text:
Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering (CyberSEES)
Program Solicitation
National Science Foundation
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
February 24, 2015
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 15-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after December 26, 2014. The PAPPG is consistent with, and, implements the new Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) (2 CFR § 200).
Program Title:
Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering (CyberSEES)
Synopsis of Program:
The Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering (CyberSEES) program aims to advance interdisciplinary research in which the science and engineering of sustainability are enabled by new advances in computing, and in which computational innovation is grounded in the context of sustainability problems.
The CyberSEES program is one component of the National Science Foundation's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) activities, a Foundation-wide effort aimed at addressing the challenge of sustainability through support for interdisciplinary research and education. In the SEES context, a sustainable world is one where human needs are met equitably without harm to the environment or sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Computational approaches play a central role in understanding and advancing sustainability. CyberSEES supports research on topics that depend on advances in computational areas including optimization, modeling, simulation, prediction and inference; large-scale data management and analytics; advanced sensing techniques; human computer interaction and social computing; infrastructure design, control and management; and intelligent systems and decision-making. Additionally, the widespread, intensive use of computing technologies also introduces sustainability challenges and motivates new approaches across the lifecycle of technology design and use.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
Phillip Regalia, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8910, email: email@example.com
Todd Leen, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: email@example.com
Weisong Shi, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: email@example.com
Anita Nikolich, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-4551, email: email@example.com
Eva Zanzerkia, GEO, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: email@example.com
Bruce K. Hamilton, ENG, telephone: (703) 292-8320, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
David Haury, EHR, telephone: (703) 292-5102, email: email@example.com
Anne M. Maglia, BIO, telephone: (703) 292-8470, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Michael Steuerwalt, MPS, telephone: (703) 292-4860, email: email@example.com
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 14 to 25 Approximately 7-14 Type 1 awards of up to $400,000 over 2 years per award and 7-11 Type 2 awards of up to $1,200,000 over 4 years per award. Subject to availability of funds.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $11,000,000 Pending Availability of funds.
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
Due to this program's focus on interdisciplinary, collaborative research, a minimum of two collaborating investigators (PIs/Co-PIs) working in different disciplines is required. Applicants are urged to review the interdisciplinary, collaborative expectations of this program - described in the Program Description and Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria - which must be reflected in the project plans and project teams of all competitive proposals.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual may appear as PI, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel (or any other similar designation) in no more than two proposals submitted in any one fiscal year in response to this solicitation. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that they comply with these restrictions. This eligibility constraint will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. Budgetary Information
C. Due Dates
February 24, 2015
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements: Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
The Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering (CyberSEES) program aims to advance interdisciplinary research in which the science and engineering of sustainability require new advances in computing, and in which computational innovation is grounded in real-life, domain-specific challenges.
The CyberSEES program is one component of the National Science Foundation's Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) activities, a Foundation-wide effort aimed at addressing the challenge of sustainability through support for interdisciplinary research and education. In a SEES context, a sustainable world is one where human needs are met equitably without harm to the environment or sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Meeting this formidable challenge requires a substantial increase in our understanding of the integrated system of society, the natural world, and the alterations humans bring to Earth.
As noted in the 2012 National Academies Report "Computing Research for Sustainability," 1 a rich interplay is developing between computing research and other disciplines to address these challenges. Interdisciplinary approaches built around equal partnerships and real sustainability problems are expected to lead to compelling progress across multiple dimensions. To achieve these goals, innovative computational approaches play a central role in understanding and advancing sustainability science and engineering.
The CyberSEES program supports research and education projects on all sustainability topics in which advances in computing are indispensable, including the areas of optimization, modeling, simulation, prediction and inference; large-scale data management and analytics; advanced sensing techniques; human-computer interaction and social computing; infrastructure design, control and management; and intelligent systems and decision-making. Information technologies, computational solutions, and advances in cyberinfrastructure are essential to understanding the complex interactions and tradeoffs tied to immediate and emerging sustainability challenges in many critical areas, including climate change, natural resource depletion, loss of biodiversity, extreme events, sustainable energy and infrastructure, and human well-being on a resource-constrained planet. Additionally, the widespread, intensive use of computing technologies introduces further sustainability challenges and motivates new approaches across the lifecycle of technology design, use, and decommission.
SEES activities span the entire range of scientific domains at NSF and place a focus on supporting interdisciplinary research and education, building partnerships and linkages, and developing a workforce that can understand and address sustainability issues. In particular, all SEES projects must consider the social, behavioral, and economic requirements of creating long-term, viable sustainable systems, and incorporate those dimensions in the proposed research. Further information about NSF SEES activities can be found at https://www.nsf.gov/sees.
1 National Research Council. 2012. Computing Research for Sustainability. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13415, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
A. Scientific Scope
This Cyber-Innovation for Sustainability Science and Engineering (CyberSEES) solicitation aims to advance computing and information sciences research and infrastructure in tandem with other disciplines to develop analyses, methods, prototypes, and systems that lead to an increased understanding of sustainability and to solutions to sustainability challenges. Proposals must forge interdisciplinary collaborations among the computer and information sciences, social and natural sciences, geosciences, mathematical sciences, engineering, and associated cyberinfrastructure to address challenging sustainability problems.
Computational challenges are woven into many areas of sustainability research and their solutions are opening up possibilities for radical new approaches and unforeseen opportunities. Close intellectual partnerships between computing and other disciplines are essential to inform new approaches to these integrative challenges, respecting the specific characteristics of complex phenomena, data, and models; understanding the tradeoffs and consequences inherent to design and decision processes; and effectively dealing with limitations and constraints of computational techniques. Some prominent underlying challenges are outlined below. These descriptions are meant only as examples of integrative challenges, not intended to span the scope of program interests.
Large-scale Data Analysis and Management. Data sets used in many sustainability-related topics are challenging because of their complexity (such as control variables in smart infrastructures), heterogeneity (such as social or behavior data along with physical sensors), or variability and uncertainty (such as environmental sensor data). Additionally, sustainability data often have distinct short-term and long-term end uses, and data sets must be appropriately curated with these uses in mind. The sustainability context requires attention to issues such as the use, management, and preservation of data over a large range of time scales; data modeling and ontologies; metadata extraction, management, and data provenance; and cognitive prediction/optimization applied to data sets of differing ontologies and semantics, aiming for causal inference to inform effective policies, decisions, management and control.
