant feat in itself for a company of just 32 employees.
But there was something else relatively significant about the Seoul data
center and the other 9 facilities set up this summer: despite the fact that
the company owned every router and every server in their racks, and each had
been configured with great care to handle the demands of CloudFlare's CDN and
security services, no one from CloudFlare had ever set foot in them. All that
came from CloudFlare directly was a six-page manual instructing facility
managers and local suppliers on how to rack and plug in the boxes shipped to
"We have nobody stationed in Stockholm or Seoul or Sydney, or a lot of the
places that we put these new data centers," CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince
told Ars. "In fact, no CloudFlare employees have stepped foot in half of the
facilities where we've launched." The totally remote-controlled data center
approach used by the company is one of the reasons that CloudFlare can afford
to provide its services for free to most of its customers—and still make a 75
percent profit margin.
In the two years since its launch, the content delivery network and
denial-of-service protection company has helped keep all sorts of sites
online during global attacks, both famous and infamous—including recognition
from both Davos and LulzSec. And all that attention has amounted to
Yahoo-sized traffic—the CloudFlare service has handled over 581 billion
pageviews since its launch.
Yet CloudFlare does all this without the sort of Domain Name Service "black
magic" that Akamai and other content delivery networks use to
forward-position content—and with only 32 employees. To reach that level of
efficiency, CloudFlare has done some black magic of a different sort, relying
on open-source software from the realm of high-performance computing, storage
tricks from the world of "big data," a bit of network peering arbitrage and
clever use of a core Internet routing technology.
In the process, it has created an ever-expanding army of remote-controlled
service points around the globe that can eat 60-gigabit-per-second
distributed denial of service attacks for breakfast.
Routing with Anycast
CloudFlare's CDN is based on Anycast, a standard defined in the Border
Gateway Protocol—the routing protocol that's at the center of how the
Internet directs traffic. Anycast is part of how BGP supports the
multi-homing of IP addresses, in which multiple routers connect a network to
the Internet; through the broadcasts of IP addresses available through a
router, other routers determine the shortest path for network traffic to take
to reach that destination.
Using Anycast means that CloudFlare makes the servers it fronts appear to be
in many places, while only using one IP address. "If you do a traceroute to
Metallica.com (a CloudFlare customer), depending on where you are in the
world, you would hit a different data center," Prince said. "But you're
getting back the same IP address."
That means that as CloudFlare adds more data centers, and those data centers
advertise the IP addresses of the websites that are fronted by the service,
the Internet's core routers automatically re-map the routes to the IP
addresses of the sites. There's no need to do anything special with the
Domain Name Service to handle load-balancing of network traffic to sites
other than point the hostname for a site at CloudFlare's IP address. It also
means that when a specific data center needs to be taken down for an upgrade
or maintenance (or gets knocked offline for some other reason), the routes
can be adjusted on the fly.
That makes it much harder for distributed denial of service attacks to go
after servers behind CloudFlare's CDN network; if they're geographically
widespread, the traffic they generate gets spread across all of CloudFlare's
data centers—as long as the network connections at each site aren't overcome.
In September, Prince said, "there was a brand new botnet out there launching
big attacks, and it targeted one of our customers. It generated 65 gigabits
per second of traffic hitting our network. But none of that traffic was
focused in one place—it was split fairly evenly across our 23 data centers,
so each of those facilities only had to deal with about 3 gigs of traffic.
That's much more manageable."
Net-rich, power-poor
Making CloudFlare's approach work requires that it put its networks as close
as possible to the core routers of the Internet—at least in terms of network
hops. While companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Yahoo have gone
to great lengths to build their own custom data centers in places where power
is cheap and where they can take advantage of the economies of scale,
CloudFlare looks to use existing facilities that "your network traffic would
be passing through even if you weren't using our service," Prince said.
As a result, the company's "data centers" are usually at most a few racks of
hardware, installed at co-location facilities that are major network exchange
points. Prince said that most of his company's data centers are set up at
Equinix IBX co-location facilities in the US, including CloudFlare's primary
facility in San Jose—a facility also used by Google and other major cloud
players as an on-ramp to the Internet.
CloudFlare looks for co-location facilities with the same sort of
capabilities wherever it can. But these sorts of facilities tend to be older,
without the kind of power distribution density that a custom-built data
center would have. "That means that to get as much compute power as possible
into any given rack, we're spending a lot of time paying attention to what
power decisions we make," Prince said.
The other factor driving what goes into those racks is the need to maximize
the utilization of CloudFlare's outbound Internet connections. CloudFlare
buys its bandwidth wholesale from network transit providers, committing to a
certain level of service. "We're paying for that no matter what," Prince
said, "so it's optimal to fill that pipe up."
That means that the computing power of CloudFlare's servers is less of a
priority than networking and cache input/output and power consumption. And
since CloudFlare depends heavily on the facility providers overseas or other
partners to do hardware installations and swap-outs, the company needed to
make its servers as simple as possible to install—bringing it down to that
six-page manual. To make that possible, CloudFlare's engineering team drew on
experience and technology from the high-performance computing world.
The magical pixie-booted data center
"A lot of our team comes from the HPC space," Prince said. "They include
people who built HPC networks for the Department of Energy, where they have
an 80 thousand node cluster, and had to figure out how to get 80,000
computers, fit them into one space, cable them in a really reliable way, and
make sure that you can manage them from a single location."
One of the things that CloudFlare brought over from the team's DoE experience
was the Perceus Provisioning System, an open-source provisioning system for
Linux used by DoE for its HPC environments. All of CloudFlare's servers are
"pixie-booted" (using a Preboot eXecution Environment, or PXE) across a
virtual private network between data centers; servers are delivered with no
operating system or configuration whatsoever, other than a bootloader that
calls back to Perceus for provisioning. "The servers come from whatever
equipment vendor we buy them from completely bare," Prince said. "All we get
from them is the MAC address."
CloudFlare's servers run on a custom-built Linux distribution based on
Debian. For security purposes, the servers are "statelessly" provisioned with
Perceus—that is, the operating system is loaded completely in RAM. The mass
storage on CloudFlare servers (which is universally based on SSD drives) is
used exclusively for caching data from clients' sites.
The gear deployed to data centers that gets significant pre-installation
attention from CloudFlare's engineers is the routers—primarily supplied by
Juniper Networks, which works with CloudFlare to preconfigure them before
being shipped to new data centers. Part of the configuration is to create
virtual network connections over the Internet to the other CloudFlare data
centers, which allows each data center to use its nearest peer to pull
software from during provisioning and updating.
