text:
Symmetry of R&D tables with respect to type of performer and sources of funds. As mentioned in the General Notes, a new feature of this report is that the first four appendix tables are symmetrically arranged to allow for direct comparisons of R&D data organized in two ways: (1) by performer first and then by source, or (2) by source first and then by performer. The first case effectively asks, "what type of organization performs the R&D, and for that type of performer, from what kinds of organizations does it receive its funding?" The second case effectively asks, "what type of organization provides funding for R&D, and to which kinds of performers does it provide those funds?"
For example, the upper left-hand corners of appendix tables B-1A and B-2A are displayed below, which represent cases 1 and 2, respectively. In table B-1A, the column for the Federal Government as a performer, as defined in the first row, is not subdivided because the Federal Government is the only source of funds for Federal intramural research. Industry performance, in contrast, is subdivided by the two main sources of industrial performance-the Federal Government and industry's own funds.
In table B-1B, on the other hand, the Federal Government as a source defines a column in the first row, which is subdivided into several columns in the second row for the performers that receive those funds, such as the Federal Government itself and industry.
The third row of each table provides the column number for appendix table B-6, containing annual historical data from 1953--98 (where data for 1997 and 1998 are preliminary). Note, for instance, that, in appendix tableĀB-1A, industrial performance that is funded by Federal support is designated as column "[4]" in appendix table B-6. In appendix table B-1B, Federal support that is directed to industry performers is also designated as column "[4]" because these two concepts are identically equal, and thus, they are represented by the same column in appendix table B-6. In fact, whenever one column of an appendix table contains the same column-number designation as that of another column in another table, both columns are identical in definition. This aspect of the column-number designations was deliberately designed in order to reduce uncertainty among researchers when deciding which columns of data to use.
Appendix tables B-2 through B-4 are structured in exactly the same manner as appendix table B-1, but they refer to basic research, applied research, and development, respectively, rather than total R&D (the sum of those three components).
A separate methodological report to accompany National Patterns of R&D Resources. This and previous National Patterns reports contained broad descriptions of how data were compiled, how estimates were made, and how these methods have been revised over the years. As the amount of information in the report has grown, however, and as methods have become more complicated in many cases, it was determined that the provision of such information should not be subject to the space limitations that normally exist in the creation of the National Patterns report. Therefore, the Division of Science Resources staff is now producing a separate document, entitled Methodology and Procedures Underlying the National Patterns Report.
The new methodological report will differ from the kind of methodological information previously provided within earlier National Patterns reports in the following ways:
The National Science Foundation (NSF) follows a four-sector division in reporting research and development (R&D) funds and personnel and maintaining time-series data on expenditures and employment. The sectors are: (1) industry, (2) the Federal Government, (3) universities and colleges, and (4) other nonprofit organizations. They are described in more detail below. Data also are collected for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), which are organizations exclusively or substantially financed by the Federal Government to meet a particular requirement or to provide major facilities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered either by an industrial firm, an individual university, a university consortium, or a nonprofit institution.
Federal Government. This sector consists of the agencies of the Federal Government.
Industry. This sector consists of both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing companies. Manufacturing companies are reported by major industry groupings. Nonmanufacturing companies include those in mining, construction, transportation, communications, and selected service industries such as R&D laboratories and computer and data processing services. Performance of FFRDCs administered by industrial firms generally is included in industry totals, although FFRDC breakouts are available and reported separately from R&D totals. Industry's funding of industry R&D includes all funds received from non-federal sources (e.g., from state and local governments).
Universities and Colleges. This sector consists of all institutions of higher education, both public and private. Expenditures of FFRDCs administered by universities and colleges are reported separately from totals for this sector. University funding of university R&D includes: restricted or general funds that the institutions themselves have been free to allocate for research. Funds from the Federal Government, industry, state governments, or other nonprofit institutions, which are supplied in the form of grants or contracts for R&D at a university, are credited to the appropriate source. For example, research contracts from industry are treated as university performance funded by industry. Funds given to the institution by industry for general educational purposes and used by the schoolat its discretionfor research are treated as university performance financed with the university's own funds.
Other Nonprofit Institutions. This sector consists of institutions that fall into two general groups: (1)Āorganizations that are primarily granting in nature-i.e., private philanthropic foundations and voluntary health agencies; and (2) public and private organizations involved in performing R&D, including FFRDCs administered by nonprofit organizations.
Research and Development. In this report R&D consists of basic and applied research in the sciences (including medical sciences) and in engineering and activities in development, all defined below.
The Federal, university, and nonprofit sectors include data for the broad fields of physical sciences, environmental sciences, mathematical sciences, computer sciences, life sciences, psychology, social sciences, engineering, and an all-inclusive "other sciences" category. Industry coverage is limited to: (1) the physical sciences, including related engineering and (2) the biological sciences, including medicine but excluding psychology. Industry R&D specifically excludes research in the social sciences.
Basic Research. Within the Federal, university, and nonprofit sectors, basic research is defined as research directed toward increases in knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific application toward processes or products in mind. For the industry sector, basic research projects are defined as "original investigations for the advancement of scientific knowledge . . . which do not have specific commercial objectives, although they may be in fields of present or potential interest to the reporting company."
Applied Research. Within the Federal, university, and nonprofit sectors, applied research is defined as research directed toward gaining ". . . knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met." The applied research definition for the industry sector is modified to include ". . . research projects which represent investigations directed to discovery of new scientific knowledge and which have specific commercial objectives with respect to either products or processes."
Development. The NSF survey definition of development is ". . . the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes." It excludes quality control, routine product testing, and production.
This report contains data on: (1) the estimated percentage distribution of total U.S. R&D performance by national objective (table B-9) and (2) the reported distribution of Federal R&D authority by budget function (table B-10). The performer-based U.S. shares differ from the Federal budget authority shares for several reasons. The U.S. shares are based on expenditures reported by performers, which often spends Federal R&D funds in a year other than the one in which the Federal Government provided authorization, obligations, or outlays. In addition, the two series are based on different concepts. For example, whereas in the U.S. series all of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) R&D funds are considered to be expenditures for space R&D, the budget authority data are distributed according to the functional categories that constitute the Federal budget. Thus, NASA's R&D budget authorizations are distributed between the space research and technology function and the transportation function.
"Defense R&D" consists of R&D spending by the Department of Defense (DoD) and defense-related atomic energy programs of the Department of Energy. All DoD activities are classified as defense, although some activities have secondary objectives (for example, space). "Space R&D" consists of R&D spending by NASA. All industry-funded R&D is classified as civilian R&D, including expenditures by aerospace and electronic industries.
Funds used for R&D refer to current operating costs. These costs consist of both direct and indirect costs. They include not only salaries, but also fringe benefits, materials, supplies, and overhead. The R&D costs include depreciation, insofar as this information is available to respondents. Capital expenditures are excluded by definition in the surveys of the industry and academic sectors. Under the accounting practices of some Federal agencies, obligations for capital items may be included.
For universities and colleges, R&D data are for separately budgeted expenditures only. Consequently, these data exclude that portion of salaries for research time or other research expenses financed by funds not specifically earmarked for R&D from state and local governments and other non-federal sources, including endowments.
Intramural R&D performance by Federal agencies refers to work carried on directly by agency personnel. Federal obligations reported under this category are for activities performed by the reporting agency itself or represent funds that the agency transfers to another Federal agency for performance of work, as long as the ultimate performer is that agency or any other Federal agency. If the ultimate performer is not a Federal agency, the survey questionnaire requests that the funds so transferred be reported by the transferring agency under the appropriate extramural performer category (universities and colleges, other nonprofit institutions, or industrial firms). Accurate identification of the ultimate performer is not always made.
Intramural activities cover not only the actual intramural R&D performance, but also the costs associated with the planning and administration of both intramural and extramural programs by Federal personnel. Intramural activities also include the costs of supplies and equipment, essentially of an "off-the-shelf" nature, that are procured for use in intramural R&D. For example, the purchase from an extramural source of an operational launch vehicle (i.e., one that has gone beyond the development or prototype stage) that is used for intramural performance of R&D is reported as a part of the cost of intramural R&D.
In the tables and figures of this report, the term "current dollars" refers to dollar amounts as they are measured and exchanged in the actual year, or years, in question. In contrast, "constant dollars" refers to dollar amounts normalized for inflation. For example, if the same dollar amount is reported for two different years, and expressed as "current dollars," then fewer actual goods and services could be purchased with that amount in the most recent year than in the earlier year, because of inflation. If the same amount is expressed as "constant dollars," then it would be normalized for inflation in both years and, consequently, the same purchasing power would exist in each of the 2 years. Terms that are equal in meaning to "current" and "constant" dollars are, respectively, "nominal" and "real" dollars. These terms are also used to describe changes in dollar amounts over time. For instance, suppose a particular type of expenditure, when expressed in constant dollars, grew at a rate of 5 percent, per year, over a 10-year period. Such growth may be described as 5-percent growth "in real terms," or equivalently, "real growth" of 5 percent, meaning the constant-dollar amounts grew at a 5-percent rate, while the current dollar amounts grew at a greater rate due to inflation.
In keeping with U.S. Government and international standards, R&D trend data usually are deflated to 1992 constant dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) implicit price deflator. (See table B-5.) Since GDP deflators are calculated on an economy-wide rather than R&D-specific basis, their use more accurately reflects an "opportunity cost" criterion, rather than a measure of cost changes in doing research. That is, the GDP deflator, when applied to R&D expenditure or funding data, reflects the value of R&D in terms of the amount of other goods and services that could have been purchased with the same amount of money. The constant dollar figures reported here thus should be interpreted as real resources foregone in engaging in R&D rather than in other activities such as consumption or physical investment.
Broad-based deflatorssuch as the GDP deflatorcould also be useful in approximating changes in the costs of conducting R&D activities.[1] However, these deflators are less appropriate for calculating real R&D costs at a disaggregated level, e.g., in estimating the costs over time of conducting the level of R&D within a particular science or engineering subfield. In addition, even when an opportunity cost criterion is used, the usefulness of the deflator is constrained by the length of the time span examined-the longer the time span, the less meaningful the deflator. That is, over long spans of time, such as 20Āyears, dramatic changes in the makeup of goods and services create ambiguities in the interpretation and measurement of quality change, which in turn, adversely affect the ultimate reliability of price deflators.[2]
As mentioned in the General Notes, all dollar amounts reported in the main text (as opposed to the tables or figures) are in current dollars. However, all growth rates reported are in "real terms," i.e., they were calculated based on the corresponding real values (in constant 1992 dollars) of the reported current dollars.
Comparisons in this report of U.S. and international R&D expenditure data are based on reported R&D investments converted to U.S. dollars using "purchasing power parity" (PPP) exchange rates. PPP exchange rates are designed to reflect differences in the purchasing power of currencies, based on the quantity of currency needed in order to purchase equivalent quantities of actual goods and services in the countries in question. That is, PPP exchange rates reflect real purchasing power, in the same sense that "real dollars," described above, control for inflation. The PPP exchange rates used are generally not equivalent to "market exchange rates," i.e., how much one currency would cost if one were to buy it (with another currency) from a financial institution. This is because market exchange rates are often influenced by factors other than real purchasing power, namely the relative supply of, and demand for, different currencies in international financial markets. A PPP exchange rate would not be equivalent to an ideal "R&D exchange rate," which does not exist at present, but would, in theory, account for international differences in R&D costs alone. Nevertheless, the PPP exchange rate is generally better at reflecting differences in R&D costs between countries than a market exchange rate.
There is no single survey of R&D activity in the United States. Rather, NSF sponsors a series of surveys to collect data on the financial and human resources devoted to R&D in the various sectors of the U.S. economy (defined above). Although these surveys are not designed specifically for this purpose, they provide the primary source material for estimating the national R&D totals. Respondents indicate the amounts they spend on R&D in their own sector and, generally, the sources of these funds. To the greatest extent possible, national totals are based on data as reported by performers because they are in the best position to: (1) indicate how much they spent in the actual conduct of R&D in a given year; (2)Āclassify their work as basic, applied, etc.; and (3)Āidentify the sector of the economy in which their financing originated. For those reasons, and because the consistent use of performer reporting reduces the possibility of double-counting and conforms to international standards (as outlined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), R&D data are presented on a performer basis whenever possible.
Separate R&D performance totals are reported for: (1) the Federal Government, (2) industry, (3) industry-administered FFRDCs, (4) universities and colleges, (5)Āuniversity-administered FFRDCs, (6) other nonprofit organizations, and (7) nonprofit-administered FFRDCs. R&D performed by state and local government agencies is not included in the national R&D totals. When state and local governments are listed by a survey respondent as the source of non-federal R&D funds, those amounts are included in the source totals of the sector reporting the R&D performance, except for university performance in which state funding is listed separately. For example, state-government support of industrial R&D is counted under industry's own support for industrial R&D.