Robust Observation, Sensing, and Inference. Monitoring of human, built and natural systems, such as hydrologic, waterway, or atmospheric phenomena; species migrations; water, gas, or electricity distribution systems, requires scalable observation infrastructures. Effective infrastructures must be nondisruptive, easily deployed and managed, and robust under sensor failures, and/or satisfy applicable security or privacy requirements. These monitoring systems must be able to operate unattended for long periods of time yet be remotely configurable, controllable, and testable for correct operation. Interdisciplinary research is needed on integrated sensing, monitoring and modeling for decision making in relation to air, water and soil environments, as well as the optimization of complex sensor systems.
Modeling of Complex Systems. Behavior in systems facing sustainability challenges is the result of complex interactions between human, built, and natural systems. Modeling, simulating, analyzing, and optimizing these systems may require combinations of physics- or economics-based models, model-based reasoning, and statistical models built from data, or interactions involving entities or individuals with different and often conflicting interests. New interdisciplinary research is needed for accurate and efficient methods of tackling complexity, scaling, uncertainty quantification, reliability, coupling between systems, massively parallel architectures and constrained optimization in order to achieve needed performance.
Dynamic and Intelligent Decision Making. Solving sustainability problems often requires contending with dynamically evolving or unstable situations. These scenarios present challenges to modeling and decision making due to inadequate or changing data; model, data, and system response uncertainty; resource constraints; fast response needs; and risk, safety and security concerns. A key characteristic of these environments is the need to continuously assimilate new data as it becomes available and to effectively handle new or altered constraints. Techniques are also needed to proactively discover such changing constraints within these environments. Both dynamic and static sustainability-related data analysis can leverage intelligent and machine learning methods exploiting massive parallelism, Bayesian methods, and fusion of data with physics-based models (data assimilation) for data-enabled discovery.
Control and Management of Infrastructure. Smart and sustainable management of built systems such as transportation systems, manufacturing systems, and smart homes and buildings requires comprehensive and flexible control systems that satisfy performance, policy, reliability, and other constraints. The design and study of these systems will require bold new computing research and knowledge in areas such as resource management algorithms and architectures, systems analysis, real-time coordination and communications.
Human-centered Systems. Large and long-lived impacts on sustainability will depend on human behavior, human factors, and collaboration across large communities. Sociotechnical systems built on sound understanding of people, organizations, and how to inform and assist them will play a key role in sustainability efforts. Computational approaches will lead to tools and systems that support engagement and decision making by the public; collection, modeling, and presentation of information about resource usage via usable interfaces, appropriate visualizations, and persuasive technology; preference elicitation and decision support/automated decision making for effective and efficient use of resources; and models, methods and tools for dissemination and increasing awareness of sustainable practices. Projects that include real-world evaluation by policy-makers and infrastructure managers and other stakeholders are encouraged.
The interdisciplinary challenges considered above are invariably shaped by human, societal, and economic factors, requiring consideration of the human interface, security and privacy, socio-cultural norms, non-compliance, herding behavior, economic incentives, and amenability to deployment in the real world. Sustainable systems must be designed for transparency, legitimation, and participation, and must foster greater awareness of sustainability challenges, solutions and best practices among the workforce and greater population.
As information and communication technologies are applied with increasing intensity to address sustainability issues, there is a parallel challenge of sustainability of the computing and networking systems themselves. In particular, as computing and communication technologies - from mobile phones to massive data centers - proliferate, challenges in managing their consumption of energy, materials, and other resources have become a critical sustainability issue. CyberSEES also welcomes interdisciplinary research that addresses holistic, integrative approaches to sustainable computing and information technologies and systems, including consideration of design and use with impact across the lifecycle in mind.
As the SEES research community increases in numbers of researchers and breadth of scientific participation, the shared computing and communication infrastructure must allow easy and timely sharing of data and computational tools to advance interdisciplinary SEES research. CyberSEES welcomes cyberinfrastructure research that connects currently distinct SEES research activities.
B. Award Types
The CyberSEES solicitation will support two types of proposals:
For both types of projects, the requested budget must be clearly justified and must be commensurate with the goals of the effort. In particular, it is expected that most projects will be smaller than the limits indicated here.
C. CyberSEES Project Requirements
Competitive CyberSEES projects must satisfy the following requirements, which represent defining characteristics of the CyberSEES solicitation. Further information on these requirements can be found in the Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria section of this document.
Depending on the sustainability problems and solutions discussed in the proposal, some of these attributes will be more important and thus require more in-depth articulation than others.
D. Example CyberSEES Proposal Topics
The diversity of suitable topics is covered through recent proposals funded through this program (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/advancedSearchResult?ProgEleCode=8211&BooleanElement=ANY&BooleanRef=ANY&ActiveAwards=true&#results).
E. Links to the Broader SEES Effort
Within the SEES research community there are currently distinct research activities whose data and computational capabilities could further advance other emerging SEES-related interdisciplinary research and collaboration. As the SEES research community expands and diversifies, cyberinfrastructure research that connects currently distinct SEES research activities would position the community for greater success. In parallel, NSF is interested in education and workforce development activities that are compelling by their clear and natural relation to the science or technology goals of the project, rather than add-ons constructed to meet perceived expectations.
Type 1 proposals need not include detailed education and workforce development plans, but NSF nonetheless encourages them if they are integral to the science and technology goals of the project. Type 2 proposals must include compelling education and workforce development plans having a clear and natural relation to the science or technology goals of the project.
Approximately $11 M will be made available in FY 2015 to support 14-25 awards. Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
Due to this program's focus on interdisciplinary, collaborative research, a minimum of two collaborating investigators (PIs/Co-PIs) working in different disciplines is required. Applicants are urged to review the interdisciplinary, collaborative expectations of this program - described in the Program Description and Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria - which must be reflected in the project plans and project teams of all competitive proposals.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
An individual may appear as PI, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel (or any other similar designation) in no more than two proposals submitted in any one fiscal year in response to this solicitation. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that they comply with these restrictions. This eligibility constraint will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.5 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
See Chapter II.C.2 of the GPG for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions.
The standard NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide instructions for proposal preparation apply, with the following additions.
A. Cover Sheet
FastLane Users: Proposers must identify this program solicitation number in the program announcement/solicitation block on the Cover Sheet and select "Cyber Innovation for Sustainability" from the FastLane organizational unit pull-down list. The project title must begin with the tag "CyberSEES: Type 1:" or "CyberSEES: Type 2:" depending on whether it is a Type 1 or Type 2 proposal. In case of multiple proposals submitted by different institutions as a collaborative group, they all should have the same title and include the tag "Collaborative Research:" following the CyberSEES tag.
Grants.gov Users: The program solicitation number will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF Grant Application Cover Page. Refer to Section VI.1.2 of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide for specific instructions on how to designate the NSF Unit of Consideration. The project title must follow the same rules as described above for FastLane users.
Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
B. Project Description (Structure and Page Limits for Type 1 and Type 2 Proposals)
The project description of Type 1 proposals is limited to a maximum of 10 pages. Type 1 proposals must be structured according to the three sections described below.
The project description of Type 2 proposals is subject to the GPG limit of 15 pages. Type 2 proposals must be structured according to the sequence of all four sections described below.
Type 1 and 2 proposals must also include a section summarizing results from prior NSF support.
C. Supplementary Documents
Data Management Plan: All proposals (both Type 1 and Type 2) must include a data and information management plan that describes how access to quality-controlled and fully-documented data and information by researchers, and others, will be achieved at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time during the course of the award, e.g., via a recognized data repository. The plan should address, as appropriate, provisions for reuse and derivative use, archival plans, and preservation of access for both research and non-research communities. If applicable, policies and provisions for appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements should be included.
Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. Each proposal (whether Type 1 or Type 2) that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts review criterion. Examples of mentoring activities include, but are not limited to: career counseling; training in preparation of grant proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to improve teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse backgrounds and disciplinary areas; and training in responsible professional practices.
Management and Collaboration Plan. Type 2 proposals must also include a management and collaboration plan, submitted as a supplementary document not exceeding 3 pages in length. The management and collaboration plan should discuss (a) the specific roles, qualifications, and synergy of the collaborating PIs, Co-PIs, other Senior Personnel, and paid consultants at all organizations involved; and (b) how the project will be managed across institutions and disciplines.
International and/or industrial collaborations that enhance the proposed project activities are strongly encouraged. Plans for international, industrial, or cross-institutional experiences for students should be clearly described, including timing, duration, and logistical arrangements for visits, and roles of specific project personnel.
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Proposal budgets should cover costs of travel to participate in grantees' meetings, most likely in the Washington, DC area.
This program will support the costs of US-based scientists and their students. International collaborators are encouraged to seek support from their respective funding organizations. Funding guidelines for involving international collaborators allow the following expenses to be included in the NSF budget:
Budget Preparation Instructions:
The CyberSEES solicitation will support two types of proposals:
For both types of projects, the requested budget must be clearly justified and must be commensurate with the goals of the effort. In particular, it is expected that most projects will be smaller than the limits indicated here.
February 24, 2015
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail email@example.com. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.com. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in the GPG as Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:
The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
In addition to the standard NSF review criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts identified in the Grant Proposal Guide above, Type 1 and Type 2 proposals submitted in response to this solicitation will be evaluated on the following criteria:
Well-Grounded in Sustainability Issues. Does the proposal demonstrate a clear connection between the research and substantive sustainability issues of societal significance? Does it consider critical social, economic, and environmental systems within the scope of the research?
Broadly Applicable Advances in Computing in Tandem with Other Disciplines. Does the proposal include research that contributes to advancements in fundamental computer and information science and engineering? Do these advancements enable research in other disciplines that would otherwise have been difficult or impossible before the innovation? To what extent will it lead to the development of high-quality resources that will be useful to the research community at large? Does it leverage and advance existing NSF cyberinfrastructure or other efforts of the SEES research community? To what extent does the project address the relevant social, behavioral, economic and human issues connected with the sustainability problem(s) being tackled?
Synergistic, Interdisciplinary Team. Does the collaboration productively bring together new combinations of investigators, approaches, or resources with appropriate expertise to effectively tackle the sustainability issues being addressed?
Type 2 proposals will also be evaluated according to the following criterion:
Education and Workforce Advancements. How will the proposed activities advance the development of a workforce skilled in the interdisciplinary scholarship needed to understand and address the complex issues of sustainability?
Quality and Appropriateness of the Management and Collaboration Plan. Are the specific roles of each collaborating investigator clear? Is the collaborative activity coordinated efficiently and effectively? Are appropriate outcome dissemination plans (e.g. software, data, publications) available to potential stakeholders? Are the proposed collaborations and partnerships, including industry and international collaborations as appropriate, well conceived and well planned? Is the proposed timeline of activities adequate and appropriate?
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process).
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.com.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
Phillip Regalia, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8910, email: email@example.com
Todd Leen, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8930, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Weisong Shi, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: email@example.com
Anita Nikolich, CISE, telephone: (703) 292-4551, email: email@example.com
Eva Zanzerkia, GEO, telephone: (703) 292-4734, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Bruce K. Hamilton, ENG, telephone: (703) 292-8320, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
David Haury, EHR, telephone: (703) 292-5102, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Anne M. Maglia, BIO, telephone: (703) 292-8470, email: email@example.com
Michael Steuerwalt, MPS, telephone: (703) 292-4860, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website at https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA


text:
So heavy
is the long-necked, long-bodied heron,
always it is a surprise
when her smoke-colored wings
and she turns
from the thick water,
from the black sticks
of the summer pond,
and slowly
rises into the air
and is gone.
Then, not for the first or the last time,
I take the deep breath
of happiness, and I think
how unlikely it is
that death is a hole in the ground,
how improbable
that ascension is not possible,
though everything seems so inert, so nailed
back into itself–
the muskrat and his lumpy lodge,
the turtle,
the fallen gate.
And especially it is wonderful
that the summers are long
and the ponds so dark and so many,
and therefore it isn't a miracle
but the common thing,
this decision,
this trailing of the long legs in the water,
this opening up of the heavy body
into a new life: see how the sudden
gray-blue sheets of her wings
strive toward the wind; see how the clasp of nothing
takes her in.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
繼上次2012年3月-4月的限時免費 這次乾脆來一次永久免費(?) 重點如下:
大致上基本版的功能對於開發中小型遊戲是相當夠用了 大部份Pro版的功能是相當高級的功能 想知道更詳細的差異可以看這邊基本版與Pro版的比較
很簡單 到Unity官網下載安裝完成後 打開Unity >File >Build Settings >直接選Android選項 >Switch Platform就可了 連密碼認證都不用
看來如同Unity的名字一樣 逐步朝著一統遊戲界的目標前進著
Unity Empowers Games Industry with Free Mobile Publishing Tools
Malmö, Sweden – May 21, 2013 – Unity Technologies, provider of the Unity multi-platform engine and development tools, is pushing the democratization of game development further than ever before by making its basic mobile tools completely free to independent developers and small studios. Starting today, Unity's gigantic indie developer community can publish their games and apps to iOS and Android in the build menu. Publishing options for additional supported mobile platforms, such as BlackBerry and Windows Phone 8, will be included at no additional cost once they are released.