"When we booted up Vienna, for example," said Prince, "the closest data
center was Frankfurt, so we used the Frankfurt facility to boot the new
Vienna facility." One server in Vienna was booted first as the "master node,"
with provisioning instructions for each of the other machines. Once the
servers are all provisioned and loaded, "they call back to our central
facility (in San Jose) and say, 'Here are our MAC addresses, what do you need
us to do?'"
Once the machines have passed a final set of tests, each gets designated with
an operational responsibility: acting as a proxy for Web requests to clients'
servers, managing the cache of content to speed responses, DNS and logging
services. Each of those services can be run on any server in the stack and
step up to take over a service if one of its comrades fails.
Caching and hashing
Caching is part of the job for every server in each CloudFlare facility, and
being able to scale up the size of the cache is another reason for the
modular nature of how the company thinks of servers. Rather than storing
cached webpage objects in a traditional database or file system, CloudFlare
uses a hash-based database that works in a fashion similar to "NoSQL"
databases like 10gen's MongoDB and Amazon's Dynamo storage system.
When a request for a webpage comes in for the first time, CloudFlare
retrieves the site contents. A consistent hashing algorithm in CloudFlare's
caching engine then converts the URL used to call each element into a value,
which is used as the key under which the content is stored locally at each
data center. Each server in the stack is assigned a range of hashes to store
content for, and subsequent requests for the content are routed to the
appropriate server for that cache.
Unlike most database applications, the cache stored at each CloudFlare
facility has an undefined expiration date—and because of the nature of those
facilities, it isn't a simple matter to add more storage. To keep the
utilization level of installed storage high, the cache system simply purges
older cache data when it needs to store new content.
The downside of the hash-based cache's simplicity is that it has no built-in
logging system to track content. CloudFlare can't tell customers which data
centers have copies of which content they've posted. "A customer will ask me,
'Tell me all of the files you have in cache,'" Prince said. "For us, all we
know is there are a whole bunch of hashes sitting on a disk somewhere—we
don't keep track of which object belongs to what site."
The upside, however, is that the system has a very low overhead as a result
and can retrieve site content quickly and keep those outbound pipes full. And
when you're scaling a 32-person company to fight the speed of light
worldwide, it helps to keep things as simple as possible.


text:
First Maryland Mega Millions jackpot win since March 2012
At approximately 10 p.m. Tuesday evening, before going to bed, a Mt. Airy man jokingly told his fiancée they were going to wake up as millionaires. One hour later, while they were sound asleep, that premonition became a reality.
When the woman woke up the next morning, she went online to check her tickets and realized they were $26 million richer. Before calling her fiancé, she had her daughter check the numbers on the ticket, too.
"I am still in denial," said the grandmother-of-two who chose to remain anonymous. "I even drove by the store the next day to see if it was real. One look at the parking lot with all the news vans and I knew it was true."
The lucky winner, who babysits her grandchildren, playfully told her daughter that she could no longer watch the kids — unless it was at the beach. That's because the 48-year-old retiree plans to buy a beach house — or two. "This will be the first time anyone from our family has ever owned a home," the winner told Lottery officials. "There have been so many winners in Western Maryland lately, we're glad we were one of them."
To win the jackpot, the winner matched all five numbers, plus the Mega Ball. After choosing the cash option, they will take home $12.6 million after taxes. The winning ticket was purchased at Mt. Airy Shell, located at 649 Lakeview Dr. in Mt. Airy. For selling the winning ticket, the retailer will receive a $26,000 commission. This is the first Mega Millions jackpot win in Maryland since three public education employees shared the $218.6 million portion of the record-breaking $656 million jackpot from March 2012.


text:
Lack of licence, attention irk police
By Steve Wallace, Times Colonist, September 23, 2011
Among the pet peeves cited by traffic-patrol police are drivers who do not have their licences in their possession. Contrary to popular belief, drivers do not have 24 hours to produce the documents.
The pet peeves of traffic-patrol police are both predictable and surprising. They range from the simple to the complex.
The most often quoted peeve, cited by several of the constables I have talked to, involves the simple act of identification. Drivers who do not have their licence in their possession may be issued a traffic ticket. Police everywhere have the right and duty to know who they are dealing with in all instances. It is the obligation of every driver to be able to properly identify themselves to authorities. Big city police departments are so much more demanding of this requirement. They are much more apt to issue a ticket than rural police in the unfortunate situation where a driver has absentmindedly left the licence at work, home or in a second vehicle. It is so much easier to find out who someone is in a small town. A phone call or two will often solve an elementary identification problem.
The idea that a driver has 24 hours to produce the licence is a myth. It is not the law and never has been. Most constables grant a good degree of latitude when it comes to producing a driver's licence, but it is understandable that many of them are frustrated by the lack of due diligence by the driving public.
Police everywhere are frustrated by the lack of immediate attention paid to emergency equipment when they are engaged in a pursuit or high-priority vehicle response. Lights flash and sirens sound, yet many drivers are inattentive to their surroundings and are slow to react in a legal fashion to police cars engaged in important work. The law says drivers must pull to the closest side of the road and stop. Where no practical place to stop is obvious, such as on a narrow bridge, the driver must pull over when the first opportunity presents itself.
People die because of slow response time, often caused by inattentive drivers. Cameras in patrol cars now make it easier to charge offending drivers than in the past. Legislation in most jurisdictions across our country, governing engaged parked police patrol cars, demands drivers lower their speed dramatically when approaching and passing such vehicles.
Perhaps the most emphatic pet peeve from police constables involves the example given to children by parents and adults charged with the security of kids. When the police attend crash sites where children have been killed, it breaks their hearts and their spirits to see that seat belts were not worn. When they see kids on bikes accompanied by parents without helmets, they cringe. Children so often bear the brunt of poor decision-making by adults. When dad or mom does not wear a seat belt or bicycle helmet, it sends a poor but strong message to the kids. This act of irresponsibility has a lasting impression on police who have attended the scene of far too many fatal crashes involving children.
The distracted driver seems to be on everyone's mind these days, police included. Cellphones, texting, coffee cups, cigarettes, GPS, pets, sound systems, food consumption, ear buds, boomboxes and a host of other distractions ( I am sure I have omitted a few) make the police think we are all on the verge of collective madness. Motorists applying makeup, reading the newspaper, watching TV, changing a diaper and changing the driver-passenger seat position while driving are all horror stories recounted by police constables.