Federal Performance Expenditures. Federal agency R&D obligations for intramural performance are treated as the equivalent of R&D expenditures in the National Patterns series. As detailed in the Federal Funds for Research and Development series (Federal Funds), such intramural activities cover costs associated with the planning and administration by Federal personnel of intramural and extramural R&D programs as well as actual intramural R&D performance. (See NSF/SRS, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1996, 1997, and 1998, Detailed Statistical Tables, NSF 99-332.) In general, the universe of Federal agencies with R&D programs has been surveyed annually since 1953 for their R&D performance, and since 1963 for the distribution of R&D by character of work. The most recent survey included R&D funding as reported by more than 300 reporting sites aggregated into 94 individual respondents from 31 Federal agencies or their subdivisions.
Federal Agencies as a Source of R&D Funding. NSF collects data on federally financed R&D from both Federal funding agencies and performers of the work (Federal labs, industry, universities, and other nonprofit organizations). As reported by Federal agencies, National Patterns uses data on Federal R&D budget authority and outlays, in addition to Federal obligations. The use of each series is clearly noted in the text.
Budget authority is the primary source of legal authorization to enter into financial obligations that will result in outlays. Budget authority most commonly is granted in the form of appropriations laws enacted by Congress with the approval of the President.[3]
Obligations represent the amounts for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when the funds were appropriated and when future payment of money is required.
Outlays represent the amounts for checks issued and cash payments made during a given period, regardless of when the funds were appropriated or obligated.
For the reasons above cited, national R&D expenditure totals are constructed primarily based on data reported by performers and include estimates of Federal R&D funding to these sectors. But before performer-reported survey data on Federal R&D expenditures are available from industry and academia, data collected from the Federal agency funders of R&D are used to project R&D performance. When survey data from the performers subsequently are tabulated, these statistics replace the projections that were based on the funders' expectations. Historically, the two survey systems tracked fairly closely. For example, in calendar-year 1980 performers reported using $29.9 billion in Federal R&D funding, and Federal agencies reported total R&D funding in fiscal year 1980 between $29.2 billion in outlays and $29.8 billion in obligations. In recent years, the two series have diverged considerably: For calender year 1998, performers report $66.6 billion in Federal R&D support, by preliminary estimates, compared with $72.1 billion reported by Federal agencies for fiscal year 1998 (tableĀA-1 and figure A-1).
The difference in the Federal R&D data totals appears to be concentrated in funding of industry (primarily aircraft and missile firms) by the Department of Defense (tableĀA-2). Overall, industrial firms have reported significant declines in Federal R&D support since 1990 while Federal agencies reported level or slightly increased funding of industrial R&D. For fiscal year 1998, Federal agencies report $31.7 billion in total R&D obligations provided to industrial performers (excluding industry-administered FFRDCs) compared with an estimated $22.5 billion in Federal R&D funding reported by industrial performers. NSF is investigating causal factors for these divergent trends.
Sample Design Prior to 1992. In general, the industry sector has been surveyed annually since 1953 for its total R&D performance and since 1956 for the distribution by character of work. The U.S. Bureau of the Census conducts the survey for NSF. The target population of the survey is companies, whether U.S. or foreign-owned, that perform R&D in the United States. Prior to the 1992 survey, a new sample was drawn and canvassed only every 5 or 6 years (for example, in 1976, 1981, and 1987). In the intervening years, a subset of the last samplecalled a panel and including all companies reporting more than $1 million in R&Dwas surveyed. As a result, for the 1987 survey approximately 14,000 firms were selected for the sample. For the 1988 through 1991 studies, approximately 1,600 of these firms were resurveyed annually; the other firms did not receive another questionnaire, and their R&D data were estimated though not observed. Accordingly, data for the years in which a sample was not drawn did not include companies that were new entrants in the R&D field, and such data were generally biased in a downward direction. The Census Bureau, however, did estimate the annual changes in R&D data for companies that reported R&D in the sample year but were not included in the panel. As new samples were drawn, revisions to previous years' estimates were issued through a process called "wedging."
For example, a new sample was drawn for 1987, from which R&D data were collected for 1986 as well as 1987. Census used the data from the new sample to revise 1986 R&D performance estimates. The new 1986 data were also used by Census in combination with data from the last sample year, 1981, to revise estimates for the intervening years. NSF subsequently provided a second round of revisions to the 1982--85 R&D series. In both cases the revisions were done on an industry basis: an effort was made to apply the overall 1981--86 growth rates while preserving the relative year-to-year movements in each industry's R&D. This approach resulted in major revisions of the 1982--87 industry R&D time series previously published in National Patterns, especially of the nonfederally funded component of industry's R&D performance. The revised totals, as well as the industry data reported in National Patterns: 1990 (NSF 90-316), were presented in table B-3 of National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1996 (NSF 96-333). (Some of these data have since been revised, but the revisions were unrelated to the drawing of a new sample.)[4] Additional details on survey methods, coverage, concepts, definitions, and reliability of the estimates associated with the R&D expenditure data are contained in the 1990 edition (NSFĀ94-304) of the Research and Development in Industry series (Industry R&D).
Sample Design Revision in 1992. More recent surveys of industrial R&D performers have included revised R&D data based on relatively large industry samples. In contrast to data being based on probability samples selected approximately every 5 years, in 1992 NSF began to draw new samples annually, with the size of each sample increasing to approximately 24,000 firms. Industry classifications also were updated. The new sampling method now better reflects the widening population of R&D performers among firms in nonmanufacturing industries and small firms in all industries. As a result of these survey improvements, the revised 1991 industry R&D performance total ($117Ābillion) was 14 percent higher than was previously reported ($102.2 billion), and the national R&D total 10 percent higher. These revisions were first reported in National Patterns: 1994 (NSF 95-304).
Of the $14.7 billion revision, $13.7 billion resulted from the new sample and $1.0 billion from normal data revisions for firms sampled in both surveys. Furthermore, $11.4Ābillion of the $13.7 billion increase stemming from the enlarged sample design was reported for nonmanufacturing industries, including $2.0 billion of R&D in industries not previously included in the sample frame. Complete technical details on industry's new survey methodology are contained in Research and Development in Industry: 1992 (NSF 95-328).
As in previous sampling cycles, National Patterns includes revisions to the industry data for years intervening the 2 sample years (i.e., for 1988, 1989, and 1990). The industry and U.S. time series reported here include the wedged data reported for 1988--90 and the revised data for 1991--92. Table B-4 provides summary statistics for wedged data that appeared in National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1994, along with other data that were previously published.
For almost all of the aggregate statistics (for example, industry R&D by Federal and non-federal sources of funding), NSF believes that time series comparisons (for example, between 1981 and 1994 data) are still reasonable: Surveys undertaken in both years provided the best estimates of the Nation's industrial R&D performance total by sampling those industries then believed to be conducting R&D. However, changes in the survey series between some data elements for consecutive years may be problematic. Not only do the 1987 and 1992 surveys' sample size and frame differ considerably (see above), but $9.2 billion (in constant 1992 dollars) of R&D performed by firms reporting in both surveys was shifted from one industry in 1987 to another in 1992especially from manufacturing industries in 1987 to nonmanufacturing industries in 1992. Such classification shifts can be attributed to (1) product mix changes of individual firms that occurred some time during 1987--92, (2) changes in the 1987 SIC that were effected in the 1992 survey, and (3) a change in the methodology used by NSF/Census for classifying companies to specific two- and three-digit SIC industries. Given that NSF has been committed since 1992 to drawing new samples annually, the question of wedging, and the reporting biases it creates, is unlikely to recur.
Use of "Nonmanufacturing" as a Single Industrial Category. The enormous growth in, and increasing economic importance of, "nonmanufacturing industries" is common knowledge. In this vein, the listing of a "nonmanufacturing" sector (which would include all services) in tables that compare it to specific manufacturing sectors like "primary metal products" in earlier National Patterns report was a somewhat archaic method of categorizing U.S. industries. Consequently, the current report provides several new categories all fitting under "nonmanufacturing," although no historical data exist for these categories prior to 1995.
Nevertheless, analysts of R&D patterns might wish to consider that "where R&D is located," in terms of the industrial R&D data presented in this report, is based on the classification of firms that perform the R&D, but may explain little about the forces underlying such R&D activities. In particular, many new forms of equipment and materials that result in technological innovation in services derive from R&D in manufacturing where such equipment and materials are first made. Health services is a case in point: continual innovation in medical services generally result from R&D in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and new medical equipment. Because such R&D was carried out for the specific purpose of improving services, the attribution of such R&D to manufacturing rather than services is a matter of interpretation and precedence, not some absolute difference between the sectors in terms of their dependence on, or promotion of, scientific and engineering advances.[5]
Another issue is that services and manufacturing often differ in the nature of the R&D that they conduct. As a result, the relative quantity of R&D measured for services, in comparison to manufacturing, depends on how R&D is defined. For example, software development for particular computer entertainment packages, which would fall under services, would involve idea development that integrates computer science techniques with artistic creation. Whether such an activity would be classified as "R&D" would be a matter of interpretation and degree. In contrast, research on new hardware equipment would be much less subject to interpretation, and would tend to be automatically classified as R&D.
Character-of-Work Revisions. As first noted in the National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1990, the procedures used by the Census Bureau for imputing character-of-work splits for industry's R&D performance were changed for 1986 and later years; hence, these data are not directly comparable with data for 1985 and earlier years. A full description of the various imputation methodologiesand alternativesis presented in the 1988 Industry R&D report (NSF 90-319). Briefly, for 1985 and earlier, for companies that did not report character-of-work splits, the Census Bureau imputed the splits based on either (1) the company's percentage distribution reported in its most recent year of available data or (2) in the absence of any prior year breakdown for the company, the average character-of-work split for the industry to which the company was assigned. For years after 1985, the Census Bureau does not impute a company's character-of-work distribution unless the company has reported a breakout within 2 years of the year being imputed. When distributions are not imputed, the Census Bureau assigns the company's R&D to an "undistributed residual" category.
To provide character-of-work estimates for the entire population of firms performing R&D in the United States, each industry's (as contrasted with each individual company's) "undistributed residual" is allocated to basic research, applied research, and development categories using the average character-of-work splits reported for that industry. This approach resulted in relatively higher performance shares for basic and applied research than had been previously estimated and relatively lower estimates for development's share of industry's total R&D performance.
The academic sector, including all university-administered FFRDCs, has been surveyed for R&D performance annually, by fiscal year, since 1972. It was surveyed less frequently before 1972. For 1994--97, data were collected from a sample of the 681 institutions of higher education in the United States and outlying areas that (1) granted a graduate degree in science or engineering and/or (2) performed activities for which at least $50,000 had been funded from separately budgeted R&D expenditures. Roughly 500 institutions were sampled annually, comprising all doctorate-granting institutions, all historically black colleges and universities with any R&D expenditures, and a random sample of all other institutions. For fiscal year 1993, data were collected from the full population of 681 institutions that met the criteria listed above.
Character-of-Work Revisions. With the exception of 1978, data on the basic research performance of universities and colleges and of university-administered FFRDCs have been collected annually since 1972. Since 1979, however, only the combined total for applied research and development performance has been collected. Furthermore, data on the character of work from individual non-federal sources of funds (i.e., industry, institutional funds, state and local governments, and other sources) are not surveyed. For the years 1978 to the present, the distribution of applied research and development from Federal sources is based largely on data from Federal Funds. The method of estimation for these levels is provided in the forthcoming methodology report.
Revised estimates for Federal funding of applied research and development to universities and colleges and to university-administered FFRDCs were first included in the National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1992. University performers report the amount of R&D and basic research that they undertake using Federal funds. The residual is their combined applied research and development performance. The distribution between applied research and development is approximated from the percentage shares of Federal obligation data to the academic sector as reported by Federal agencies in Federal Funds. Although the estimating procedures used previously had been loosely based on the data provided by the Federal funding agencies, the approach adopted here formally links the performer- and source-reported survey data. Applied research and development expenditures for universities and colleges were revised for the period 1978--present; for university-administered FFRDCs, revisions were made back to 1975. The general result is that the applied research share is slightly lower and the development share somewhat higher than previously reported.
Subcontracting. Only for the academic sector does R&D performance include research funds subcontracted to outside organizations. (For performance reported by respondents in the other surveyed sectors, R&D subcontracted to other organizations is excluded.) Details on survey methods, coverage, concepts, definitions, and reliability of the estimates associated with the R&D expenditure data are reported in the fiscal year 1996 report, Academic Research and Development Expenditures (Academic R&D), NSF 98-304. There is preliminary evidence from NSF surveys that approximately 3 percent of total academic R&D funds are passed through the university to other recipients.