Unity, the most adopted game engine, holds a central place in the videogame industry for driving the explosive growth in independent studios. By making basic add-ons tools completely free that previously cost $800, Unity is widening the path for developers looking to take steps towards creative and fiscal freedom. Individual developers and small studios using the free version of Unity can commercialize their games without buying licenses or sharing their revenues with Unity.
"We were able to make Unity free for the web and for desktop computers a while ago, but have been dreaming of doing the same for mobile for what seems like forever," said David Helgason, CEO, Unity Technologies. "Mobile games development is possibly the most dynamic and exciting industry in the world, and it's an honor to be able to help so many developers be so successful in fulfilling their visions and in building their businesses."
With a high-powered engine rendering the most visually stunning mobile games, a deep and intuitive editor for fast-paced development, and ability to deploy across a multitude of mobile platforms, Unity has become the number one development tool for game developers.
In 2012, Game Developer Magazine conducted a survey that found 53% of mobile developers were using Unity and Apple named 17 Unity-authored mobile titles to their "Best of" awards including The Room which was named Game of the Year on iPad.
About Unity Technologies
Unity Technologies is the creator of Unity, a flexible and high-performance development platform used to make creative and intelligent interactive 3D and 2D experiences. The "author once, deploy everywhere" capability ensures developers can publish to all of the most popular platforms. Unity Technologies boasts a thriving community of over 1.8 million developers including large publishers, indie studios, students and hobbyists. To remain at the forefront of innovation, Unity Technologies tirelessly re-invests in its award-winning 3D development tools and its democratization initiatives, such as the Asset Store digital content marketplace and Union game distribution service. Unity Technologies is headquartered in San Francisco and has offices in Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Singapore, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. For more information, visit: http://unity3d.com.
Mr.M 發佈於 5月21日2013年


text:
Registration for this conference is closed.
Registration for this conference is closed.
Are there any speaking opportunities at Gartner CIO & IT Executive Summit 2020?
Opportunities to present are generally available at Gartner conferences. Please fill out the Speaking Request Form and a representative of Gartner Conferences will contact you.
What if I am interested in exhibiting at the conference?
You will need to speak with a Gartner exhibitor sales representative. If you know who this is, you can reach out to the representative directly. If you are not aware of the representative for that space, email email@example.com.
Are there any speaking opportunities at the conference?
Opportunities to present are generally available at Gartner conferences. Please fill out the Speaking Request Form and a representative of Gartner Conferences will contact you.
How do I sign up for a Gartner One-on-One meeting?
Gartner One-on-One meetings are available exclusively to paid registered full conference attendees and are not available to exhibitors or exhibitor conference session pass holders. Because of the high demand for these appointments, each attendee may reserve one 30-minute one-on-one with a Gartner expert. Preregistration for one-on-ones and small sessions are available through Gartner Conference Navigator, our online agenda-building tool on the following dates:
Am I guaranteed the expert of my choice in my one-on-one meeting?
All registered attendees have the exclusive opportunity to speak directly with one Gartner expert in a private 30-minute one-on-one meeting. Because of the high demand for particular experts, sign-up is on a first-come, first-served basis.
How do I sign up for roundtables, workshops and other sessions requiring preregistration?
Interactive sessions such as roundtables, workshops, and Meetups are available exclusively to paid registered conference attendees and are not available to exhibitors or exhibitor conference session pass holders. Because of the high demand and limited availability (up to 12 attendees per session), we recommend you register in advance for these unique sessions. Preregistration is available through Gartner Conference Navigator, our online agenda-building tool on the following dates:
Is there a list of Gartner experts who will be available at the conference?
Yes, we will have a Gartner expert guide with the list of our experts and the key areas in which they can assist clients. Please check back for the guide.
Are there any restrictions around Gartner one-on-one meetings?
Gartner one-on-one meetings are not available for vendor briefings or product demonstrations with experts. The expert reserves the right to stop the meeting if this situation occurs. Clients interested in briefing analysts may contact the Vendor Relations department by emailing firstname.lastname@example.com to schedule a meeting following the conference.
Registration for this conference is closed.
When will I have access to documentation?
Registered attendees will be informed via email as conference documentation becomes available on Gartner Conference Navigator. This email will include step-by-step instructions to access presentations and select audio-recorded sessions.
Are there returning attendee benefits?
Yes, all returning attendees have access to exclusive benefits.*
Alumni benefits bump you to the head of the line for important conference features:
*Benefits apply to returning attendees for Gartner CIO & IT Executive Summit only. Alumni benefits may vary for other Gartner conferences.
What should I do as a first-time attendee?
What is the Gartner Conference Navigator app and do I need to download it?
Gartner Conference Navigator is our mobile app (available on Android and iOs) that makes it easy for you to navigate and build your personal agenda. Download from your app store, sign in with your login details and you'll be good to go. Don't forget to opt in to receive push notifications while with us to keep informed of the latest conference updates.
Is my attendance limited if I am not currently a Gartner Research & Advisory client?
Absolutely not! As long as you have fully paid your registration fee, you have access to all conference activities open to you along with Gartner session documentation. If you're interested in becoming a Gartner client, you can visit the Gartner Zone to better understand the benefits you'll receive.
Are there limited seating sessions that I need to sign up for?
Yes, you will need to sign up in advance for some sessions, such as workshops, Meetups and roundtables. If you try to register for a session and it is listed as "full" or "closed," there is still a possibility you can attend. Once at the conference, find the room for that session and arrive there about 15 minutes prior to the session start to have your name added to the waiting list. Spaces will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis.
Bookings dates for alumni and general attendees will be confirmed soon.
What should I wear?
We suggest comfortable shoes — you'll be doing a lot of walking from your hotel room to the conference space, from session to session and navigating the Exhibit Showcase. Business casual dress is what most attendees opt for, but we also recommend that you dress in layers as the conference rooms can get chilly.
Are there any executive leadership tracks/sessions available at the conference?
Yes, there will be an exclusive CIO Circle available at the conference. Attendance requires application, attendees can apply to the Gartner CIO Circle as part of the registration process. All qualified registrants will be considered and will be granted confirmation on the basis of qualifications defined below and space availability. The program has limited capacity to facilitate the interactive, collaborative content.
Already registered? Log back into your registration profile and complete the qualifying questions.
Please note: Eligibility decisions are determined at the sole discretion of the Gartner Conferences team. You will be notified of acceptance status by email. All information you provide is strictly for Gartner internal use and will not be divulged to any third-party organization.
What is included in the CIO Circle?
Am I able to purchase a copy of the attendee list?
No. Gartner does not post or sell attendee lists. For more details, please review the registration terms and conditions.
