text: Intrepidation 868 Report post Posted May 6, 2009 Chevy Silverado vs. Dodge Ram vs. Ford F-150 vs. Toyota Tundra We see it every Friday during our evening commute. A stream of vehicles choking the freeway, headed out to the Mojave Desert or the Colorado River for some well-earned weekend stress relief. The fun varies, from camping to dirt-bike riding to water-skiing. But the vehicle that invariably gets tasked with hauling the corresponding equipment is a full-size pickup truck. You know, like the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, 2009 Ford F-150 or 2009 Toyota Tundra. Sure, we talk about the virtues of the minivan as a family hauler, and there are many. But the minivan stands no chance against a looming 25-foot camping trailer. And SUVs are easily flummoxed by motocross bikes and the need to carry their smelly gas cans (or anything that's remotely dirty, actually) in the vehicle's cargo area. There's nothing like a pickup, with its big bin in back that doesn't care what you toss into it. And the truck is sure to be around long after the full-frame SUV falls completely out of favor and descends into the three-row car-based sensibility that is the crossover. The Game All the big hitters have introduced new machines in the last couple of years. It's time to see if the pecking order has changed, so we sought out one of everything for a simulated weekend romp: the 2009 Chevy Silverado, the 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, the 2009 Ford F-150 and the 2009 Toyota Tundra. (That's everything except the Nissan Titan, which is overdue for a refresh.) With them we'd pull camping trailers to the desert, so they needed to be tow-ready. Once there, we'd unburden our beasts and play in the sand, so four-wheel drive was a must. And of course we'd subject them to two weeks of day-to-day use, so we made sure all of them had a crew cab (with 5.5-foot bed), sunroof, navigation system and other convenience features. We added another task to our tow-test regimen this time. We always test trucks against their claimed capacity, ballasting each rig to a similar percentage of its particular Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR). But this produces different trailer weights for each combatant, and it confuses some readers. So we added a second test: a fixed-weight face-off in which each truck pulled an identical trailer up our test mountain. Let's meet the contestants. The Players Our Toyota Tundra CrewMax 4x4 test truck is actually a 2008 model, but we've used 2009 pricing because the truck hasn't changed. Ours had the 381-horsepower 5.7-liter iForce V8, the TRD off-road package ($2,155 option) and rear-seat DVD entertainment ($1,670), yet its $44,434 price is still the least in this test because this SR5 model doesn't have leather upholstery. The 2009 Ford F-150 Lariat Super Crew 4x4 comes loaded with a host of comfort and convenience features, inside and out. It is powered by Ford's venerable 5.4-liter V8, which makes 310 hp. An optional 3.73:1 rear axle ratio ($300) and other towing bits give it a claimed towing capacity of 11,200 pounds, the highest rating in this bunch. All that and more cost $46,415. Our decommissioned 2007 Silverado long-termer had a 6.0-liter V8, but this 2009 Silverado 1500 Crew Cab 4x4 test truck has the larger 403-hp 6.2-liter V8 ($1,000) bolted to its six-speed transmission, a stouter combination that nevertheless results in a lower tow rating. It prices out at $48,175 with leather bucket seats, 20-inch chrome-finished wheels ($745) and LTZ trim. Finally there's the 2009 Dodge Ram Laramie Crew Cab 4x4, with coil-spring rear suspension and the only five-speed automatic transmission in this group. Its 5.7-liter V8 makes 390 hp and matches up here with the optional 3.92:1 rear end ($350), but the truck's 7,300-pound tow rating is still the lowest by far. And at $52,555, the Ram is also the priciest. Much of the cost comes from the unique RamBox bed ($1,895) and a rear-seat entertainment system ($1,695). And let's not forget the trailers these trucks pulled. Our Fleetwood Prowler 230 RKS is a 29-foot camper that weighs 6,280 pounds with dry tanks. We also had a Fleetwood Backpack 210 FQ, a 3,880-pound unit that's around 23 feet long. All the trucks pulled the heavier Prowler (ballasted to an even 6,500 pounds) in the fixed-weight test. Afterwards, trailers and ballast were manipulated to burden each truck to 80 percent of its towing capacity. 