It has not been possible to maintain the same survey frequency for other nonprofit institutions; the last complete survey was conducted in 1973. Since then, small and informal surveys of this sector have been undertaken periodically.For the years 1984 to the present, estimates for federally funded total R&D and character-of-work performance by nonprofit institutionsincluding associated FFRDCsare derived from Federal obligation data reported in Federal Funds. Industry as a source of R&D funds to this sector is approximated using the average of the annual percentage change in (1) industry's funding of industry-performed R&D (from Industry R&D) and (2)Āindustry funding of university-performed R&D (from Academic R&D). Nonprofit funding as a source of R&D funds to this sector is approximated based on the annual percentage change in nonprofit funding of university-performed R&D (from Academic R&D). The character-of-work splits from the non-federal funding sources that were surveyed in 1983 are carried forward to the present.
To the greatest extent possible, this report incorporates data for 1997 and 1998 R&D programs that are presented in the administration's 1999 budget proposal. For example, the 1999 budget contains data on total R&D outlays and budget authority by agency and by character of work. However, the budget does not contain reliable estimates on the amount of Federal R&D funds received by each of the R&D-performing economic sectors; it only shows the federally funded totals and funds received by universities and colleges. The detailed sector-specific information is obtained from an NSF survey of Federal agencies' R&D obligations, which is collected after the President's proposed budget has been published. For this reason, some of the 1997 and 1998 Federal R&D data reported here are based on the administration's 1998 budget proposal.
Preliminary R&D performance totals in National Patterns are calculated for each sector, by character of work, and by source of funds from surveys and time-series extrapolation techniques, as follows.
Federal Government. Projections for 1997 and 1998 are based on changes in intramural R&D obligations reported in Federal Funds. The amounts reported for 1997 are preliminary and reflect congressional appropriations, apportionment, and reprogramming decisions as of the third quarter of FY 1998. Data for 1998 are projections that reflect the changes in intramural R&D represented in administration 1999 budget proposals.
Industry. Preliminary data for company-funded 1997 and 1998 performance are based on industry responses to the 1997 Industry R&D Survey, as of June 1998. This sample of preliminary responses accounted for approximately 50 percent of the R&D performed by industrial firms in 1996.
Universities and Colleges. Preliminary data for 1997 are based on university responses to the FY 1997 Academic R&D Survey, as of June 1998. These respondents accounted for approximately 90 percent of the R&D performed by universities and colleges in FYĀ1996.
Other Nonprofit Institutions. Preliminary tabulations for 1997 and 1998 are based on (1) Federal obligations reported in Federal Funds (NSF 98-332) and (2) time series modeled extrapolations of recent trends in R&D performance and funding within the industry and university sectors. (The method of estimation for these levels is provided in the forthcoming methodology report.)
Data presented in trend tables are assembled from the most recently completed survey cycles. Data for prior years are reviewed for consistency with current year's responses and-when necessary-revised in consultation with survey respondents. In addition, changes in sample design or imputation methodologies can result in revisions to previously published data. For trend comparisons, the historical data contained in this report should be used rather than the data published in previous National Patterns volumes.
This report contains information on the state distribution of R&D performance for 1995 (tables B-7 and B-8). These data cover R&D performance by industry, academia, Federal agencies, and the federally funded R&D activities of nonprofit institutions. These state-distributed data are meant to be indicative of general distribution patterns; they are not necessarily precise.
State-distributed data for the industry sector are collected for odd-numbered years. The latest available detailed data are for 1995 and are from Research and Development in Industry: 1995--96 (NSF 99-312). The data include R&D performance by industry-administered FFRDCs.
State-distributed data for Federal laboratories are intramural R&D obligations in FY 1995. These data are available from the 10 major R&D-supporting agencies (Federal Funds).
State-distributed data for the academic sector are collected only for doctorate-granting institutions and university-administered FFRDCs (Academic R&D). R&D performance by an FFRDC is assigned to the state in which the FFRDC is located, which is not necessarily the state in which the administering institution is located.
State-distributed data for other nonprofit institutions are Federal R&D obligations to this sector in FY 1995 as reported by the 10 major R&D-supporting government agencies (Federal Funds). These agencies provided approximately 98 percent of total Federal R&D obligations in 1995. Data on R&D performance by this sector using non-federal sources of funds are not collected.
The 1994 National Patterns was the first to include revised data on scientists and engineers (S&Es) engaged in R&D activities. This national series consists of separate survey estimates of R&D S&Es employed in industry and in the Federal Government and doctorate-holding R&D S&Es employed in educational institutions and in nonprofit organizations. The industry series are for S&Es employed on a full-time-equivalent basis; totals for the other sectors reflect the primary work activity of S&Es.
A variety of surveys and estimation techniques are used to gather information on the numbers and characteristics of persons engaged in science and engineering activities in all sectors of the economy. In general, two types of surveys report worker inputs for R&D: surveys directed at individuals and surveys directed at employers.
These surveys (in this report, of scientists and engineers holding doctorate degrees) result in data on the primary work activities and demographic and economic characteristics of the respondents. In the survey of doctoral scientists and engineers, respondents are asked to report their primary work activity-i.e., the activity on which they spend the largest proportion of their time, but that is not necessarily a full-time activity. This survey is conducted only in odd-numbered years. The latest tabulated data are available for 1995 and are summarized in appendix table B-28. Details on survey methods, coverage, concepts, definitions, and reliability of the estimates associated with these S&E data are in Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1995 (NSF 97-319).
These surveys generally are focused on the amount of time-in terms of person-years-devoted to the performance and management of R&D. In this report, data on the number of S&Es-not just those holding doctoral degrees-employed by industry on an full-time-equivalent (FTE) basis in R&D are summarized in appendix table B-27. For example, if each of two scientists/engineers spends 50 percent of the workday on R&D, the equivalent is one FTE R&D job.
Previously, the National Patterns provided national estimates of FTE R&D scientists and engineers. At one point, SRS had survey data for FTE estimates in all sectors of the economy. Currently, SRS collects such data only for the industrial sector. The last FTE R&D manpower survey of the academic sector was for 1985, and the last manpower survey of the nonprofit sector was for 1973, although a small telephone survey was conducted for 1983. The loss of such survey data had necessitated increased reliance on analytically derived figures (including the use of regression equations) that were based largely on estimating assumptions that could not be empirically tested for their continued validity. Consequently, those preliminary series are replaced here with survey counts of the number of doctorate-holding S&Es who self-report their primary work activity as R&D or R&D management. How well these head counts might approximate an FTE estimate is unknown. On the one hand, these head counts may provide an overestimate of FTE activity since many of the surveyed S&Es are not engaged in R&D full-time even though it is their primary work activity. On the other hand, this approach may underestimate FTE R&D personnel since it does not account for S&Es engaged in R&D who do not hold a doctorate degree. Sources for the revised estimates and comparison with the 1985 and 1989 figures published in National Patterns: 1992, are described and summarized in table A-7. For the total United States, the revised figures for 1989 (924,200) are 3 percent lower than previously reported (949,300).
Industry. Industry is the only sector for which FTE R&D S&E survey estimates are available. Firms report (Industry R&D) FTE employment levels for January of each year, and a simple 2-year moving average is used for the national R&D S&E series. For example, the total reported for 1989 (733,000) is the average of the level reported by firms for January 1989 and January 1990. Except for minor data revisions resulting from the inclusion of wedged statistics, the industry totals reported here do not differ from those reported previously. As detailed above for the industry expenditure data, improvements in the sample design for 1992 and later years resulted in data that now better reflect R&D performance among firms in the nonmanufacturing industries and small firms in all industries.
Federal Government. For the Federal sector, survey data on civilian scientists and engineers are collected annually (Federal Scientists and Engineers: 1989--93, NSF 95-336). The estimates are compiled from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) Central Personnel Data File on all white collar civilian jobs and are reported in terms of primary work activities. Scientists or engineers are included in the National Patterns totals if their primary work activity is research or development. These head counts exclude (1) military personnel (but include civilian S&Es employed in defense agencies) and (2) Federal employees classified in a management occupational code, even if they manage an R&D program. The earliest year for which these OPM statistics have been compiled is 1985. Data for 1985--89 published in the previous National Patterns included estimates for R&D managers, which are no longer included in the Federal totals. For years prior to 1985, the figures were based on NSF surveys since discontinued.
Universities and Colleges. For the academic sector two series are reported: doctoral scientists and engineers and graduate students doing research. The head counts for research students are from the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering and are for full-time science and engineering graduate students in all institutions whose major financial support is research assistantships. In this revised series FTE estimates are derived assuming a 50-percent workload (or working half-time on R&D), whereas previously a 47-percent workload assumption was used.
Academic institutions were previously surveyed for estimates of FTE R&D S&Es; however, 1985 is the most recent year for which this survey was conducted. Since then the academic estimates published in National Patterns were usually derived from a regression of the 1975--85 academic FTE survey data on (1) academic R&D expenditures and (2) the number of academic doctoral S&Es who reported R&D as their primary work activity. The revised series directly utilizes reported employment levels from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR). The academic R&D employment totals are of doctoral scientists and engineers employed in all educational institutions who self-report their primary work activity as "research," "development or design," or the "management or administration of R&D." No adjustments are made to derive full-time equivalents. For 1989, the revised primary work activity total, (83,500), is approximately 11 percent less than the FTE figure, (93,700), last published in National Patterns. Since the doctoral data are collected only biennially, the revised national FTE series also are reported biennially.
NSF introduced a number of improvements into the 1991 SDR (for example, changes in the age-based cohorts collected and in the definition of doctoral scientists and engineers) that may affect comparability with SDR data published for prior survey years. The academic S&E total for those reporting R&D as their primary work activity for 1989 is 83,500 and the total for 1991 is 74,600. Whether changes in the survey design or in actual employment patterns caused the academic R&D S&E decline is unknown. Analysts should consult the report, Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 1991 (NSF 94-307) for more information on these methodological changes.
Other Nonprofit Institutions. The last survey of the nonprofit sector was for 1973. Since then the nonprofit estimates published in National Patterns generally were based on survey data from the early seventies and trends in the ratio of national R&D expenditures to FTE R&D S&Es. In the revised series, nonprofit R&D employment levels are taken from the Survey of Doctorate Recipients. The figures are for doctoral scientists and engineers employed in nonprofit organizations who self-report their primary work activity as "research," "development or design," or the "management or administration of R&D." No adjustments are made to derive full-time equivalents. For 1989, the revised primary work activity total (9,200) is approximately 75 percent less than the FTE figure (34,500) last published in National Patterns. The effect on the Nation's total FTE estimate is approximately a 2.7-percent downward revision.
National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1996, 1997, and 1998, NSF 98-332 (Arlington, VA, 1998). Detailed statistical tables cover R&D (and R&D plant) funding levels for FYs 1996--98 as reported by all Federal agencies with R&D programs. Includes data by agency, performer, character of work, geographic distribution, and field of science and engineering.
National Science Foundation, Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 1997--99, NSF 99-315 (Arlington, VA, 1999). Provides information on Federal R&D budget authority by Federal budget function as proposed in the administration's 1999 budget.
Office of Management and Budget, The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998). Provides quantitative and qualitative information on R&D funding as proposed in the administration's 1999 budget.
National Science Foundation, Research and Development in Industry: 1995--96, NSF 99-312 (Arlington, VA, 1999). Detailed statistical tables cover industrial R&D performance as reported in a sample survey of companies. Data include distribution by source of funds, industry classification, character of work, product field, geographic location, company size, and other tabulations.
National Science Foundation, Academic Research and Development Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1996, NSF 98-304 (Arlington, VA, 1998). Detailed statistical tables cover academic R&D performance as reported in a survey of U.S. universities and university-administered FFRDCs. Data include distribution by source of funds, performing institution, character of work, field of science, and geographic location.
|Difference in agency-reported and performer-reported Federal R&D, all performers: 1980-99
|Difference in agency-reported and performer-reported Federal R&D: industrial performers by agency source, 1980-96
|Revisions in industry R&D performance totals: 1982-87
|Revisions in industry R&D performance, and their impact on other variables: 1987-91
|Distribution of industry R&D performance, by character of work: 1985-96
|Revisions in university & college performance by Federal source of funds: 1974-90
|Revisions in number of R&D scientists and engineers: 1985 and 1989
[1] See J.E. Jankowski, "Do We Need a Price Index for Industrial R&D?" Research Policy 22: 195-205.
[2] See M. Boskin, E. Dulberger, R. Gordon, Z. Griliches, and D. Jorgenson, "Consumer Prices, the Consumer Price Index, and the Cost of Living," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 1998, 3-26; W. Nordhaus, "Quality Change in Price Indexes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 1, Winter 1998, 59-68; and S. Payson, Quality Measurement in Economics: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Goods and Services (Hants, England: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., 1994).
[3] See Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 1997-98 (Budget Function), NSF 99-315.
[4] Note that, although the Bureau of Census re-estimated 1982-86 R&D totals by funding source, it did not provide a character-of-work distribution for the revised data. After investigating several possible alternatives, NSF chose to allocate the revisions on the basis of average character-of-work distribution published in earlier annual Industry R&D reports. Allocations for the federally funded and nonfederally funded R&D revisions were applied separately.
[5] For more detailed discussion on the interrelationship between R&D in manufacturing and advances in services, see, for example, B. Guile and J. Quinn, eds. Technology in Services: Policies for Growth, Trade, and Employment (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1988). For more general discussion of the causal relationship between R&D and industrial growth, see, for example, Adams, J.D. (1990) "Fundamental Stocks of Knowledge and Productivity Growth." Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 98, No. 4: 673-702; Bernstein, J.I., and M.I. Nadiri. 1988. "Interindustry R&D Spillovers, Rates of Return, and Production in High-Tech Industries." American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings Vol. 78: 429-34; and Jaffe, A. 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value." American Economic Review Vol. 76: 984-1001.