In the conference industry, we often come across fraudulent service providers who claim to be able to offer attendee lists or discounted passes. Gartner has not authorized anyone to contact you on our behalf and we encourage you to avoid these attempts by not engaging with suspicious emails or calls as they are phishing scams. If you have been contacted by such a provider please inform Gartner at firstname.lastname@example.com.
For a list of fraudulent providers that have been reported to Gartner, please click here.


text:
Many mathematicians set their sights on conquering the stock market, with dreams of unbridled financial success. But Scott Richard, who holds degrees in Mathematics, Computer Science, and Engineering from MIT and Princeton University, has dedicated himself to solving problems that matter to the average person. Which confusingly includes using mathematics to make another attempt at composing the world's ugliest piece of music. Um, thanks Scott?
In this TED talk he describes the process of using science and mathematics to create a piece of music that's devoid of any patterns or repetition, which are usually found in pieces considered to be beautiful. Using the work of mathematician Évariste Galois and a concept known as Golomb Rulers, Richard created a piece specifically for the piano that is, admittedly, very hard on the ears. If you want to forego the technical stuff just skip ahead to the 7:38 mark in the video, turn up your speakers and prepare to have your roommates or neighbors come banging on your door. [TED via Slashdot]


text:
Google: Please Don't Kill Video on the Web
Posted by Dave Heiner
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Corporate Standards & Antitrust Group, Microsoft
Earlier today, Microsoft filed a formal competition law complaint with the European Commission (EC) against Motorola Mobility and Google. We have taken this step because Motorola is attempting to block sales of Windows PCs, our Xbox game console and other products. Their offense? These products enable people to view videos on the Web and to connect wirelessly to the Internet using industry standards.
You probably take for granted that you can view videos on your smartphone, tablet, PC, or DVD/Blu-ray player and connect to the Internet without being tied to a cable. That works because the industry came together years ago to define common technical standards that every firm can use to build compatible products for video and Wi-Fi.Motorola and all the other firms that contributed to these standards also made a promise to one another: that if they had any patents essential to the standards, they would make their patents available on fair and reasonable terms, and would not use them to block competitors from shipping their products.
Motorola has broken its promise. Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn't seem to be willing to change course.
In legal proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft take its products off the market, or else remove their standards-based ability to play video and connect wirelessly. The only basis for these actions is that these products implement industry standards, on which Motorola claims patents. Yet when the industry adopted these standards, we all were counting on Motorola and every contributor to live up to their promises. Watching video on the Web is one of the primary uses of computers these days. And we've all grown accustomed to "anytime, anywhere" access to the Internet, often made possible by the Wi-Fi standard. Imagine what a step back it would be if we could no longer watch videos on our computing devices or connect via Wi-Fi, or if only some products, but not others, had these capabilities. That would defeat the whole purpose of an industry standard.
The European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice are both focused on this problem. At the urging of competition law officials, Microsoft recently announced that it will not seek injunctions against other firms' products on the basis of standard essential products (and Microsoft had never done so). Apple and Cisco made similar statements. Unfortunately, Google refused. Not surprisingly, the European Commission does not seem to be satisfied. Joaquin Almunia, the European Union's Competition Commissioner, said "I can assure you that the Commission will take further action if warranted to ensure that the use of standard essential patents by all players in the sector is fully compliant with EU competition law and with the FRAND commitments given to standard setting organisations." The Department of Justice issued a similar statement. We know other companies in the industry share our concerns. Last week, Apple filed its own complaint against Motorola with the European Commission.
There is an obvious way out of all this. Motorola should honor its promises, and make its standard essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Microsoft is certainly prepared to pay a fair and reasonable price for use of others' intellectual property. Within just the past few years, Microsoft has entered into more than a thousand patent licenses. We know how it's done.
Unfortunately, Motorola has refused to make its patents available at anything remotely close to a reasonable price. For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264. As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms. Microsoft's patent royalty to this group on that $1,000 laptop?
Two cents.
That's right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a nice volume discount, but no firm has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents.
And that is for a mid-level, $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows. But the high-end laptop will have a bigger hard drive, more memory, perhaps a titanium case—and Motorola is demanding a hefty royalty on all of this, even though none of these features implements Motorola's video patents.
Imagine if every firm acted like Motorola. Windows implements more than 60 standards, and a PC supports about 200. If every firm priced its standard essential patents like Motorola, the cost of the patents would be greater than all the other costs combined in making PCs, tablets, smartphones and other devices. Obviously, this would greatly increase the prices of these devices for consumers.
How does Motorola justify this pricing, for so few patents? In German court proceedings earlier this month, Motorola's economics expert likened Motorola's patents to bullets: "It only takes one bullet to kill," he testified. At least we know what this particular lawsuit is trying to accomplish.
Google says that it is just trying to protect manufacturers of Android devices against patent actions by Microsoft and others. But there are big differences between Google's approach and Microsoft's. Microsoft is not seeking to block Android manufacturers from shipping products on the basis of standard essential patents. Rather, Microsoft is focused on infringement of patents that it has not contributed to any industry standard. And Microsoft is making its patents—standard essential and otherwise—available to all Android manufacturers on fair and reasonable terms. In fact, more than 70 percent of Android devices are now licensed to use Microsoft's patent portfolio.
Google has a chance to make a change. For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products. Every firm that is willing to pay a fair royalty ought to be able to implement industry standards. Adherence to this basic point is essential to keeping computer costs down and preserving the Internet as an open, interoperable platform.
Google's unwillingness so far to make this commitment is very concerning. That's why you can pretty well count on a chorus from across the industry: "Google: Please don't kill video on the Web."


text:
Summer fruit crisp cooked in the most summery way
Published 12:00 am Wednesday, August 20, 2014
When we think "hot off the grill," we usually think about something meaty. But this time of year I also like to grill desserts!
In late summer, I make this grilled fruit crisp every week. It is good with whatever fruit you find at the market, ripe and ready to be mixed with a little bit of sugar, citrus and cinnamon. The addition of orange liqueur is optional, but one that I always opt for as it makes a big difference. If you don't have any orange liqueur, a bit of bourbon is nice, too.
Since the topping of the crisp is everyone's favorite part of the dessert, I add oatmeal and pecans to the classic butter-flour-sugar blend to make it even crunchier and more substantial.
When you toss the fruit with the sugar and cornstarch, be sure to mix well and let the fruit sit for 5 minutes to bring out the natural juices, then mix again. And when baking, make sure you bake it long enough for the cornstarch and fruit juices to bubble up and turn opaque or your crisp will taste slightly raw and gritty instead of silky smooth.