4th Place: 2009 Ford F-150 Lariat SuperCrew 4x4 What? This isn't supposed to happen. After all, the F-150 is the perennial pickup sales champ. Perhaps, but this is a strong field, and the margin between 1st and 4th is thin. Our Lariat-trim F-150 is truly a nice place to spend time, featuring Sync voice-actuated audio and telephone control plus sumptuous leather seats that can either heat or cool our posterior. But nothing about the interior style is subtle, and there's lots of chrome. The Lariat Plus package ($1,295) adds still more brightwork outside. With Amber Gold paint, the "pretty truck" theme goes to an oxymoronic extreme. The 2009 F-150's elongated wheelbase (144.5 inches, an increase of 6 inches over last year) provides a smooth and confident highway ride, plus there's ample cabin space for the tallest among us, especially in the backseat, where it offers 43.5 inches of headroom. But the extra length affects performance. More truck means more weight, and our test example weighs a whopping 6,040 pounds, some 200-500 pounds heftier than the others. Parking this beast was no picnic either, thanks to a turning radius of 47 feet. Put both extra wheelbase and extra weight together and you'll understand why the F-150 feels ponderous on twisty roads. Our test-driver looked like all arms and elbows through the slalom test at the track, but came away with only a 55.9-mph run. Secure? Yes. Predictable? You bet. Willing dance partner? No. Acceleration isn't particularly sprightly, either. Despite the smooth-shifting six-speed automatic, the F-150's 8.4-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (8.0 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) lags 1.0-1.8 seconds behind the rest. Perhaps it's optimized for towing, we theorized. A mere 6,500-pound trailer should be a minor annoyance for a truck with an 11,200-pound tow rating, right? Well, it didn't work out that way. Simply put, the Ford got beaten on our 11.5-mile test grade, coming in dead last by 27 seconds in a test that should have stressed it least. It was the only truck to drop below 50 mph, sagging to 47.8 mph at one point, and it spent the most time at wide-open throttle. None of this should be a surprise. Physics suggests that a tepid 5.4-liter V8 that makes 310 hp (in the heaviest truck, no less) should not be able to out-tow others that boast 380 hp and up. Physics is right. Furthermore, the 3.73:1 axle ratio that's needed to generate the advertised tow rating drastically affects everyday fuel economy. Our unburdened F-150 achieved 12.6 mpg, well below the window sticker ratings of 14 mpg city and 18 mpg highway (which were achieved with the standard 3.55:1 ratio). This 2009 Ford F-150 is a nice truck in many ways, but it's clearly time for a new engine. The 5.4-liter V8 is simply being asked to do too much, and the rumored 4.4-liter turbodiesel cannot come soon enough. 3rd Place: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LTZ Crew Cab 4x4 If lots of motor makes a trucker's life easier, the 2009 Chevy Silverado proves it with a stout 6.2-liter V8 that cranks out 403 hp — the class of the field by 13 horses. On top of this, the Silverado tips the scales at just 5,520 pounds, some 500 pounds less than the F-150 and more than 300 pounds less than the others. This pays off big at the test track, where the Silverado beats the rest with a 6.6-second run to 60 mph from a standstill (6.3 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip). It is also king of the slalom, where its relative lightness and lower overall height help it to 58.6 mph. Its stopping distance from 60 mph while unloaded is also best in this test at 124 feet. Uphill with a trailer attached, the Silverado trails the quickest truck by only 4 seconds after almost 13 minutes of climbing. The steepest stretch requires some encouragement with wide-open throttle and the speed dips to 50.2 mph, but this is still a pretty stout performance from a truck with a standard 3.42:1 axle ratio. And here the use of a standard axle ratio means our 14.2 mpg observed fuel economy (best of the test) accurately reflects the EPA window sticker, which predicts 12 mpg city/19 mpg highway. We also like the Chevy's six-speed transmission, which executes snappy yet smooth shifts. And its tow-haul mode demonstrates psychic ability by downshifting proactively to control descent speed on hills without first requiring a dab of brakes — reassuring when some 6,500 pounds is attempting to shove you down a 7 percent grade. The Silverado's leaf-spring rear suspension supports the trailer weight well enough, and Chevy's ride when unladed is second best here. But axle tramp enters the picture when the truck is accelerating on silty off-road surfaces. (Our truck