If there is one message the police want to get across to drivers, it is this: The task of driving is the most complicated function most of us will ever attempt. It deserves our undivided attention, as it is the chief cause of accidental death in our society. Take it seriously.
Steve Wallace is a member of the College of Teachers and the owner of Joan Wallace Driving School on Vancouver Island and the Interior of B.C.
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


text:
Black Twitter Reacts To Chelsea Handler's '12 Years A Slave' Tweets
Chelsea Handler got into some hot water last night after tweeting a plug for her book, shortly after Lupita Nyong'o's historic "Best Supporting Actress" Academy Award win.
The comedian and talk show conducted a Twitter takeover for Huffington Post and tweeted "Congratulation #lupita" and promoted her book "Uganda Be Kidding Me" that will be out later this year. Many took offense to the post and were confused over whether or not she was trying to connect Lupita's win to a joke:
Congratulations #lupita To pre order #ugandabekiddingme go to http://t.co/3LRljoT3jN #Oscars @chelseahandler pic.twitter.com/BurqtrFgEn
— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) March 3, 2014
Are you are trying to connect this book to @Lupita_Nyongo because she's black and from Africa? Wow. email@example.com/rBLmWkY2TG
— Andrea Houston (@dreahouston) March 3, 2014
After "12 Years A Slave" won for "Best Picture," Handler decided to plug her book again. This time, congratulating the film, making it even worse. Black Twitter was not here for it, or her earlier Lupita tweet, and weren't amused by Handler's carelessness.
Congratulations #12yearsaslave Go to Africa or buy #ugandabekiddingme http://t.co/1bisNvm3mm #aheadofthecurve #Oscars pic.twitter.com/Hu5wh7e3fm
— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) March 3, 2014
Saw @chelseahandler tweet about Lupita's "cleavage" right before I got offline. Just returned and learned that wasn't the worst of it!?
— Anna Holmes (@AnnaHolmes) March 3, 2014
Chelsea Handler is not funny. Is tacky. Is extremely disrespectful and I hope she loses a lot of opportunities after tonight. — Jazmin Michole (@JazzieBURR_) March 3, 2014
@HuffingtonPost@chelseahandler wow..whoever thought that was a good idea..needs to be fired — Yesha (@YeshaCallahan) March 3, 2014
By the end of the night, Handler tweeted "#imsorry" for her crass tweets.
Thank you @HuffingtonPost#imsorry –@chelseahandler
— Huffington Post (@HuffingtonPost) March 3, 2014
Handler and her tweets are a great example of why diversity is needed in comedy. We can agree that folks can do better, including Variety Magazine, which shortened "12 Years A Slave" to just "slave" in their tweet.
'Slave' Actress Lupita Nyong'o Wins Oscar in Film Debut http://t.co/hytgWkL4MM
— Variety (@Variety) March 3, 2014
There was still an overflow of positive support for Lupita on Twitter, though, including a lovely tweet from Kenya's president Uhuru Kenyatta.
Congratulations @Lupita_Nyongo on your Oscars win. You are the Pride of Africa. pic.twitter.com/INkcynEDUG
— Uhuru Kenyatta (@UKenyatta) March 3, 2014
NEXT: Beyonce Continues To Stun With New Costumes On "Mrs. Carter World Tour"
PM BUZZ: Chelsea Handler Mocks '12 Years A Slave' With Racist Tweet & More was originally published on hellobeautiful.com
1 2 3 4 5Next page »
Prosecutor Wants Sex With Minor Charge Dropped Against Ohio Cop
Cincinnati: Roselawn Shooting Under Investigation
You Care: Iggy Azalea Saudi Arabia Show Cut Short After She Split Her Pants On Stage
Cleveland Police Say '30 Missing Children' Reports Are Misleading
Smell Something Weird Near Avon Lake? Here's What It Is
Cincinnati: Pastor Shuttlesworth Impromptu Speech 60 Years Ago!
Ohio School Bus Crashes, 1 Child Dies On The First Day Of School
Protest Held at Kroger Store Where Pregnant Woman Was Killed by Police


text:
Participating Organization(s)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
Funding Opportunity Title
NIDCD Research Core Centers (P30)
Activity Code
P30 Center Core Grants
Announcement Type
Reissue of PAR-10-077
Related Notices
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number
Companion Funding Opportunity
An institution may apply for more than one award only for different user groups working in different NIDCD mission areas within the same institution, as described in Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s)
Funding Opportunity Purpose
The NIDCD P30 Core Center contains one or more research-serving cores providing centralized resources and facilities for funded R01 research projects. Although no funds are provided for direct support of research projects, a P30 helps to integrate and promote research in existing funded projects, and may include multi-disciplinary and regional collaborations. A Core Center must be an identifiable organizational unit either within a single grantee institution or representing a consortium of cooperating institutions (e.g., geographic or web-based). The Center may serve as an "intellectual hub" to stimulate cooperative research, to increase the effectiveness, capabilities or productivity of current research, and/or to promote new research directions through collaborations. Individual research cores of the Core Center may provide for sharing technical expertise or centralizing labor-intensive tasks common among several investigators (PD(s)/PI(s)); staffing, training and maintenance of shared equipment or resources, including tools or staffing to enhance activities such as recruitment databases for clinical projects; or problem-solving through innovative technical solutions using the most current methodologies. NIDCD P30 funds do not provide patient services, support unfunded pilot studies, or facilitate research other than for funded user projects, unless directly related to advancing the potential of the Core Center itself. P30s are encouraged to provide benefits to other core centers or the larger community through sharing data or technology.