text:
Select Local Merchants
Dassler Eye Consultants IncRead MoreThe professional staff at Dassler Eye Consultants Inc makes everyone feel at home when they stop by their medical offices in Miami Beach. If you're looking for a personable medical staff and high-quality facility, Dassler Eye Consultants Inc is a prime choice. You'll be happy you chose Dassler Eye Consultants Inc for all your lenses needs. From frames to contacts, they have it all. This clinic provides a wide array of services, all of which are accommodated on an appointment-only basis. Dassler Eye Consultants Inc understands that vision problems can arise out of nowhere so give the office a call today and get your name on the books.9543 Harding AvenueMiami Beach, FL US
Oberle OpticiansRead MoreOberle Opticians' offices are designed with care and for your comfort. Seek optical eye care in their Surfside offices today. Oberle Opticians has the right lenses, be it glasses or contacts, to give your eyes the clarity they need. Stop in when you're ready for your appointment at vision center. Walk-ins always welcome! You'll love that payment is as easy as any major credit card at Oberle Opticians. Convenient street parking is easy to find outside Oberle Opticians. The staff at Oberle Opticians takes your vision seriously so book your next appointment today.9552 Harding AvenueSurfside, FL US
Steven Jay LowingerRead MoreLowinger Steven Jay OD's patients always return for a second appointment. Take care of your eyes in North Miami. When you're running low on contact lenses, Lowinger Steven Jay OD has many different kinds to offer. While you're there, you should also check out the wide selection of glasses. This vision center understands that beauty emergencies come up and that's why it accepts walk-ins. When it comes to finding quality visual care, the message is clear: choose Lowinger Steven Jay OD.14585 Biscayne BoulevardNorth Miami, FL US
Audio VisionRead MoreFor high-quality optical care in the heart of North Miami, check out Audio Vision Recording Studios. At Audio Vision Recording Studios, you can treat yourself to a stylish pair of glasses or a new pair of contacts. Don't put off your annual vision check-up and call Audio Vision Recording Studios today to schedule a quick appointment.13385 West Dixie HighwayNorth Miami, FL US
Bel OpticalRead MoreFor professional visual and optical needs, look no further than Bel Optical in Bay Harbor Islands, a highly-rated vision center. At Bel Optical, you can complete your eye exam and get a new pair of glasses or contacts all in one place. When it comes to finding quality visual care, the message is clear: choose Bel Optical.1175 98th StreetBay Harbor Islands, FL US
Bell Vision CenterRead MoreWhether you're seeking new optical care or just need a new pair of specs, Bell Vision in North Miami is here to help. Bell Vision offers a vast array of frames to choose from and contacts too, in case glasses don't fit your style. Give your eyes the attention they deserve. Make an appointment today at Bell Vision.14030 West Dixie HighwayNorth Miami, FL US