The dessert is made for easy entertaining since you can assemble it early in the day and grill it just before you want to eat it. You also could bake it in advance and serve it at room temperature.
Generally, I put the crisp on the grill over indirect medium heat right when I take the meat off the grill. That way, it is bubbling and hot when everyone is ready for dessert and I love the drama of lifting the lid off the grill in front of my guests. And of course this crisp is best served with a heaping scoop of vanilla ice cream!
I make this crisp most often with a combination of berries, but almost any combination of fruit is delicious. Aim for a total of 8 to 10 cups of sliced fruit.
Start to finish: 1 hour
Servings: 8
For the streusel topping:
• 1 cup packed light
brown sugar
• 1 cup all-purpose flour
• 1 cup regular or quick-
cooking oatmeal
(not instant)
• 1/2 cup coarsely
chopped pecans
• 1 teaspoon cinnamon
• 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
• 3/4 cup (11/2 sticks)
unsalted butter, softened,
cut into small pieces
For the filling:
• 3 cups strawberries, halved
• 3 cups blueberries
• 2 cups blackberries
or raspberries
• Zest and juice of 1 orange
• Zest and juice of 1 lemon
• 1/2 cup granulated sugar,
more or less, depending on
sweetness of the fruit
• 1/4 cup cornstarch
• 1 teaspoon cinnamon
• 2 to 3 tablespoons orange
liqueur (optional)
•Vanilla ice cream, to serve
Prepare a grill for medium heat, indirect cooking. For a charcoal grill, this means banking the hot coals to one side of the grill and cooking on the other side. For a gas grill, this means turning off one or more burners to create a cooler side, then cooking on that side.
To make the topping, in a large bowl combine all ingredients except the butter. Mix well. Add the butter, then use a pastry blender or forks to work it in until the mixture resembles large, coarse breadcrumbs. Set aside.
To make the filling, in a second large bowl combine all ingredients, mixing gently. Set aside for 5 minutes.
Place the berry mixture in an oven-safe 4-quart round casserole or souffle dish, or a 9-by-13-inch casserole dish. Crumble the streusel mixture evenly over the fruit. Place the crisp over the cooler side of the grill, cover the grill and cook for 35 to 45 minutes, or until bubbly and the top is browned. Transfer the baking dish to a cooling rack. Serve warm with vanilla ice cream, if desired.
Nutrition information per serving: 540 calories; 210 calories from fat (39 percent of total calories); 24 g fat (12 g saturated; 0.5 g trans fats); 45 mg cholesterol; 80 g carbohydrate; 7 g fiber; 50 g sugar; 5 g protein; 135 mg sodium.


text:
Bob Costas, an admitted ignoramus on the issue of the Second Amendment, chose halftime in a nationally broadcast football game to infect the world with his uneducated opinion on gun rights.
Speaking about Jovan Belcher, the NFL player who killed his girlfriend then committed suicide, Costas missed the point completely — as did the equally ignorant sports columnist Jason Whitlock. It wasn't "loose gun laws" that sparked this tragedy. If anything, it had to do with how we treat celebrities.
Costas and Whitlock have the right to their opinions — and the Democrat Media Complex has the right to amplify them. My problem wasn't with either of them having an opinion, opinions are like ignorant sports media — every network has one — my problem was with the immediate authority the Democrat Media Complex granted them both on the issue. People should have opinions, but uneducated ones should not be advanced by a media operating under the guise of informing the public.
Journalists were falling all over themselves seeking comment from them as if they knew something no one else did simply because those journalists think the same way. Much like an unknown, unaccomplished Georgetown law student named Sandra Fluke was granted gravitas by the media as an informed, accomplished, relevant activist simply because she agreed to participate in a Democratic press event on Capitol Hill about how strong, independent women need government to pay for their contraception, Costas became an expert on "gun culture."
But was gun culture the problem here? Or celebrity culture? Most NFL fans probably never had heard of Javon Belcher before this incident. But the yes men, the people who suck up to celebrities to help them spend their money and have their fun, know who he was.
They make it their business to know. They attach themselves to the best high school and college athletes, then wait for the money to roll in. They try to stop the celebrity athlete from doing too much to compromise his earning potential. But beyond that, anything goes. After all, they aren't called restraint men. "Stars" can go years without ever hearing the word "no."
The singer Chris Brown knows what I mean. He recently got into a Twitter fight with a female comedy writer named Jenny Johnson. In the course of this "war," Brown reverted to the misogynist's security blanket — making overt sexual comments that were nasty and violent in nature. None of this is out of the ordinary for Twitter — I get nasty, threatening tweets regularly. Some people are simply incapable of disagreement or educated confrontation.
But most people aren't famous…and most people don't have Chris Brown's past. As much as he's known for his music, Brown is known for beating his then (and apparently now) girlfriend, the singer Rihanna. You'd think it would occur to someone with that well-known past it might not be a good idea to engage in misogynistic behavior on Twitter when you can simply ignore it. Failing that, you'd think at least once the people around him would advise him to pump the breaks on the misogyny in view of his past. But nooooo.
There are thousands of examples of celebrities acting in such a way that would have invited public scorn or shunning just a few decades ago. Think back on why we know who people like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are in the first place. It's not for accomplishment. The life story of Lindsay Lohan is one that should shame any parent, not have them trying to out-drink their kid while playing rock, paper, scissors to see who gets the last shot of Jägermeister before last call.
As celebrity has "Jersey Shore-d" from something earned to something given, the world has more yes men. The younger any level of celebrity is achieved, as in the case of Jovan Belcher, the less likely it is that "star" has ever been told "no" on anything. Just like children raised in a "participation trophy" culture who are unprepared for life in the competitive "real world" of business, people such as Belcher have no idea how to deal with real problems when they arise because they've been insulated from so many of them by the people around them.
Obviously not every person has it in them to beat or murder their girlfriend, but it wasn't known to be in Brown or Belcher until they did it. And until they did it they probably walked up to and crossed many lines of societal norms many times we never heard of.
Bob Costas, Jason Whitlock or anyone else can blame whatever they like, but until we as a society stop elevating existing over accomplishment and celebrating people for spectacles that once were shunned, the actions of public figures will continue to shock…until they no longer do. Which is the real danger.
Derek Hunter is Washington, DC based writer, radio host and political strategist.: You can also stalk his thoughts 140 characters at a time on Twitter.