Posted Date
November 23, 2012
Letter of Intent Due Date(s)
30 days before the application due date
Application Due Date(s)
February 1, 2013; June 3, 2013; October 1, 2013; February 3, 2014; June 2, 2014; October 1, 2014; February 2, 2015, June 1, 2015, October 1, 2015
AIDS Application Due Date(s)
Not Applicable
Scientific Merit Review
Standard dates apply
Advisory Council Review
Standard dates apply
Earliest Start Date
Standard dates apply
Expiration Date
(Now Expired July 25, 2013 per NOT-DC-13-007), Originally October 2, 2015
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS 398 Application Guide except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. While some links are provided, applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Looking ahead: NIH is committed to transitioning all grant programs to electronic submission using the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) format and is currently investigating solutions that will accommodate NIH's multi-project programs. NIH will announce plans to transition the remaining programs in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts and on NIH's Applying Electronically website.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission Information
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
The NIDCD P30 Core Center grant contains one or more research-serving cores providing centralized resources and facilities for funded R01 research projects. Although no funds are provided for direct support of research projects, a P30 helps to integrate and promote research in existing funded projects, and may include multi-disciplinary and regional collaborations. A Core Center must be an identifiable organizational unit either within a single grantee institution or representing a consortium of cooperating institutions (e.g., geographic or web-based). The Center may serve as an "intellectual hub" to stimulate cooperative research, to increase the effectiveness, capabilities or productivity of current research, and/or to promote new research directions through collaborations. Individual research cores of the Core Center may provide for sharing technical expertise or centralizing labor-intensive tasks common among several projects; staffing, training and maintenance of shared equipment or resources, including tools or staffing to enhance activities such as recruitment databases for clinical projects; or problem-solving through innovative technical solutions using the most current methodologies. NIDCD P30 funds do not provide patient services, support unfunded pilot studies, or facilitate research other than for funded user projects, unless directly related to advancing the potential of the Core Center itself. P30s are encouraged to provide benefits to other core centers or the larger community through sharing data or technology.
Biomedical sciences are increasingly interdisciplinary, with collaborators and technologies converging from different fields for new approaches to research questions with public health importance. A research core can provide a facility, service or training for a group of investigators to conduct their individual research more efficiently. Through interaction with others, sharing resources may lead to new research paradigms and projects. A research core can create new collaborations by offering specialized services not easily duplicated in an individual laboratory, or by offering an approach that brings clinicians together with basic research scientists. A Core Center combines one or more research cores for a group of R01 investigators to enhance their research, consolidate resources, avoid duplication of efforts, and/or contribute to cost effectiveness by providing a service with lower cost and higher quality than could be attempted for independent projects by several individual Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) PD(s)/PI(s). The design and purpose of each research Core Center may vary in how it serves its users.
Scientific knowledge to be achieved: An NIDCD P30 Core Center will increase the productivity and impact of research in R01 projects of the core users, and will form a collaborative environment to increase scientific interactions. A strong research base of funded projects is a qualifying requirement and a major factor in obtaining a P30 award. Any institution or consortium applying for a P30 grant should have an active, established program in basic, translational, clinical, outcomes and/or epidemiological biomedical or behavioral research in one or more of the NIDCD mission areas of hearing, balance, smell, taste, voice, speech or language. A Core Center may focus its resources and training on a group of investigators in a single one of these areas, or on a broad range of investigators with some shared approaches to widely different questions.
Objectives of this research program: Although not performing research itself, a Core Center makes facilities available for research services and provides relevant technical expertise to groups of investigators with common needs. Each research core within the Center must be used extensively for a minimum of 3 "qualifying" R01 projects; to qualify, the R01 must be for research in or closely related to NIDCD mission areas, and have sufficient time before expiration to benefit from the core facilities (see Section IV.2, Application Submission Information for details). "Extensive" use normally means for more than 25% of the core usage time. PDs/PIs holding qualifying R01s are expected to have priority for core use, but no single PD/PI may use a single core more than 50% of the time even if holding more than one qualifying grant. Projects that are not qualifying grants but still federally funded also may use the cores as time permits.
The application must establish an Administrative Shell to manage the Center with sufficient organizational structure to coordinate and integrate the P30 activities of the individual cores, promote scientific advances and new collaborations, determine the distribution and utilization of funds, and provide advice to the Core Center Director about the P30 activities. The Core Center Director directs the Administrative Shell of the Center as the PD/PI for the P30, and is responsible for the overall organization and operation of the P30. Individual research core Directors are responsible for their respective research core administration and integration with the Center. Administration of the Core Center and each research core should address efficient and fair prioritization of access to the core services and facilities, resource sharing, and quality controls when appropriate.
Types of approaches: The resources provided by research cores can include, but are not limited to, sharing of technical expertise (e.g., histology, population genetics, bioinformatics, statistics, automated brainstem response); centralization of labor-intensive tasks (e.g., genotyping, human subject recruitment and assistance with regulatory issues, database management); staffing, maintenance and training of shared equipment or complex resources (e.g., confocal microscopy, electron microscopy, virtual reality lab, sound-field laboratory, brainscan imaging); and providing innovative technical solutions using state-of-the-art methodologies/technologies (e.g., engineering, imaging, novel software and hardware development).
Limited developmental research may be allowed in a research core with prior NIDCD approval if it is directly related to enhancing the functioning, utility or methodology of the core. Major multi-user equipment should be requested elsewhere from the NIH (Shared Instrumentation Grant S10 Program, NIH PAR-13-008. Collaborations among other NIH supported P30s are encouraged.
Funding Instrument
Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
Application Types Allowed
The OER Glossary and the PHS 398 Application Guide provide details on these application types.
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Award Budget
The NIDCD P30 has budgetary caps based on the number of grants that qualify as the Center's biomedical research base. Direct costs are capped at $1.5, $2.0, or under $2.5 million over 5 years, for a research base minimum of 6, 12, or 18 qualifying R01 grants, respectively. (See Application and Submission Information, Section IV.2 for details.) Renewal applications may not exceed the stated caps. Competitive revision (supplemental) applications requesting an additional research core to an existing P30 are allowed, but may not exceed the term of the parent award or the budgetary caps as described above.
Award Project Period
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period, but the maximum period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are
not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are not allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations as described in the PHS 398 Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following registrations.
All Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s)) must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at least6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the PHS 398 Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct. One institution (identified by having a unique DUNS number or NIH IPF number) may apply for more than one award only for different user groups working in different NIDCD mission areas within the same institution. No R01 grants may be counted as qualifying for more than one P30.
NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed within the past thirty-seven months (as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement), except for submission:
Applicants are required to prepare applications according to the current PHS 398 application forms in accordance with the PHS 398 Application Guide.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the PHS 398 Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Christopher Platt, Ph.D.
Division of Scientific Programs
National Institute on Deafness & Other Communication Disorders
6120 Executive Blvd., EPS-400
Bethesda, MD 20892-7180 (for U.S. Postal Service)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: (301) 496-1804
Email: email@example.com
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research
grant application forms and instructions for preparing a research grant
application. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application,
including the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
At the time of submission, two additional paper copies of the application and all copies of the Appendix files must be sent to:
Melissa Stick, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 400C
Bethesda, MD 20892-7180 (for U.S. Postal Service)
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service; non-USPS service)
Telephone: (301) 496-8683
Email: email@example.com
All page limitations described in the PHS 398 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed, with the following additions:
The NIDCD P30 Research Core Center requires a multi-component application. The application must describe the Research Base overview, the Administrative Shell, and one or more Research Cores. Present these components in order separately, using PHS 398 Form Pages as required. Follow all instructions for all the headings in the PHS 398 Application Guide. The particular sections shown below are where additional instructions differ from the PHS 398 Application Guide.