subset: commoncrawl


text:
2012 Olympics in Review
Team Great Britain makes host city proud
Team Great Britain makes host city proud
Not since 1908 (the first time London hosted the Olympics) has Great Britain performed as well as it did in the 2012 Summer Games. Back in 1908, the Brits won 146 medals (56 gold) in a diluted field compared to current times.
Now fully entrenched in the modern era, and with much more competition from the likes of the United States, China and Russia, Great Britain managed to increase its performance from Beijing by 18. In 2008, "Team GB" collected 47 total medals (19 gold) and finished fourth overall in the medal count. In 2012, an inspired British contingency moved up to third overall with 65 total medals (29 gold).
Some of the lasting images from Great Britain's efforts included Jessica Ennis' gold medal performance in the heptathlon, Mo Farah's emotional victory in the 10,000-meter run (paired with a historic win in the 5,000-meter run), Andy Murray's dominant three-set gold medal victory against Roger Federer and Greg Rutherford's surprising Olympic championship in the long jump.
Photo courtesy of pk2004
This Summer's Best Beach ReadsReady for summer? Here are cool beach reads to entertain you while you sip on...
Preparing for Trinity SundayIt is a celebration of Christian doctrine and lasts one day, but we can make...
More from Beliefnet


text:
Man's Doublet 1650-65 by janey-janeWatch
©2007-2016 janey-jane
Costume study of garment in the Victoria and Albert in London. My real interest lies in women's costume and this period isn't really my cuppa, so this was a challenge to myself. Incidentaly it has turned out to be one of my favorite of the studies I did. No particular reason, I just like it.


text:
The BMC has put £10,000 to support the care and maintenance of crags in England and Wales through the creation of a new Crag Care Fund.
Half of this initial funding will go towards essential works at BMC owned and managed crags, including Horseshoe Quarry, Craig y Longridge, Bwlch y Moch. The other £5000 will go towards area projects throughout England and Wales.
The aim is to fund improvement works and activities that directly benefit the crags and access and volunteer opportunities, with the emphasis being on practical work.
The Access & Conservation Trust will fund policy related work, literature production and larger projects.
Have you got an idea for a project in the UK or Ireland? Let us know.
Download an application form and email it to firstname.lastname@example.com
« Back
This article has been read
Click on the tags to explore more
It's May, it's Wales, it's time for the jamboree that is TremFest 2016! Your chance to give something back to the crags you derive so much enjoyment from. Put the date in your diary - the weekend of 7th and 8th May - when work and play combine to celebrate all that is good about Tremadog.
Read more »
Fat ice or thin pickings? Take the guesswork out of winter conditions and help protect fragile habitats with the Cwm Idwal Winter Climbing Information Project. In this exciting development, you can view live conditions information right here on the BMC website and this winter the project has been extended to include live information from Clogwyn Du as well as the Devil's Kitchen.
Read more »
The BMC's Access & Conservation Trust (ACT) grants funds to important conservation projects. Here's a quick update on some of the projects that have been funded in 2013/2014.
Read more »
The British Mountaineering Council (BMC) is the representative body that exists
to protect the freedoms and promote the interests of climbers, hill walkers and
mountaineers, including ski-mountaineers. The BMC recognises that climbing, hill
walking and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death.
Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be
responsible for their own actions.
Website designed by


text:
Anime/Manga which you think changed you a bit or taught you something?
View Single Post
October 3rd, 2012 (5:39 AM).
→ Friends call me SE, or Neo ~
Gold Tier
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Nature: Calm
Posts: 427
I remember when I watched some
episodes baaaack then, it taught me a lil bit about friendship, how it's important to support friends and the people you care for, and maybe to never give up ?
Then there was
Tokyo Magnitude 8.0
, confirmed that we should keep in mind that no matter if our siblings are annoying at times, no matter if our parents authority is pestering us, if they care for us and love us, that's all that should matter and we should be able to move on. And also that, it's best to question ourselves at times, so that we won't regret the way we behaved once these people are gone, and it's too late to say "Sorry". Talking about
not neglecting
those who care for us, here.
Code Geass
(both seasons) turned me into someone more tolerant to other people, and just made me want to insist everytime I tell someone that if they really want something, they are never going to get any results if they do not try to get what they want. But it also made me a bit more aware of how "powerful" words can be, not necessarily the "Controlling people" aspect, but also that they are far from being just words, they can be a weapon, too. That's why we should be careful and think twice before saying anything.
My god I could go on forever, but I'm going to stop here, else the post will never come to an end. xD
★~The Past is gone, and the Future is not yet~★
Special thanks~
A Redtail's Dream
The Super Smash Bros Club
Looking for
My Deviantart
My FC(s)
View Public Profile
Send a private message to SinisterEternity
Visit SinisterEternity's homepage!
Find all posts by SinisterEternity
Find threads started by SinisterEternity


text:
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
0 Comments | Copyright: IANS
Bollywood celebrities like Sonam Kapoor, Preity Zinta and Shoojit Sircar are happy to see the city of dreams drenched in rain.
Here's what they tweeted:
Preity Zinta: Good morning folks! Nice 2see Mumbai drenched in the faint showers of the monsoon. Sadly the monsoon will be short & brief this year.
Shoojit Sircar: So it's raining in Mumbai..
Sonam Kapoor: The rains in bombay demand this kinda listening... Now for a hot cuppa.
Richa Chadha: Dear baarish. You bring joy, malaria, jams and magic. You are a difficult type of lover. But we love you.
Prachi Desai: Congratulations Mumbai!! Monsoon is officially here
Kalki Koechlin: Boy does this rain feel good...
Rajat Kapoor: its too beautiful - grey skies... Near darkness.. love it!!!
Tusshar: Normally, I hate the rains! However, today feeling excitement in welcoming the showers! Finally!! Good morning!
Neha Dhupia: Wait a minute is it raining outside ??? Caus I'm having a bad hair day #greenroomscares
User Comments & RatingsJoin India Forums for free to comment on this story. Have an account already? Use Quick Login to comment.
Actress Sonam Kapoor wished her fellow L'Oréal Paris brand ambassador ...
Megastar Amitabh Bachchan has urged everyone to "save and educate" ...
Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.
Popular Channels :Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK
Quick Links :Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index