text: Just hours after the U.S. consulate came under attack in Libya, resulting in the death of the U.S. ambassador and three of his colleagues, YouTube blocked access to an anti-Islam video that sparked protests in Egypt and Libya. The video, which was made in America and crudely characterized the Prophet Mohammed, understandably offended many Muslims. It would appear that the decision by Google – which owns YouTube – was based not on an order by either government but on its own concerns. "We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," YouTube said in a statement. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video — which is widely available on the web — is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt we have temporarily restricted access in both countries. Our hearts are with the families of the people murdered in yesterday's attack in Libya." Although the video remains accessible for the rest of the world, users in Egypt and Libya will, upon attempting to access it, encounter a message that it is not available in their jurisdiction. This is the same mechanism used when a copyright holder restricts content to a certain country. Anti-Islam filmmaker questioned Although restricting the video in the two countries might seem tempting in the wake of the horrific violence that occurred in Libya, it is in the best interest of neither the company nor, arguably, the citizens of those countries for Google to be the arbiter of acceptability. When it comes to copyrighted content, YouTube is required to abide by the law, specifically the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows a copyright holder to report content posted by other users as belonging to them (it also allows for a rebuttal). YouTube has also taken down content under informal pressure from governments, such as in 2010, when it removed clips reportedly linked to al Qaeda after a speech in which British Security Minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones stated that such videos "incite cold-blooded murder and as such are contrary to the public good." When it comes to that type of content or the content in the video in question, the fact of the matter is that there are few regulations by which YouTube must abide. In the United States, the content of the video would be deemed protected under the First Amendment. As an American company, YouTube itself also has a right to speech, which includes the right to make its own policies regarding what types of speech it deems appropriate to host. Those policies have come under fire before. In 2007, a Turkish court ordered YouTube to be blocked in the country after the company refused to take down videos deemed insulting to the country's founder; the ban was reversed two years later. YouTube faced a similar ban in Pakistan in 2010 after refusing to take down cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed. But while some governments think YouTube is too lax, some of its users have felt it is too restrictive. Egyptian human rights activist Wael Abbas found his account deactivated in 2007 after posting violent content depicting police brutality in his country. Eventually, his account was restored and YouTube shifted its policies in response to his and other users' complaints, allowing content containing violence to be posted under an exception for videos that are "educational" or "documentary" in nature. This policy later enabled activists in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and elsewhere to post documentation of regime violence. In the current case, YouTube has stated that the video does not violate its terms of service. So if the video does not violate the company's rules and YouTube didn't receive an order from the two countries' governments (as far as we know), then the only explanation is that YouTube is determining on its own what serves the best interest of Libyans and Egyptians. This is, indeed, a rare move from the company and may eventually backfire. News: Protests calm, but tensions still high Take another case from this year. When Pakistan blocked Twitter after the company refused to take down offensive content, citizens were outraged, fearing it as a precursor to censorship during the election period. Had Twitter simply taken down the content, the story would have slipped by without notice; instead, the outrage of citizens forced the government to reverse its decision in less than a day. Google should take the lead from Twitter, a smaller and younger company that, when faced with similar concerns, has stood strong, issuing a policy stating that content would be "withheld" in a certain country only in the face of a valid legal order and that the ban would be communicated transparently to all users. Instead, by placing itself in the role of arbiter, Google is now vulnerable to demands from a variety of parties and will have to explain why it sees censorship as the right solution in some cases but not in others. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion Join us on \n \n Facebook/CNNOpinion


text:
The Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger has played down suggestions he is about to make a loan move for the Real Madrid starlet Álvaro Morata and admits he could do without the disruption of the January transfer window altogether.
The Gunners are on the lookout for some attacking cover following a serious knee injury which has ruled the England forward Theo Walcott out for the rest of the season and the World Cup.
The imminent return of Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain from his own five-month lay-off with a knee injury and the emergence of Serge Gnabry does at least provide Wenger with wide options. But Arsenal would nevertheless like to bring in some support for the lead frontman Olivier Giroud, who is set to return from an ankle problem and illness in Monday night's Premier League match at Aston Villa.
The Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti insisted following his side's Copa del Rey tie against Osasuna, where the 21-year-old came on as a late substitute, that he had no interest in allowing Morata out on a loan move.
Wenger also appeared to pour cold water on the rumours when he spoke to the media at London Colney on Friday morning, and indicated his focus was very much on the players he currently has at his disposal.
"Nothing has changed because we are open to a possible solution and if something interesting turns up we will do it. It could be a loan as well yes," said Wenger. "We are not in talks, with Real about anybody.
"I do not want to speak about any specific names. For us it is important to prepare well for Monday night and to win the game on Monday night. The people who are in the newspapers do not help us to win the game on Monday night. It is the players who play here."
Wenger added: "The transfer market is a distraction that for me is not welcome. I think it would be much better that there is no transfer market at all in January and the team starts and finishes with the same players would be fair unless you have big injuries.
"For the rest what is important is that we focus on the quality of our performances because it's a period that is very sensitive at the moment and every game is now a massive game."
Wenger is confident Walcott can make a full recovery, but ruled out any hopes of a 'miracle cure' in time to save his 2014 World Cup dream. "There are always people who (claim to) make miracles, but when you make more inquiries they never had surgeries of a football player who is a top athlete to prove their statement is right," said the Arsenal manager.
"We have enough experience on cruciate (ligament injuries) to know that the minimum time is six months to come back."
Wenger added: "We know deep studies show that the players around 25 with that kind of injury, they come back as normal. When you are over 30, over 29, you do not ever come back exactly the same, but between 25 and 28 you come back to the level you had before."
Wenger feels Walcott's character can see him recover from another personal setback, having not been selected for the 2010 World Cup by the then England manager Fabio Capello.
"What he has said to me is that he is under shock, but he will fight as ever to come back," said Wenger. "He is strong mentally and if you look at his career, he has had a few setbacks, a few disappointments.
"To be left out in South Africa was certainly a massive blow to him and he always recovered from it in a very strong way. I am confident he will do so again. I have said we will be on his side and support him as much as we can."
Arsenal head to Aston Villa on Monday looking to re-establish their position at the top of the table, which is under threat should Chelsea and Manchester City both win.
The midfielder Tomas Rosicky maintains the Gunners have the maturity to last the distance through to May. The veteran Czech playmaker has impressed in his preferred role linking defence and attack.
Wenger indicated the 33-year-old will be offered a contract extension past the end of the season. "Tomas Rosicky will stay here at the end of the season. He is a marvellous player and contributes well to the team," said Wenger.
"He is certainly a typical Arsenal player in the way that he is mobile, technically sound and team orientated, so he is a fantastic football player."