Submit only one Face Page for the entire application. In the Title block, item 1, include the words "Core Center" as part of the title, preferably adding a few descriptive words (e.g., "Core Center for Human Communication", "Core Center for Sensory Transduction", etc.). For each individual component, use an individual cover page, not an NIH Face Page.
Include the overall Core Center facilities and Research Plan as follows
Face Page (Overview Component)
Do not use the NIH "Face Page"; for the cover page title use "Core Center Research Base Overview".
Description, Project/Performance Sites, Senior/Key Personnel, Other Significant Contributors, and Human Embryonic Stem Cells (Overview Component)
Follow all instructions in the Application Guide, but note the following additional instructions:
Description (Project Summary): Describe how this Core Center will serve its biomedical research base through the services of the proposed Research Cores
Project/Performance Sites: Describe briefly the availability and proximity of the Research Core facilities for the qualifying research projects using them. Provide details for each component in its own section on Resources.
Senior/Key Personnel: List the PD(s)/PI(s) to be Core Center Director(s), any Associate or Co-Director for the Center (if applicable), and each Research Core Director. Also list Other Significant Contributors; these include each PD/PI holding a qualifying R01 grant listed in the research base (see below for qualifying definition). Include Biosketches (below) for all these individuals.
Detailed Budget for Initial Budget Period, and Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support (Overview Component)
Use form pages as directed for the overall Core Center initial year and overall 5-year plan, with justifications, and do not repeat these elsewhere in the application. Include here budget lines for the Administrative Shell and each of the Research Cores, providing further budget details for each component in its own section on Budget. Future year budget requests must not exceed cost escalations specified by the NIH.
Maximum allowable costs: The budgetary cap for a P30 application is based on the number of grants that qualify as the Center's biomedical research base. To qualify, a grant must be of the R01 type from NIH only, for research in or closely related to NIDCD mission areas, with at least one year of funding remaining at the time of submission; no-cost extension time does not qualify. Institutions holding six or more qualifying R01s at least four of which must be NIDCD funded, may request direct costs totaling no more than $1.5 million over a five year period; those holding twelve or more R01s, at least eight of which must be NIDCD funded, may request direct costs totaling no more than $2.0 million over five years; those holding eighteen or more R01s, at least twelve of which must be NIDCD funded, may request direct costs totaling less than $2.5 million over five years. Yearly budgets may vary, but the sum for all years requested must not exceed the particular 5-year cap determined by the number of qualifying R01 grants in the P30 research base. No single year may request $500,000 or more of direct costs, and no single year may exceed 25% of the 5-year cap. A modular budget format is not allowed for any of the P30 components. Renewal applications may not exceed the stated caps.
Other budget limitations: Travel requests for scientific, technical, or administrative staff are allowed only for training needed specifically to enhance or maintain operations of a research core. This training must take place in a focused, intensive session, course or workshop, as opposed to a session at a national meeting or the equivalent. P30 funds are not for travel for scientific speakers for seminars unless explicitly related to technical development of core services. Multi-user equipment requests generally are not appropriate for the P30, but should use other mechanisms (e.g., NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant). Some equipment requests are allowed when justified by documenting available equipment within the institution, and by describing clearly how requested equipment will provide core services. In addition, the potential for cost-sharing must be explored before submission and the results of such exploration (i.e., institutional commitment demonstrated through cost sharing) must be stated clearly in the application.
Consortium/Contractual Costs: Funds may be requested for some subcontracts, but P30s may not subcontract to foreign organizations. Funds may not be requested for alteration and renovation, rental space, staff retreats, direct support of individual research projects, direct support for pilot studies, salary and support for central institutional administrative personnel or secretarial support that is usually paid from institutional overhead charges, travel of investigators, or page and publication charges for staff investigators. Applications from institutions that have a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) from NIH may wish to identify the CTSA as a resource for conducting the proposed research. In such a case, include a letter of agreement from the PD/PI of the CTSA, documenting space or cost-sharing arrangements at the applicant institution. In addition to the overall budget included in the Core Center Research Base component, each Research Core component and the Administrative Shell component require a separate detailed budget.
Requests are allowed for technical staff time that is related to effort on the research core, and may include up to 100% salary support from the P30. Requests are allowed for limited support for administrative staff time only when the duties described relate directly to managing the P30 activities.
Revision applications requesting an additional research core to an existing P30 are allowed, but may not exceed the term of the parent award or the budgetary caps as described above for the parent award.
Biographical Sketches (Overview Component)
Place individual Biosketches in alphabetical order. Do not duplicate these pages in the individual Research Cores. Include 'Other Support' in the individual Biosketches.
Resources (Overview Component)
Describe existing environment and facilities briefly in the context of how the Core Center will use or change existing access, space and usage; include space maps as needed, letters of institutional commitment.
Research Plan (Overview Component)
Use this section to describe how this overall Core Center will serve its biomedical research base to provide a whole that will have an impact beyond simply the sum of its parts.
Specific Aims: Concisely state how the goals and objectives of the Core Center will enhance the research base. Include potential impact, any areas of special interest, and any research ideas, disease entities, and target populations to be studied.
Research Strategy: Describe how the Core Center will serve its research base, including the required significance, innovation, and approach. Include an overview of the scientific focus of current R01 projects in the research base of the Core Center with enough detail for reviewers to judge the extent and the interrelationships of ongoing research. Important features include interactions among Center members, the quality and productivity of the research programs, and demonstrated or potential interdisciplinary collaborations. Address how establishment of a Core Center will further extend, stimulate and provide added dimensions to the current research activities. For discussion, group the research included in the base into aggregates of projects with similar overall goals and objectives, since an assessment of the research base is important as a primary criterion in evaluating applications. The qualifying grants have been through peer review already as R01s, establishing the quality of the individual funded projects, so important aspects will be: (1) interactions and interrelationships of the research efforts; (2) uses and benefits of core services; and (3) plans to continue/develop productive collaboration among Core Center investigators. Documentation of a collaborative environment may be included (listing co-authored publications from PDs/PIs, with required PMCIDs).