didn't have the Z71 off-road package, which seems like a $275 no-brainer to us.) Athletic prowess aside, the Chevy settles into 3rd because of day-to-day issues. The interior is well-finished enough, with nicely grained surfaces and a clean overall design. But our top-line LTZ's black interior is more than a little monochromatic and dreary and the tiny control buttons on the center stack are hard to use. Plus, the as-tested price of our truck does not include things like extendable tow mirrors, a rearview camera, a fully integrated iPod connection or rear-seat entertainment — which are found on most of the other trucks. Even the Silverado's sliding rear window is an optional extra, and it's the only truck here that doesn't have side curtain airbags. And so the Silverado seems the polar opposite of the F-150. It's athletic and willing, but the day-to-day functionality and convenience come up a little short. It's a solid truck that could stand a bit more polish. 2nd Place: 2008 Toyota Tundra SR5 CrewMax 4x4 When it was introduced in 2007, the Toyota Tundra leaped to the top of the pickup truck pile thanks to its 5.7-liter iForce V8 with 381 hp and 400 lb-ft of torque, a six-speed automatic transmission and a tow rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. From the get-go, this capability applied to all cab configurations and trim levels, and that's because Toyota has to do everything with the Tundra; it has nothing like a heavy-duty T-250 or T-350 in its lineup. Chevy and Ford quickly countered with trucks that had higher tow ratings, though only in low-volume variants. But Toyota's all-aluminum 5.7-liter DOHC V8 with variable intake and exhaust valve timing remains mighty impressive. It likes to rev a bit more to make power, so the axle ratio here is 4.30:1. But this combination produces a 6.9-second acceleration to 60 mph from a standstill (6.6 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and a run to the quarter-mile in 15.1 seconds at 91.7 mph — only a couple tenths behind the lighter Silverado with its pushrod 6.2-liter V8. On the towing hill the Tundra tops the list, cruising easily at California's towing speed limit of 55 mph all the way up at part throttle, dipping to 53.4 mph only because we didn't use cruise control. Transmission performance is excellent, as there isn't any hunting between ratios. This towing prowess does not come at the expense of everyday fuel economy. The standard 4.30:1 axle ratio leads to an EPA rating of 13 mpg city and 17 mpg highway. The EPA rates this truck at 14 mpg combined, and our Tundra does just that with 13.6 mpg over 1,000 non-towing miles, 2nd best overall. This kind of powertrain performance is possible when a strong engine is mated to a well-calibrated six-speed transmission. Some of the other trucks in this test could learn from this. At the same time, the Tundra's high tow rating leads to compromises some might be unwilling to accept. Stiff rear springs are required to support higher tongue weights for trailers, and this affects everyday ride comfort. But anyone who chooses the 5.7-liter Tundra gets such springs, and we think a significant number of "anyones" won't be towing. For us, the F-150 Lariat rides a bit smoother than this Tundra, even though the Ford's stated towing capacity is 1,100 pounds higher. (Perhaps this is a by-product of the Tundra's TRD off-road package, which made our Toyota a demon in the dirt. Then again, our past experience has shown that the Bilstein dampers that accompany this option don't necessarily harm ride comfort.) Equipmentwise, the Tundra doesn't feel like the least expensive truck in the test. Sure, it's the only truck with cloth bucket seats, and it has a simple aux jack instead of an iPod connection, but it does have a lot longer list of convenience features than the Chevy, including side curtain airbags, a rear-seat DVD player, extendable towing mirrors, a telescoping steering column, a rearview camera and a damped tailgate. It also has the only full-width, power-operated rear window instead of a small pass-through. And then there's that standard 10,100-pound tow package. The Tundra is a very strong product, but with no 3/4-ton or 1-ton variants to sell, it has to be. If the day-to-day ride had less edge, it might have won this comparison. It's that close. 