text:
Today's Comment of the Day is a special Comment of the Day. And by "special" I mean mean batshit crazy.
Today's Comment of the Day is a special Comment of the Day. And by "special" I mean mean batshit crazy.
The winners of the prize are many, but they all have one thing in common: They came to our site from the ultra-conservative blog Drudge Report, which posted a link to our coverage yesterday.
The story was that of Longview Fred Meyer security guard David Morrison and his unfortunate encounter with a Marilyn Manson CD shoplifter who cut his ear off with a hatchet while attempting to escape.
The tale was a classic bizarre-crime story. But to Drudge's readers, it's simply more proof that President Obama and liberals in general are ruining America.
Here are a few gems.
EviLibertarian get's things off to a good start:
Just another Obama voter OWS protester out to get his free stuff. Nothing to see here. Move on...
His comment, BTW, has 335 "likes."
Liberty1776 continues the party:
As long as there are liberals, there will be crime. Criminals are a protected class under liberal purview and a key voting block for Democrats.
Next we have the subtly-named Vote Obama! - We're DUMB!
He/she writes:
No, attacking cops is a liberal thing. I admit, at first I was confused because as a Democrat I thought the guy would be swinging the hatchet at a newborn baby and maniacally screaming, "THIS IS MY CHOICE!!!" :)
Or there's WilliamPenn, who notes that Obama's "diatribes" no doubt inspired the hatchet wielder:
Wealth re-distribution, endorsed, encouraged and empowered by Obama's daily class warfare diatribes.
And we'll leave you with Richard Lease's dire warning:
Remember folks the good liberals and Democrats not to mention the socialist/communist want nothing more than to leave you unarmed before their pride and joys these types of thugs.
Thank you, Drudge Report. For all you do. For all you are. Thank you.
Follow The Daily Weekly on Facebook and Twitter.


text:
For most investors, the key is patience
Downsize in a major way
Join the NASDAQ Community today and get free, instant access to portfolios, stock ratings, real-time alerts, and more!
On Jun 3, we downgraded
Express, Inc.
) to a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell). Estimates of the specialty
apparel retailer declined sharply in response to disappointing
first-quarter 2014 results and meaningful guidance cut for the full
year on May 29.
Express missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate for both earnings
and revenues for the second quarter in a row.
Factors Hurting Results
First-quarter earnings declined 84.2% to 6 cents per share from
the prior-year earnings of 38 cents and fell 57% short of the Zacks
Consensus Estimate of 14 cents. Moreover, earnings missed the
company's guidance range of 12-18 cents.
Despite anticipating a challenging first quarter, the actual
results were even worse than feared. Sluggish comps, SG&A
de-leverage, weak margins and a higher tax rate pulled down
Sales of $460.7 million declined 10% from the prior-year quarter
and also lagged the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $481 million by
4.2% due to a decline in traffic. Comps went down 11% in the
quarter, at the higher end of management's guidance range of low
double-digit to high single-digit decline. Comps were significantly
weaker than flat comps in the prior-year quarter. While comps
trends improved in April, it was not enough to offset the
February/March weakness.
External factors, like a difficult consumer spending environment
and competitive challenges, led to poor traffic and sales trends at
Express stores. However, poor execution by management and inventory
imbalance, especially in the key women's apparel category, also
hurt sales and comps.
Gross margin declined 370 basis points (bps) from last year to
29.8% due to a decline in merchandise margin, owing to increased
promotional activity and higher discounts. Buying and occupancy
cost ratio also increased 340 bps in the quarter, thereby
aggravating the decline.
SG&A ratio rose 460 bps to 26.7% due to increased marketing
expenses and poor operating leverage due to lower sales. Operating
margin declined a massive 820 bps to 3.3% due to weak gross margins
and higher SG&A ratio.
Headwinds will Continue
The first-quarter headwinds are expected to continue in the
second quarter as well. For the second quarter, the company
projects comps and earnings to decline year over year. Merchandise
margins are expected to decline in the second quarter again as the
company clears through excess inventory. Additionally, SG&A and
buying/occupancy costs will again de-lever due to lower sales
expectations. Moreover, higher tax rate and interest expense are
expected to hurt earnings.
The company expects comps to decline in the mid-to-high
single-digit range in the second quarter, much weaker than 6%
growth seen in the prior-year quarter. The company expects earnings
in the range of a loss of 3 cents to profit of 3 cents per share,
much lower than earnings of 20 cents reported in the year-ago
The company lowered its comps guidance for the full year. Comps
are now expected to decline in a mid-single digit range against
prior range of low single-digit decline to flat. Earnings
expectations were also significantly lowered from a range of
$1.03-$1.23 per share to 74-90 cents. Both comps and earnings
guidance represent a decline from prior-year figures.
The Zacks Consensus Estimates for earnings per share declined
sharply in response to the first-quarter results. The 2014 estimate
went down 28% to $1.14 per share while that for 2015 declined 16.5%
to $1.11 over the last 7 days.
Other retailers that are performing well at the current levels
and are worth considering include
American Apparel, Inc
. (
Foot Locker, Inc.
) and
Zumiez, Inc.
). All these stocks sport a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy).
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Enter up to 25 symbols separated by commas or spaces in the text box below. These symbols will be available during your session for use on applicable pages.
You have selected to change your default setting for the Quote Search. This will now be your default target page;
unless you change your configuration again, or you delete your
cookies. Are you sure you want to change your settings?


text:
- born
March 5, 1932
Michael Rumaker, (born March 5, 1932, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.) American author whose early fiction reflects the disaffection of the Beat generation.
Rumaker graduated with honours from Black Mountain College in North Carolina in 1955. In 1958, after moving to New York City, he suffered an emotional breakdown, for which he was hospitalized until 1960. He later received an M.F.A. in creative writing from Columbia University (1969) and afterward taught at several New York colleges and universities.
From the late 1950s Rumaker's short stories, such as "The Desert" (1957), were frequently anthologized. His semiautobiographical novel The Butterfly (1962) tells of a young man's struggles to gain control of his life following an emotional breakdown. Exit 3, and Other Stories (1966; U.S. title, Gringos and Other Stories) contains short fictions rife with marginal characters and random violence. A Day and a Night at the Baths (1979) and My First Satyrnalia (1981) are semiautobiographical accounts of initiation into New York's homosexual community. His later works include 3 × 3 (1989), To Kill a Cardinal (1992), and Robert Duncan in San Francisco (1996).


text:
From inside the book
1 page matching Yoro Diakité 1932 in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-1 of 1
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
1968 elections administration African agencies Agriculture appointed Arab Atlas bicameral British Broadcasting Brunei Burundi Cabinet Capital cent CFA francs Chairman China coalition Communist Party Congress Conservative Constitution and government Council of Ministers Current issues daily Defense Democratic Party Deputy DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION Ambassador economic established Federal Foreign Affairs Foreign relations France French French franc groups Independent Industry internal Islands June Labor Leader legislative Liberal Party major Malaysia MEDIA ment military million Monetary Unit National Assembly nationalist Official Language organ Parliament People's Permanent Representative Political background POLITICAL PARTIES Political Status population President presidential Press Prime Minister proportional representation Radio and television Rate of growth regime Republic Revolutionary Rhodesia Secretary-General Senate Sept Social South South Africa South Vietnam Soviet square miles suffrage territory tion Tutsi U.S. Ambassador unicameral Union universal suffrage Vietnam vote weekly Zambia


text:
Hotel restaurant
Refine your search by adding filters below.
Click the red square to remove them. Add as many as you like.
Free weekly email packed with travel tips for major world cities, great competitions and exciting features.
This is the oldest farm in the Constantia Valley (albeit not the oldest wine farm). The first owner was a formidable, bareback-riding serial widow named...
© 2016 Time Out Group Ltd and Time Out Digital Ltd. All rights reserved.
All material on this site is © Time Out.


text:
Warhammer 40 000: Die! by albertiWatch
©2013-2016 alberti
love the costumes and the expressipns on both characters makes the picture
So serious my dear! I love this. I love how the inquisitor is so serious and just like 'Another day on the job, no worries.' The title is awesome too, simple yet accurate.
Thank you, we were really trying, and we were resisting laughter during the photosession)))
Looks like fun times
Time to purify the chaos with a bolter round or 20 I guess