As part of the Research Strategy, include a table of Qualifying R01 Grants.An institution must have an adequate biomedical research base to apply for a Core Center. An application requires a minimum number of R01 qualifying grants for each of the three possible levels of budget request, as described in Section IV.2 on maximum allowable costs, above. Include a Table of these Qualifying Grants, listed alphabetically by PD/PI. To qualify, the R01 grant must have at least one year of support remaining at the submission date of the P30 application; grants in no-cost-extensions, and a grant that is not an R01 do not qualify. (Some grants equivalent to R01s might qualify, e.g., R00, U01; NIDCD should be consulted prior to submission.) Use columns for the PD(s)/PI(s) last name, the PD(s)/PI(s) effort in person-months on the R01, the grant number (in the form R01DC000000), the "project end date" (not just the current year of support), the annual direct cost, and the grant title. Use one row for each grant (a PD/PI holding more than one grant will appear on more than one row), and 'wrapping' text within columns is allowed. Provide a total for current year direct costs for all qualifying grants listed for the proposed P30 Core Center. For listed qualifying grants that are not funded by NIDCD, add a justification sentence at the bottom of the table for each, stating how it relates to NIDCD mission areas. If relevant, a second table may be included for Additional Funded Projects planning some use of Research Core facilities; these may be supported by grants other than R01s (e.g., R03, R21, K08), and from agencies other than NIH.
As part of the Research Strategy, include a Preliminary Studies/Progress Report. This part of the Approach for the Core Center Research Base is primarily for competing renewals or competitive revisions. For new applications, this section may be shorter and may include examples of previous/ongoing services/techniques that have provided increased productivity within the research environment. For renewal applications, this section can document the impact the Core Center has had from enabling new research accomplishments, shared resources, new collaborations, and other outcomes. Provide information on core usage and other benefits to the scientific research enterprise, and note any specific problems in core administration and management.
Protection of Human Subjects: As part of this section, include a Table of Assurance DocumentationIn many cases the research cores enhance research on human subjects supported by grants with already completed or exempt IRB review. Include a table listing by PD/PI and grant number the status of human subject (IRB) committee approval dates for each relevant research project using the Core Center facilities. This review or exemption designation documentation is sufficient, provided the IRB determines that the research is not substantially modified by the Core. Explicitly state if no work is done by the Core Center that goes beyond the protocols of the participating R01s on human research, or if there is no human research involved. Otherwise, if a Core has activities not covered by current R01 approvals, follow the PHS 398 Instructions for Protection of Human Subjects in respect to 45 CFR Part 46. Do not duplicate the information here in the individual Research Core sections, but refer back to this table as needed.
Vertebrate Animals: As part of this section, include a Table of Assurance Documentation. In many cases, the research cores enhance vertebrate animal research supported by grants with already completed IACUC review. Include a table listing by PD/PI and grant number the status of animal usage (IACUC) committee approval dates for each relevant research project using the Core Center facilities. This review documentation is sufficient, providing the research is not substantially modified by the Core. Explicitly state if no work is done by the Core Center that goes beyond the protocols of the participating R01s on vertebrate animal research, or if there is no vertebrate animal research involved. Otherwise, if a core has activities not covered by current R01 approvals, follow the PHS 398 Instructions for Compliance on Animal Welfare. Do not duplicate the information here in the individual Research Core sections, but refer back to this table as needed.
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the PHS 398 Application Guide.
Use regular PHS 398 form pages to describe the "Administrative Shell" that will manage the overall Core Center. The instructions listed below are only for those sections with information different from the Application Guide.
Face Page (Administrative Shell)
Do not use the NIH "Face Page"; for the cover page title use "Administrative Shell".
Description, Project/Performance Sites, Senior/Key Personnel, Other Significant Contributors, and Human Embryonic Stem Cells (Administrative Shell)
Personnel: The PD/PI of the P30 and its Administrative Shell is the Core Center Director. List only administrators and staff for the Core Center (not individual Cores). Do not duplicate Biosketches, which already are provided in the earlier section. If Research Core Directors also help administer the overall Core Center, list them as well.
Detailed Budget for Initial Brudget Period and Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support (Administrative Shell)
Include only the Administrative budgets for the Core Center initial year and for the 5-year plan, with justifications, and do not repeat these elsewhere in the application. Administrative leadership is not expected to require more than 0.5 to 1.2 person-months), unless strongly justified by activities that go distinctly beyond usual administrative functions. Budget constraints are the same as given earlier for the Core Center.
Resources (Administrative Shell)
Include any particular administrative facilities and environment features not covered earlier for the overall Core Center.
Research Plan (Administrative Shell)
Specific Aims: Describe briefly how the Core Center administration will coordinate and manage activities across the Research Cores, and have an impact on the research infrastructure.
Research Strategy: Describe how the administration of the overall Core Center will enhance the research base activities, including the required significance, innovation, and approach. The PD/PI provides scientific and administrative leadership for the Center, so the PD/PI must have a demonstrated ability to coordinate, integrate, and provide guidance in establishing multi-faceted research programs. Describe the administrative framework to manage the Core Center and each core, including the roles of the Center Director and Research Core Directors, the lines of authority and relationship to appropriate institutional officials, how access and utilization of services will be prioritized, how potential disputes will be resolved, and how periodic evaluations will be used to improve the services. Describe how the proposed Administrative Shell will foster close interactions among the Core Center Director, Research Core Directors, the PD(s)/PI(s) of the funded grants utilizing the core, appropriate institutional administrative personnel, and other members of the institution holding the P30.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the PHS 398 Application Guide.
Present each proposed Research Core separately in the regular form PHS398 format. The instructions listed below are only for those sections with information different from the Application Guide.
Face Page (Research Cores)
Do not use the NIH "Face Page"; for the cover page use a descriptive title of a few words (e.g., "Core 1: Imaging", "Core A: Human Recruitment", etc.).
Description, Project/Performance Sites, Senior/Key Personnel, Other Significant Contributors, and Human Embryonic Stem Cells (Research Cores)
Personnel: The named Core Director of each Research Core is its PD/PI. A Research Core Director should have the scientific expertise and leadership skills necessary to be the primary decision-maker for that core's management, both technical and administrative, but a Research Core Director is not required to be the PD/PI on a current NIH grant. The requested percent effort is expected to be relatively low (0.5 to 1.2 person-months). Any request for a Research Core Director at more than 1.2 person-months effort must be justified by activities beyond typical administrative functions; institutional commitments for levels beyond 1.2 person-months that are not requested from the NIDCD should be noted. Include needed support for time and salary of technical personnel or positions to be filled in the Research Core. Do not repeat the Biosketches already presented earlier for the Core Center.