text:
Bacon Cheddar Bites Adapted from Kraft
64 Triscuit Thin Crisps crackers
8 oz. shredded cheddar cheese
1/2 c. mayo
1/2 c. real bacon bits
3 tsp. onion powder
Preheat oven broiler. Place crackers on a baking sheet. In a medium bowl combine mayo, cheese, bacon bits and onion powder. Mix well. Top crackers with about 1/4 tsp of cheese mixture. Broil for 2 minutes until hot and bubbly.
Shared on The Country Cook Jan. 4, 2013
Shared on Make Ahead Meals Jan. 7, 2013
Shared on Make Ahead Meals Jan. 7, 2013
|Featured On
Bacon at Very Good Recipes
Pin It


text:
Town Square
Best Cell Phone Coverage???
Original post made by NoCell, Birdland, on Aug 8, 2008
Comments (15)
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 8, 2008 at 9:23 pm
AT&T Wireless, because they already had their cells in place before Pleasanton decided to ban new towers within so many feet of public parks. My company once switched cell service to T-Mobile and later I got them to switch me back to AT&T Wireless. Even so, I believe there is a dead zone further in the middle of Birdland.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm
AT&T works well for cell phones. For internet though, use Comcast (we had a lot of problems with the AT&T internet service).
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2008 at 9:00 pm
AT&T.....great service
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I'm shocked to see us recommended 3 out of 3. We're (IMHO) one of the biggest, yet poorest cell providers out there. Coverage sucks.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 10, 2008 at 7:03 pm
We're talking about coverage in The Gates, not "out there".
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2008 at 6:25 am
You only use your phone in "The Gates?" Overall coverage should be of concern, not just that which you achieve in your happy little neighborhoods. Not to mention customer service. Both of which AT&T lacks.
BTW NoCell, is it all phones or just a few that can not get reception in your house? Sometimes it's the handset, not the signal.
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 11, 2008 at 7:48 am
The original poster asked the question about coverage in my happy little neighborhood. Perhaps that person, like me at the time, spent the majority of their cellphone usage time at home. My company paid for my cell phone so I didn't use my home line. The cell was a necessary means of contacting me while I worked at home and also while I was on-call 24x7 (a cellphone on vibrate under the pillow at 3am in the morning doesn't wake the whole house). So the overriding concern of this class of consumers is not coverage overall, but coverage in this neighborhood. The PW ran an article or editorial a number of years ago about the lack of cell phone coverage in Birdland and it was mentioned in that article about people wanting to use their cellphones while working from home (which an increasing number of people do). I wish I could find it.
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Aug 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I don't spend much time in the Birdland area, but live and do business in several locations in Pleasanton. It was about three years ago I left AT&T due to poor coverage in my home and too many dropped calls overall. The switch to Verizon has been a great move as in general they have the best overall coverage along the 680 corridor. The recent test has been a Blackberry my company gave me recently that has AT&T as the carrier. I am reminded now why I left AT&T as the coverage is still average at best, and on numerous occasions I have had to swtich over to my personal Verizon phone after a bad call with my AT&T phone.
Take a look at both regional and national cell carrier consumer surveys and you will see Verizon always comes out on top for good reason.
a resident of Birdland
on Aug 11, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I've have AT&T, Verizon, and I currently have Sprint. None of the carriers have great coverage in Birdland. I usually have to go out on the patio or near the window to get more than 3 bars.
Sprint has probably been the best, but it could also be that the phone has better reception.
Web Link
Web Link
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Most of Birdland is a big dead zone.
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 11, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Maybe the people in Birdland should get that guy that runs around saying "Can you hear me now" to come through their neighborhood....:)
a resident of Downtown
on Aug 12, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If you've got a cellphone provider which your phone can pick-up while under your pillow at 3am... you should let us all know who's your provider! [awkward sentence, eh?] Yanno what I mean??
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 13, 2008 at 7:28 am
My cell phone works just fine in Pleasanton (including in Birdland) - it also works great in other countries, and I use ATT. I have used other carriers but always went back to ATT because it was the only reliable service for me. The internet service is a different story (in my case) - we had so many problems with the ATT service, and we could never get reliable service, that we decided to switch to Comcast, and that works very well.
a resident of Ridgeview Commons
on Jun 4, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
a resident of Ridgeview Commons
on Jun 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from PleasantonWeekly.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.
Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,157 views
Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance grew from chance meeting
By Tim Hunt | 1 comment | 411 views


text:
- Title: Scenarios: Land use hot 2050
The data consist in a set of GIS maps representing the LU for the total area of the black sea basin for the years 2025 and 2050 per each scenario (HOT, ALONE, COOP, COOL). More information about scenario storyline description is reachable in previous delivery D3.7:
Each map of LU is subdivided into 10 classes where crops/natural vegetation, shrubland, barren or sparsely vegetated, forest, grassland, croplands and urban and built-up areas, changing along the years and water, snow and ice and permanent wetlands remain fixed.
Citation: Mancosu, E., Gago da Silva, A., de Bono, A., Barbosa, A., Ivanov, E., Lehmann, A., Fons, J., 2014. Future land use change scenarios for the Black Sea Basin. Environment Science and Policy.
- Publication Date: Dec. 13, 2013, midnight
- Type: Raster Data
- Keywords: envirogrids, bs_hot, scenario, land use,
- Category: environment
- Owner: geonodeadm
- Point of Contact: geonodeadm
- Restrictions: The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of enviroGRIDS consortium concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The enviroGRIDS scenarios comprise a number of plausible alternatives (storylines) based on a coherent set of assumptions, key relationships and driving f...
- Language: English
- Temporal Extent: Jan. 3, 2050 - Jan. 2, 2050
- Data Quality: ---
Supplemental Information:
The LU scenarios are the results of combining several driving forces like demographic and biophysical factors with different storylines derived from the fram...


text:
Who Is the Best Team in the NFC? — Sports Survey of the Day
The NFC playoff matchups didn't get decided until the final game of the season. Which team has what it takes to bring home that Lombardi Trophy?
The Minnesota Vikings played spoiler to the rival Chicago Bears with a win over the Green Bay Packers, setting up a first-round rematch. Can Green Bay bring the Lombardi Trophy back home?
If someone told you at the start of the season that the Seattle Seahawks and the Washington Redskins would be in the playoffs, you would have laughed at him. But those two teams will face each other in round one next Sunday.
Last season ended in disappointing fashion for the San Francisco 49ers, with a loss in the NFC Championship game to the Giants. They have another shot this year as the two seed.
The top team is no surprise. The Atlanta Falcons were an early favorite and lived up to those expectations by earning the number one seed in the NFC.