text:
Campus Crest Communities Inc. Stock Upgraded (CCG)
TheStreet) -- Campus Crest Communities (NYSE: CCG) has been upgraded by TheStreet Ratings from sell to hold. The company's strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its robust revenue growth, compelling growth in net income and notable return on equity. However, as a counter to these strengths, we also find weaknesses including a generally disappointing performance in the stock itself and poor profit margins. Highlights from the ratings report include:NEW YORK (
-- Written by a member of TheStreet RatingsStaff
- CCG's very impressive revenue growth greatly exceeded the industry average of 15.0%. Since the same quarter one year prior, revenues leaped by 84.5%. Growth in the company's revenue appears to have helped boost the earnings per share.
- The net income growth from the same quarter one year ago has significantly exceeded that of the S&P 500 and the Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) industry. The net income increased by 159.4% when compared to the same quarter one year prior, rising from -$7.46 million to $4.43 million.
- Compared to other companies in the Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) industry and the overall market on the basis of return on equity, CAMPUS CREST COMMUNITIES INC underperformed against that of the industry average and is significantly less than that of the S&P 500.
- The gross profit margin for CAMPUS CREST COMMUNITIES INC is currently extremely low, coming in at 14.50%. Despite the low profit margin, it has increased significantly from the same period last year. Despite the mixed results of the gross profit margin, CCG's net profit margin of 17.40% is significantly lower than the same period one year prior.
- CCG's stock share price has done very poorly compared to where it was a year ago: Despite any rallies, the net result is that it is down by 26.12%, which is also worse that the performance of the S&P 500 Index. Investors have so far failed to pay much attention to the earnings improvements the company has managed to achieve over the last quarter. Despite the heavy decline in its share price, this stock is still more expensive (when compared to its current earnings) than most other companies in its industry.
-- Written by a member of TheStreet RatingsStaff
Check Out Our Best Services for Investors
Action Alerts PLUS
Portfolio Manager Jim Cramer and Director of Research Jack Mohr reveal their investment tactics while giving advanced notice before every trade.
Product Features:
- $2.5+ million portfolio
- Large-cap and dividend focus
- Intraday trade alerts from Cramer
Quant Ratings
Access the tool that DOMINATES the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500.
Product Features:
- Buy, hold, or sell recommendations for over 4,300 stocks
- Unlimited research reports on your favorite stocks
- A custom stock screener
Stocks Under $10
David Peltier uncovers low dollar stocks with serious upside potential that are flying under Wall Street's radar.
Product Features:
- Model portfolio
- Stocks trading below $10
- Intraday trade alerts
Dividend Stock Advisor
David Peltier identifies the best of breed dividend stocks that will pay a reliable AND significant income stream.
Product Features:
- Diversified model portfolio of dividend stocks
- Updates with exact steps to take - BUY, HOLD, SELL
Trifecta Stocks
Every recommendation goes through 3 layers of intense scrutinyquantitative, fundamental and technical analysisto maximize profit potential and minimize risk.
Product Features:
- Model Portfolio
- Intra Day Trade alerts
- Access to Quant Ratings
Real Money
More than 30 investing pros with skin in the game give you actionable insight and investment ideas.
Product Features:
- Access to Jim Cramer's daily blog
- Intraday commentary and news
- Real-time trading forums


text:
You searched for '' - 4 results found
But on Tuesday night she certainly seemed to be enjoying the company of stylist to the stars, Rachel Zoe, at a Nylon party in Los Angeles.
The 81-year-old seemed more alive than ever...
They're all back for continuing saga
Nicole 'Snooki' Polizzi, 23 , was once again the catalyst for drama when her attention-seeking behaviour earned her a 'curse' from a local woman.
Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd
Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group


text:
- Differential Diagnosis
- Diseases
- Drugs
- More
- Try building your search one term at a time, and be as specific as you can! Search term example: "chronic cough".
- Do not enter multiple findings such as "anemia, chronic cough, weight loss, vomiting" all at the same time.
- After selecting your term from the search results a list of possible diagnoses will be generated. If the list is too long, you will be able to narrow it down by entering additional terms.
- Do not enter values such as "heart rhythm 110" or "sodium 125", instead use "tachycardia" or "hyponatremia".
Sign-in (or register) to check out the new features we've just launched!
Differential Diagnosis For CT Scan/Abdomen jejunal ulceration
Available only to registered users.
- Suggest
- 2 possible diagnoses found
- Neoplastic Disorders
- Zollinger-Ellison syndrome/gastrinoma
- Vegetative, Autonomic, Endocrine Disorders
- Hypergastrinemia
- Synonyms
- ABDOMEN, Abdomen (volume), Abdomens, abdominal, Abdominal structure, Abdominal structure (body structure), C.A.T. scan, CAT, CAT Comp axial tomography, CAT Computerised axial tomography, CAT Computerized axial tomography, CAT Scan, CAT scan -, CAT scan (procedure), CAT Scan X Ray, CAT Scan X-Ray, CAT Scans X-Ray, Computed axial tomography, Computed Tomographies Xray, Computed Tomographies X-Ray, Computed tomography, Computed tomography scan -, Computed tomography scan (procedure), Computed Tomography Xray, Computed Tomography X-Ray, Computed X-Ray Tomographies, Computed X-Ray Tomography, computer assisted tomography, Computer-assisted transaxial tomography, Computerised axial tomogram, Computerised axial tomography, Computerised axial tomography scan -, Computerised tomogram, Computerised tomograph scan, Computerised tomography, Computerised transaxial tomography, Computerised transverse axial tomogram, Computerised transverse axial tomography, Computerized axial tomogram, Computerized axial tomography, Computerized axial tomography (procedure), Computerized axial tomography scan -, Computerized axial tomography scan (procedure), Computerized tomogram, Computerized tomograph scan, Computerized Tomographies X-Ray, COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY, Computerized tomography without IV contrast, Computerized Tomography X Ray, Computerized Tomography X-Ray, Computerized transaxial tomography, Computerized transaxial tomography without IV contrast, Computerized transverse axial tomogram, Computerized transverse axial tomography, CT, CT Computerised tomography, CT Computerized tomography, CT scan, CT scan without IV contrast, CT X Ray, CT X Rays, CT XRAY, CTT, CTT scan, EMI scan, Jejunal ulcer, Jejunal ulcer (disorder), Jejunal ulceration, Jejunum ulcer, Scan X-Ray CAT, Scans X-Ray CAT, Tomodensitometries, Tomodensitometry, Tomographies Computed X-Ray, Tomographies Xray Computed, Tomographies X-Ray Computed, Tomographies X-Ray Computerized, tomography, tomography computed, Tomography Computed X-Ray, Tomography X Ray Computed, Tomography Xray Computed, Tomography X-Ray Computed, Tomography X-Ray Computerized, Ulcer jejunum, ULCER OF JEJUNUM, X Ray CT, X Ray Tomography Computed, X Rays CT, X-Ray CAT Scan, X-Ray CAT Scans, Xray Computed Tomographies, X-Ray Computed Tomographies, Xray Computed Tomography, X-Ray Computed Tomography, X-Ray Computerized Tomographies, X-Ray Computerized Tomography, X-Ray Tomographies Computed, X-Ray Tomography Computed
- External Links Related to CT Scan/Abdomen jejunal ulceration
- Wikipedia
- Merck
- Images
- PubMed (National Library of Medicine)
- NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse)
- Medscape (eMedicine)
- Harrison's Online (accessmedicine)
- NEJM (The New England Journal of Medicine)