Detailed Budget for Initial Brudget Period and Budget for Entire Proposed Period of Support (Research Cores)
Budget: Use budget form pages as directed for the initial year and 5-year plan with justifications, and do not repeat these elsewhere in the application. Include any issues of overlap and accounting strategies for future expenses and mechanisms for reimbursing core services, if appropriate.
Supplies: Consumable supplies directly related to the operation of the cores (photographic supplies, electronics parts, machine shop stock, tissue culture media, glassware, chemicals, animals, etc.) are allowed. Some equipment purchases are allowable, including upgrades to obsolescent instruments in the Core, and fabrication of Core-specific instrumentation or devices. Restrictions on travel, equipment, subcontracts, alterations, pilot studies, and administrative staff remain the same as described above for the Core Center.
Resources (Research Cores)
Include any particular equipment or spaces particular to the Research Core not covered earlier in the facilities and environment for the overall Core Center, and describe the convenience, accessibility and distance of Core resource locations from the various core users.
Research Plan (Research Cores)
Specific Aims: Concisely describe how this Research Core will provide new services to the individual R01s beyond what is currently available, and/or increase effectiveness by sharing expertise or centralizing labor-intensive tasks, how it will encourage and facilitate collaborative work, or promote public health advances. Include impact beyond the qualifying users, if applicable to other users of the core.
Research Strategy: Describe how the Research Core facilities or services will enhance research activities of the projects using this core, and add benefits to the research accomplishments; include the required significance, innovation and approach. Include how the Research Core will provide increased or innovative capabilities; facilitate increased productivity or effectiveness through sharing expertise or centralizing labor-intensive tasks; and/or foster collaborative or new research directions, including bridging basic and clinical goals or attracting new investigators into an area. Describe each proposed technique or service in the Research Core, and its current status of staffing, space and equipment, should be described in enough detail to allow a comprehensive evaluation. Describe briefly existing methodologies already in use at the institution; describe in more detail methodologies new to the institution with strategies for their successful implementation. Include any developmental methods for research or training, if proposed. If applicable, include sections on quality control. A number of NIDCD-funded investigators larger than the required minimum of three using each core to some degree may strengthen the request. The ability to articulate user benefit is a critical factor in review.
Table of Projected Use: Provide a table listing all R01 projects, with a column for PD/PI name, for grant number, and for an estimate of the percentage of Core resource time used by each funded project. No single core may be used more than 50% of the time by a single PD/PI even with multiple projects. PDs/PIs holding the qualifying R01s are expected to have priority for core use. If a proposed research core is not to be used 100% of the time, clarify why the expected amount is less.
Include plans for administration, organization and proposed management of the individual Research Core. Administrative organization is a critical issue in review of the application. Include plans to implement core services, to prioritize investigator use among projects competing for core use, and to resolve potential disputes. If the core is used to train investigators in special techniques, describe the nature and extent of this training and the qualifications of core personnel to provide and oversee this training. Discuss the potential for budgetary overlap, whether minimal or extensive, between the user R01 projects and the Research Core, including personnel effort as well as other categories. Specifically address the strategies for deciding what expenses will be charged to the P30 versus the participating research grants, and describe how budgetary expenses for the user R01s, or any other funding mechanisms with potential overlap, will or will not be modified upon receipt of the P30 award. If appropriate, provide a strategy for reimbursement of core services. NIDCD program and grants management staff may negotiate with both the P30 Director and R01 PDs/PIs who utilize P30 facilities regarding potential budgetary overlap.
Human Subjects and/or Vertebrate Animals: Do not duplicate the information here in the individual research cores from the Tables and text for the Core Center sections on these points, but refer back to those tables as needed. If not applicable, mark these sections N/A, and explicitly state that no human or vertebrate animal research is involved with this core.
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS)) as provided in the PHS 398 Application Guide.
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix (please note all format requirements) as described in the PHS 398 Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates.
Information on the process of receipt and determining if
your application is considered "on-time" is described in detail in the PHS 398
Application Guide.
Applicants may track the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost
principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be received on or before the due dates in Part I. Overview Information. If an
application is received after that date, it will not be reviewed.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered
in the review process. As part of the NIH mission,
all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral
research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer
review system.
For this particular announcement, note the following:
This is a multi-component application to develop a center with shared facilities, so evaluation of the component cores is integrated with the administrative shell into the overall impact score of the center. The review also includes the potential impact of the individual cores on the research projects using them; of the core center on the research capabilities of the institutions involved; and of the core center on the national effort in the mission areas of NIDCD.
Component Scoring: As part of the initial scientific review, reviewers will rate each individual research core including its management with an overall score, as well as the overall Core Center; the scores will appear in the summary statement. The Administrative Shell of the whole Core Center will be rated only as "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable", but the administration quality will contribute to the overall score for the Core Center. Since the NIDCD is interested in funding only the best research cores, component research cores scored as lower quality might not be funded even if recommended within a strong overall P30 Core Center application.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? How will the core support and enhance ongoing research projects beyond currently available resources, promote collaborative research and/or attract new investigators to research in communication disorders, provide enhanced or increased efficiency of services, and/or offer services that are new, unique or otherwise unavailable on individual R01s? Are components well designed to enhance potential collaborations leading to public health advances? How well does each individual core fit in and contribute to the overall Core Center?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Do the Core Center Director and key personnel have the training, leadership, commitment and ability to devote the required time and effort to the core?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Does the Core Center use innovative ways to communicate, to allocate resources, to promote new cross-departmental or multi-disciplinary collaborations, or to integrate activity among the research cores or across basic and clinical fields?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented?
If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy
establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Although they need not share a common "theme", are the research cores well integrated into the Core Center? Are there plans to establish and maintain communication and cooperation among the Core Center investigators? Are there adequate administrative management plans for the Core Center and the research cores, including implementation, allocation, user prioritization, quality control and utilization, home institution fiscal and academic administration?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Isthe institutional commitment appropriate?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Not Applicable
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center and will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH Grants
Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS, SAM Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Not Applicable
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590 or RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: email@example.com
eRA Commons Help Desk (Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Email: email@example.com
Christopher Platt, Ph.D.
Division of Scientific Programs
National Institute on Deafness & Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)
6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 400
Bethesda, MD 20892-7180
Telephone: (301) 496-1804
Email: email@example.com
Melissa Stick, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Chief, Scientific Review Branch
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 400C
Rockville, MD 20892-7180
Telephone: (301) 496-8683
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Christopher Myers
Chief, Grants Management Branch
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
6120 Executive Blvd., EPS 400B
Rockville, MD 20892-7180
Telephone: (301) 402-0909
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.