1st Place: 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4x4 After all the points were tallied, the Dodge Ram takes the win with a very well-rounded performance, despite being the priciest truck in the group. We knew from previous experience that the Ram's coil-spring rear suspension works well when the truck is unloaded, but this time we found it has the chops to handle a trailer, too. The superior lateral stiffness of a five-link rear axle and a rear antiroll bar keep things from getting all swimmy while towing, even when we're late for lunch and with a winding road between us and a burrito plate. Later, the burritos stayed down because the Ram 4x4 is best at smoothing out washboard tracks and putting the power down in sand, as you don't get the insistent rear-axle hammering of leaf-spring rear suspensions. At the track, the Ram clears the slalom cones at 57.6 mph, second quickest of the bunch. But the 390-hp 5.7-liter V8 is held back in our acceleration runs by its optional 3.92:1 rear-axle ratio and a five-speed transmission. The Ram's time to 60 mph from a standstill of 7.4 seconds (7.1 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) is 0.8 second slower than the Chevy but still a full second clear of the F-150. And the Dodge does better over the long haul up the long grade, where the horsepower and the axle ratio come into play. It clears the top in a virtual tie with the Tundra (12 minutes, 51 seconds) and never once needs full throttle — this from the truck with the lowest advertised tow rating (7,300 pounds) in the test. Yes, its minimum speed during towing does sag to 51 mph for a few hundred yards as the five-speed tranny dithers between its more widely spaced gears. The lack of 6th gear hurts fuel economy, too, as the Dodge comes in 3rd at 13.1 mpg, just behind the Toyota. Here again, the EPA rating of 13 mpg city/18 mpg highway and 15 mpg combined is misleading because of this truck's optional axle ratio. The optional RamBox proved itself useful by swallowing 85 pounds of greasy trailer hitch parts in its lockable bins. And its repositionable bed divider is easily the best of its kind. If you don't need this stuff, you can opt out and save $1,895. You win either way. Inside, the Dodge is a happy medium between dull and overdone. The new Crew Cab replaces last year's Mega Cab, and it's just right. There's just enough rear legroom, yet the whole truck avoids growing to an unmanageable size and weight. At 227.5 inches overall, the Dodge is the shortest truck here. It sits on the shortest wheelbase at 140 inches and it turns around in a second-best 45.4 feet. It's also the second lightest at 5,860 pounds, RamBox notwithstanding. There's lots of functionality, too, with heated and ventilated front seats, heated rear seats and a heated steering wheel. It's got rear-seat DVD and TV, a back-up camera, Bluetooth and a fully integrated iPod connection that works. If only the radio itself — accessed through the same navigation screen — was as easy to use. The Dodge Ram impresses us with a solid performance, an understated ability to tow the socks off some others, a feature-laden presentation and rugged good looks. Oh, and those coil springs? After this, many of us won't have our truck any other way. Summing Up Still, none of them is perfect. A better truck is theoretically possible if someone took the best elements from each and mashed them together. The final results show just how good the 2009 Chevrolet Silverado, 2009 Dodge Ram 1500, 2009 Ford F-150 and 2008 Toyota Tundra are. For now, the 2009 Dodge Ram sits atop this pile, but any of the others could forge ahead if they spend a little time on their respective weaknesses. It's that close. And we think it's safe to say that horsepower and torque are still among the more important elements in the mix if you're going to tow or haul for work or play. And if you're not going to tow or haul, why buy a truck at this point? Insideline Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
Program Solicitation
National Science Foundation
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
July 16, 2006
July 16, annually
In furtherance of the President's Management Agenda, in Fiscal Year 2006, NSF has identified programs that will offer proposers the option to utilize Grants.gov to prepare and submit proposals. Grants.gov provides a single Government-wide portal for finding and applying for Federal grants online.
Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
by one organization (and which includes one or more subawards); or
as separate submissions from multiple organizations.
Proposers are advised that collaborative proposals submitted in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov will be requested to be withdrawn and proposers will need to resubmit these proposals via the NSF FastLane system. (Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.)