text:
In answer to the age-old question 'what did you do on your spring break?' a group of Keuka College students will not reply with an answer you'd expect them too.
That's because these students traded bathing suits for paint brushes, flip flops for feather dusters, and sunscreen for visiting orphans and senior citizens as part of the College's sixth annual Alternative Spring Break.
Alternative Spring Break provides students an opportunity to give to others as well as experience personal reflection, growth, and fun along the way. The annual Alternative Spring Break trip serves as a tool for letting Keuka College students become more familiar with the world, introduce them to experiences they have never had, and exemplify the College's vision and mission.
This group of Keuka College students traveled to Quesada, Costa Rica March 19-26, and while the temperatures average 86 degrees in March, the students are not working on their suntans; they were simply working—hard.
Hosted by Mary Curtiss Miller '49 and her husband Ralph, and led by Rev. Eric Detar, Keuka College chaplain and director of the Center for Spiritual Life, and Tim White, assistant director of residential life and director of the Success Advocates. The Millers have been missionaries in Costa Rica for more than 50 years.
"This is our second trip seeing the beautiful country of Costa Rica," said Detar. "We will spend time at an orphanage and a senior living center, clean and paint at a Christian school, and attend a worship service in Spanish. Costa Rica is very refreshing; yet personally and spiritually challenging."
Junior Kathryn Standinger, an occupational science major from Candor, and Sean Boutin, a senior criminology major from Purling, agree.
Standinger hopes to experience a culture "that is different from our own in so many ways," while Boutin views this trip as having the ability "to learn about religious beliefs that may be dissimilar to my own."
"I see this trip challenging me spiritually," added Standinger, "because it's going to require a lot of hard work and patience, and it may be harder to communicate with the people who we will be working with. But I'm really looking forward to it."
For junior Emily Scholl, an occupational science major from Saugerties, the trip provides the chance to "experience meaningful connections, learn from one another, and learn more about myself through our service work in Costa Rica" that she looks most forward to. "I hope to further identify and explore the spiritual aspects throughout what we do."
Emily Pidgeon, who went on the Alternative Spring Break trip last year, is excited to see the changes in the boys living at the orphanage.
"I think the biggest challenge will be saying goodbye at the end of the trip, knowing that I am graduating and this opportunity may not arise again," said the senior social work major from Onenota.
Freshman JuneAnn Chadima, a Grand Island resident and occupational science major, is anxious to "offer my service to people that need us. I think the language difference is going to be challenging, but I am excited for this trip. I can't wait to help other people and see what it is like in a different part of the world."
While the students will not be tourists, they will be able to explore the country through activities such as speeding down a zip line, going horseback riding, and swimming in the hot springs of Arenal Volcano.
Other students participating include: Caitlin Jones, a junior clinical science major from Weedsport; Scott Thielman, a senior sociology major from Amherst; Megan Hall, a junior exploratory major from Scottsville; Roland Trajano, a sophomore occupational science major from Westlake Village, Calif.; and Francisco Rodriguez, a senior sociology major from New York City. Xang Song Yang, international student advisor, also participated in the trip.
Twenty-two faculty and staff members were recognized for their service and dedication to Keuka College at Community Day Aug. 19.
Five-year service awards were presented to: Dianne Trickey-Rokenbrod, assistant professor of occupational therapy; Lynne Heath, academic records specialist; Troy Cusson, instructional design manager, Wertman Office of Distance Education; Michele "Mikki" Sheldon, administrative assistant for the Office of Academic Affairs; Jessica Dunkelberger, director of program administration and student services; Christen Accardi, assistant director of marketing; Teresa Ripley, administrative assistant for the Division of Humanities and Fine Art; Eric Detar, College chaplain; Timothy White; resident director and assistant director of housing and residence life; Alex Perryman, assistant professor of finance; Melissa Newcomb, assistant professor of art; and Jennie Joiner, chair, Division of Humanities and Fine Art and assistant professor of English.
Ten-year service awards were presented to: Kristen Harter, assistant director of admissions, traditional; Janet Lanphear, data entry coordinator; and Carmela Battaglia, professor of occupational therapy.
Fifteen-year service awards were presented to: Mike McKenzie, assistant professor of philosophy and religion; Jason Paige, head men's lacrosse coach; and Deb Jensen, accounting assistant, payroll.
A 20-year service award was presented to Gary Smith, professor of management.
Merit awards were presented to Rebecca Capek, resident director and success advocate; and Dunkelberger.
Presidential Awards for Sustained Outstanding Achievement were presented to: Ann Tuttle, professor of management; Detar; and Sandra Devaux, graphic designer.
More photos from Community Day.
Painting fences on a farm that teaches farming skills to men rehabilitating from drugs and alcohol doesn't sound like a typical activity for college students on spring break.
Neither does working at a home for boys, from 8-18 years old, teaching them English and playing volleyball, basketball, Frisbee, and soccer with them.
But that is just what a dozen Keuka College students will do as part of the College's annual Alternative Spring Break when they travel to Quesada, Costa Rica March 20-27. These students will not be working on their suntans. They will simply be working—hard.
Hosted by Mary Curtiss Miller '53 and her husband Ralph, and led by Rev. Eric Detar, Keuka College chaplain and director of the Center for Spiritual Life, and Tim White, assistant director of residential life and director of the Success Advocates, the students are part of Alternative Spring Break's first international edition. The Millers have been missionaries in Costa Rica for more than 50 years.
"When Tim and I first began leading Alternative Spring Break trips four years ago, they were seemingly random, but we always found someone, and some way, to help," said Detar. "We are beginning to become more strategic in our trips, and we want to offer four unique experiences throughout a student's years at Keuka College. We hope to offer trips in an urban setting, an environmental setting, a rural setting, and an international trip. During each trip, we will look at culture, stewardship, and poverty of each area we visit."
Junior Faith Garlington is particularly excited about working at the home for boys.
"As an occupational science major, I am interested to see the differences between how the boys play as to how kids in America play," said Garlington, a Boonville resident. "I want to see how and when they reach their milestones in a culture that is different from mine. I am excited to connect what I have learned in the classroom with what I will see."
Katie Crossley, a sophomore unified early childhood education major from Panama, N.Y. chose to participate in Alternative Spring Break because she believes she felt "a calling to go and is exactly where I am supposed to be in my life right now," while Bloomfield resident Jeff Miller says he wants to reorient himself.
"It's so easy to get caught up in your own world and forget that we are more fortunate than a lot of others in the world," said the junior occupational science major. "I am grateful for what I have."
For Lindsay Holmes, a senior occupational science major from West Henrietta, this is her second Alternative Spring Break trip.
"I went on the trip to Washington, DC last year, and experienced the culture of the homeless; it was eye-opening," she said. "I think this will be similar, but on a larger scale."
Emily Grecco, a sophomore psychology major from Waverly and Haley Jordan, a junior occupational science major from Auburn, agree that participating in Alternative Spring Break will be a reality check.
"I will be helping people with something they need, and not just be on another vacation where I am a tourist," said Grecco.
"It's easy to think that that one person can't have much of an impact, but we've seen from past trips that it's not true. I am so glad that I will not be a tourist and that I will get to interact with the people on a greater level," said White.
While the students will not be tourists, they will be able to explore the country through activities such as speeding down a zip line, go horseback riding, swimming in the hot springs of Arenal Volcano, and visiting Sarchi, a quaint painted oxcart village. The group will also participate in worship services at a Methodist Church.
Other students participating include: Emily Pidgeon, a junior social work major from Oneonta; Rachel Guthrie, a junior child and family studies major from North Rose; Ashley Terry, a sophomore political science and history major from Andes; Emily Black, a sophomore political science and history major from Athens, Pa.; Jenny Schafer, a junior occupational science major from Fayetteville; and Patricia Wallace, a senior occupational science major from Bath.
Jamaica, Miami, South Padre Island, and Puerto Vallarta are among the Travel Channel's Top 12 spring break destinations for college students this year.
A destination notably missing is Washington, D.C., probably due to its lack of palm trees and white sand beaches.
But a dozen Keuka College students, who chose to swap suntans for shovels, will travel to the nation's capital April 1-6 to spend spring break helping those in need. The students, along with Eric Detar, College chaplain, and Tim White, resident director for Blyley and Harrington Halls and a retention counselor, are participating in Keuka College's annual Alternative Spring Break.
The Keuka team will work with the Center for Student Missions (CSM), which provides urban missions and service experiences for youth, adult, and family groups.
While working in Washington, the Keuka students will prepare and serve breakfast and lunch to the homeless, assist with an after-school program for elementary school children, help with the construction and renovation of a church, and assist at a senior center day care program.
"Right now, we just know each other by name and maybe a couple of other things," said Detar. "The students who choose to take Alternative Spring Break trips will have a unique shared group experience that no one else will have. By the end of this trip, each of us will be much more than just a face around campus."
Courtney Ray, a junior social work major from Cato, believes the trip will be an eye-opening experience.
"As a social work major, I anticipate working with the kind of people I will work with in my career," she said.
Kaysie Burnett, a junior education major from Shortsville, wanted to go on the Alternative Spring Break "because I have never been to Washington, D.C., and thought a service trip would be a good way to spend spring break."
And while participating in a mission trip may be new to Burnett, helping others is in Nina Fusco's blood. The freshman occupational science major has been practicing social responsibility through her church since she was 13. But since her church closed several months ago, the Mechanicsville resident has been looking for a service project. So, when she heard about the Alternative Spring Break trip, Fusco jumped at the chance.
"Participating in this trip lets me continue doing something I love to do, and I am looking forward to going," said Fusco.
So are Penn Yan resident Alicia Parkhurst, who is pursuing her master's degree in education, and junior Francesca Spina.
Two years ago, Spina, an adolescent social studies major, worked with nine other students at Franciscans for the Poor in Cincinnati, Ohio, for the 2011 edition of Alternative Spring Break.
"I thoroughly enjoyed the trip and it changed my perspective on my life," said the Rochester resident. "It made me realize how blessed I am and how much I can give to others in need. That is way I want to go to Washington and help again."
After the students have performed the day's work, they will have an opportunity for reflection at the Douglas Memorial Methodist Church, and enjoy dinners at ethnic restaurants. Also planned are visits to the National Mall, Lincoln Memorial, World War II Memorial, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, and Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.
White expects the Keuka group to be impacted by what they see and do while in Washington.
"The work we will do has been going on for a long time, and will continue after we leave," said White. "We will get a snapshot of what people do every day to help those who need it most. What we get from this trip will be far more that what we give."
Other students participating in Alternative Spring Break include: Robby Magee, a senior adolescent social studies/special education major from Fairport; Megan Russo, a freshman psychology major from Ceaderville, N.J.; Mattie Waldstein, a senior education studies major from Needham, Mass.; Patricia Wallace, a junior occupational science major from Bath; Lindsay Holmes, a junior occupational science major from West Henrietta; Sean Boutin, a sophomore criminology/criminal justice major from Purling; and Niki Chase, a junior social work major from Oneonta.
What do a box of crayons, a bag of pepperoni, Flo of Progressive Insurance fame, a prom-going zombie, the Ball Hall tower, and a fox have in common?
They were all characters who won the annual Halloween costume contest held on the Keuka College campus Wednesday, Oct. 31.
Tracy McFarland, associate vice president for student development, portrayed the crayon box, while Eva Moberg-Sarver, director of student activities; Eric Detar, chaplain; and resident directors (RD) Kevin Perry, Tim White, Rebecca Capek, Margeaux DePrez, and Kelsey Deso posed as the crayons.
McFarland and her colorful crew earned first place in the group category.
Junior Ariel Scott (zombie), an organizational communication major from Unadilla, received the top prize in the scariest category, while the most original prize went to Amanda Burlingame, a senior adolescent mathematics/special education major from Keuka Park, for her portrayal as Flo.
The top costumes in the male and female categories went to Nathan Calabria (the fox), and Jennie Snyder (pepperoni). Calabria and Snyder, part of the D.R.I.V.E. program, earned $30 each for their efforts.
For staff and faculty, a Halloween hat contest with desk-to-desk competition, was held. Human Resources Manager Sue Delyser, earned bragging rights with her 'hat'—the Ball Hall tower.
Each contestant received a gift certificate to the Terrace Café courtesy of AVI Fresh, the College's food service provider.


text:
- 81Promote
Art Print
Time Machineby Bella Blue Photography
Collect your choice of gallery quality Giclée, or fine art prints custom trimmed by hand in a variety of sizes with a white border for framing.
super image!
Hi agnes ~ Thank you very much
Another stunning piece! Love the imagery.
Think I could catch a ride in this? Fabulous work!
Thanks for the kink comments Sheri & TaLins.....LOL Rides are free
Meant kind not kink comments:D
Great work Bella!
Thanks John
wonderful work!
Wow, great work!
Thanks so much elle moss, Dominique and Ally!
This is great!
Thank you Chaun Soh
Wonderful image !!
Thank you Christopher
Thank you gwenola de muralt
This is awesome!
Thanks Irene:)
This is really wonderful, and thank you for supporting my work too, Sharon!
Thank you so much Wayne :)
See More Comments