text:
Why Google Music's New 'Scan And Match' Is Not Enough
By Eliot Van Buskirk of Evolver.fm.
When Apple launched iCloud, it included a feature that let you put your music in the cloud without manually uploading each song, which takes forever. That's why we thought Apple, ironically given its download slant, might be your best bet for this 'cloud music' thing.
Today, as reported by Engadget, Google added the same feature, meaning that it too has made special arrangements with copyright holders (artists, labels, songwriters, and publishers) to scan the MP3s and other music files on your hard drive and send them up into Google's cloud — up to 20,000 songs, for free, with no option to pay for more space.
That's fine, but for most music fans, it's probably irrelevant.
Why music fans should like scan-and-match: We are desperate for a good way to reunite our music collection with itself. I have different music on several computers and devices plus vinyl, CDs, cassettes, hard drives, Spotify playlists, MOG favorites, an Rdio collection, Pandora preferences, Hype Machine hearts, a Last.fm account, hundreds of jams, and countless other ways of trying to keep track of the music I like.
I am not alone in this. For all of us, lockers with "scan and match" represent the possibility of uniting, at the very least, all of our downloaded music files in one place, assuming we run it against all of our computers and hard drives — and it's faster than uploading each song one at a time.
Why it doesn't matter: Like Apple iCloud, Google Music doesn't really support apps — meaning that developers can't build apps that combine that music with other music. Also, neither is part of an unlimited music subscription, so although it unites your downloads into one music locker, you're still sort of trapped with what you have, unless you want to purchase, pirate, or hunt down (on blogs) more tunes. This leaves us with (roughly speaking):
- Apple and Google can scan-and-match your library but can't import that music into a cloud-based subscription.
- Spotify can import your downloads and even transfer them to certain devices, but they don't get scanned-and-matched into your Spotify collection.
- Samsung Music Hub, not that you use it, can import your MP3s into a cloud-based music subscription that also has a radio feature, but there's no scan-and-match, so it takes forever to upload everything.
- MOG can take a picture of your CDs, tapes, and records and add them to your MOG collection with a feature called Moggles, but I don't think anybody uses that either.
- Regardless of what you use, your stuff will be all over the place, and there's little you can do about it except for learn not to care.
Why can't we have nice things — by which I mean why can't we just, like, pay for music somehow and have it forever, rather than forever fretting about what we put in each walled garden? Really, what we need is "one big database," or some other solution for tying music to people regardless of service or device. For more on that, see this recently-published DigitalMusic.org white paper (.pdf), which quotes this and mentions this, and perhaps check out the following articles:
- 4 Ways One Big Database Would Help Music Fans, Industry
- One Big Database Could Save the Music Business with Billions of Tiny Rivulets
- One Big Database Could Help Recording Artists Pay Rent
- Opinion: How 'The Holy Grail – Universal Song ID' Could Improve Facebook
If this gets figured out, here's what it might look like for music fans:
1. Buy a song, like it, or collect it in a subscription-type environment.
2. Access the file, preference, or stream anywhere, forever, manually or through APIs.
3. That's it.
Would you buy, like, and collect more music in a world like that? I know I would.


text:
We are offering high performing Rechargeable Lantern for the markets.
S.R.ELECTRONICS (ISO certified An ISO 9001-2008 CO) is reckoned as an eminent Manufacturer and Supplier of Electrical Components and Solar Products. We offer a wide range of high performing products that includes Electronic UPS, High Frequency Online UPS, Online UPS, Online UPS System, Offline UPS, Sine Wave Inverter, etc.
© 2017 SR Electronics. All Rights Reserved | Design by Eindiadeal.in


text:
By Judy Reed
It was a long time coming but worth the wait. The Cedar Springs Historical Museum in Morley Park officially held an open house Saturday to show off the new addition and many artifacts they were never able to show before. What they have is a treasure trove of Cedar Springs history that you won't find anywhere else.
"We still have a lot to add, and we'll keep polishing it," said Museum Director Sharon Jett.
The museum has made many of the exhibits hands-on and included cards about the exhibits that patrons can take with them. One of the more striking exhibits is that of an Indian wigwam, which is still under construction. It features many tools used by the Indians. Another is the exhibit dedicated to the railroad, including a large photo of one of our old railroad depots. Other exhibits in the new addition include a livery stable, millinery and dressmaker shop, a general store, a doctor's office, lumbering exhibit, and Clipper newspaper exhibit. There are many photos of Main Street from the 1880s. Coming soon to that area will also be a jail cell, with some of the bars from the original jail cell in Cedar Springs.
As you walk in the door of the museum, there is an exhibit dedicated to our firefighters, including an old engine from the late 1800s. Other exhibits in the front portion include a military exhibit, old-fashioned kitchen, living room, and a barn. The boards on the barn floor are 14-inches wide, and made from the tree that was cut down in Morley Park to make room for the new addition.
The genealogy area has grown and includes a desk from the old Rockford railroad station. There are many references for those researching family history.
Historical Society President Fred Gunnell was pleased with the way the open house went. "We had a nice turnout, and the boy scouts did a great job," he said, referring to the lunches they served.
The museum is usually open on Wednesdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Jett said that they will also be open on Veteran's Day, November 11, and will have special military books, uniforms, and other paraphernalia out. A Chinook helicopter will be landing here in Cedar Springs for the occasion. Watch the Post for more details!


text:
Values Voter Summit Underway; GOP Contenders To Speak
The annual Values Voter Summit is happening now in Washington, and if you want to hear what most of the Republican presidential contenders are telling the conservative activists, it's all online for the watching.
Organizers are streaming the event here. It's also on C-SPAN.org.
According to the summit's schedule, here are the blocks of time when the presidential candidates are due to speak:
Toward the end of the 8:40 a.m. to Noon ET session; former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
During the 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. session; Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, businessman Herman Cain and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.
During the 7:20 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. program; Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota.
During the 9 a.m. to Noon ET session; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Also watch for results over the weekend of the summit's presidential "straw poll."
Also:Romney this morning gives what his campaign says will be a major foreign policy address at The Citadel. He's due to start at 10:45 a.m. ET. Both CNN and Fox News Channel are covering.
As always, our friend Frank James at It's All Politics is following the 2012 campaign. And later today on All Things Considered, NPR's Don Gonyea will be reporting about the Values Voter Summit.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.