The following items are major revisions and updates of the previous version of this program solicitation:This solicitation has been revised to be consistent with the other Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) programs. In particular:
the title has been shortened for clarity and consistency
EAR data policy wording has been included
Grants.gov information has been included
Other text edits have been made throughout the document to reflect changing program needs and personnel.
Program Title:
Synopsis of Program:
EarthScope is an Earth science program to explore the 4-dimensional structure of the North American continent. The EarthScope Program provides a framework for broad, integrated studies across the Earth sciences, including research on fault properties and the earthquake process, strain transfer, magmatic and hydrous fluids in the crust and mantle, plate boundary processes, large-scale continental deformation, continental structure and evolution, and composition and structure of the deep-Earth. In addition, EarthScope offers a centralized forum for Earth science education at all levels and an excellent opportunity to develop cyberinfrastructure to integrate, distribute, and analyze diverse data sets.
The nucleus of the Program is the EarthScope Facility, consisting of the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO), the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), and the USArray. The EarthScope Facility is a multi-purpose array of instruments and observatories that will greatly expand the observational capabilities of the Earth Sciences and permit us to advance our understanding of the structure, evolution and dynamics of the North American continent. The Facility is designed to continually incorporate technological advances in geophysics, seismology, geodesy, information technology, drilling technology, and downhole instrumentation.
This Solicitation calls for single or collaborative proposals to conduct scientific research associated with the EarthScope Facility and support activities that further the scientific and educational goals of EarthScope.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Kaye Shedlock, Program Director, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-4693, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: email@example.com
Lina Patino, Assistant Program Director, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-5047, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: This solicitation contains information that supplements the standard Grant Proposal Guide and NSF Grants.gov Application Guide guidelines.
Full proposals submitted via FastLane:
Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply
Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov:
The EarthScope Program is part of the Division of Earth Sciences (EAR). EAR provides funding for the conduct of research in most areas of the solid-earth and surface-terrestrial sciences. EAR focuses on improving our understanding of the Earth's structure, composition, evolution, and the interaction with the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere. In addition, EAR provides support for instrumental and observational infrastructure, cyberinfrastructure, and innovative educational and outreach activities. Projects may employ any combination of field, laboratory, and computational studies with observational, theoretical, or experimental approaches. Support is available for research and research infrastructure through grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements awarded in response to investigator-initiated proposals. EAR will consider co-funding of projects with other agencies and supports international work and collaborations.
The rich fabric of tectonic provinces in North America provides a solid scientific framework for a major program to investigate the relationships among processes and structures over a wide range of scales within the crust, lithosphere, and mantle, with the goal of understanding the tectonic and geologic processes that have constructed the continents. The North American Continent is also ideally located with respect to global seismicity to provide unprecedented views of the deep mantle. EarthScope addresses fundamental questions about the evolution of continents and the processes responsible for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Through the integration of scientific information derived from geology, geochemistry, geophysics, and geodesy, the EarthScope program will yield a comprehensive time-dependent picture of the continent far beyond that which any single discipline or technology can achieve. EarthScope includes new observational technologies that will be linked through high performance computing and telecommunication networks. These observational facilities provide a framework for broad, integrated studies across the Earth sciences, including research on fault properties and the earthquake process, crustal strain transfer, magmatic and hydrous fluids in the crust and upper mantle, plate boundary processes, large-scale continental deformation, continental structure and evolution, deep-Earth structure, and associated educational aspects.
The integrated observing systems that will comprise the EarthScope Facility include: USArray that maps in 3-D the earth's interior by means of seismic and magnetotelluric systems; Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) that monitors the distortion of the earth's surface by means of geodetic systems; and the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD) that defines the conditions and physics of an active plate boundary fault at depth. These systems capitalize on recent developments in sensor technology and communications to provide Earth scientists with synoptic and high-resolution data derived from a variety of geophysical sensors. The intent is that all data from the EarthScope Facility will be openly available in near-real-time to maximize participation from the scientific community and to provide on-going educational outreach to students and the public.
The EarthScope Program is committed to supporting the most meritorious research in any relevant area, including interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research, as well as research involving international collaboration. The Program is especially interested in proposals in emerging fields. Where appropriate, proposals may be considered for joint support with other programs in EAR or with other Divisions at the National Science Foundation. In some cases, proposals may be transferred to other programs within EAR or to other Divisions within the National Science Foundation when it is deemed appropriate by Program Officers from the respective programs or divisions. Principal Investigators are encouraged to contact the cognizant program officers regarding proposals that may cross disciplinary boundaries before submission.
Examples of projects supported by the program can be found using the
NSF Award Search (Program Information) engine by entering Element Code 1741.
Scientific Targets
EarthScope encompasses a broad array of scientific targets within the context of the North American continent. Examples include, but are not limited to:
The infrastructure provided by the EarthScope Facility (USArray, PBO and SAFOD) presents a multidisciplinary field laboratory that can stimulate new mechanisms for collaboration, data integration, and data management of a diverse suite of geologic, geochemical, and geophysical data sets. Proposals are invited for supporting or complementary infrastructure, such as: aerial image acquisition or archive, physical archives for EarthScope materials, upgrade of geochemical facilities, other infrastructure needs. Proposals are encouraged that show evidence of collaborative arrangements between academic and/or industry groups. Activities related to support of EarthScope community coordination, planning, workshops, and development of community resources and products are also welcomed.
EarthScope is committed to providing an integrated database and archive access capability applying the tools from modern data management and information technologies. Proposals are invited that will extend the power and capabilities of this database through information technology advances, and that will provide standardized data, visualization and analysis tools, and data integration products to the scientific and education communities. This includes facilitating the adoption of standards for data exchange for geologic data and the transcription of existing data into these standards. Pilot projects or prototype development for producing and distributing EarthScope products such as tomographic velocity inversions, GPS velocity vectors, surface wave dispersion, etc. are also encouraged.
Proposals to this competition should include aspects of the following elements:
EarthScope Education and Outreach (E&O)
The EarthScope program invites proposals to address program-wide education and outreach objectives. EarthScope E&O projects should strive to integrate research components of EarthScope with activities that are broadly defined to include formal instruction at all levels and informal education for the community-at-large. Partnerships or collaborations are strongly encouraged among the members of the EarthScope or other educational communities. Proposals may include demonstration products or pilot projects that may be scalable to support larger EarthScope E&O activities in future years. For example, these may include community data products that are accessible to students and non-specialists, and teaching modules that will allow EarthScope resources to be incorporated into an inquiry-based learning experience consistent with national educational standards. Supplemental proposal preparation instructions and review criteria for education and outreach proposals are given in Sections V and VI.
Earth Science (EarthScope)/Earthquake Engineering (NEES) Research Opportunities
The George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) is a national, shared use experimental resource for advancing understanding and improving the design and performance of the Nation's constructed civil and mechanical infrastructure when subjected to earthquake excitation and tsunamis. NEES is a shared national research and education network of 15 experimental facilities and centralized data and model repositories, linked by high-speed Internet2 connections. These resources enable collaboration and advanced research based on experimentation and computational simulations of earthquakes and how buildings, infrastructure, coastal regions, and geologic materials perform during seismic events. NEES will enable engineers and researchers to develop more cost-effective ways to mitigate damage from natural and man-made disasters through the use of improved materials, designs, monitoring tools and construction techniques.The NEES and EarthScope facilities provide complementary capabilities to extend the continuum and interface of knowledge and technology in Earth Sciences and earthquake engineering. Co-funding opportunities will be considered between EAR, through this solicitation, and by the Directorate for Engineering, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems, for projects that propose research requiring coordinated use of both NEES and EarthScope facilities. Proposals should address both the requirements of this solicitation and the George E. Brown Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NEESR) solicitation (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf06504). Proposals will be co-reviewed by ad hoc mail reviews and/or panels formed to review proposals under both solicitations.
The categories of proposers identified in the Grant Proposal Guide are eligible to submit proposals under this program solicitation. Colleges and universities designated as Undergraduate or Predominately Undergraduate Institutions should consult the guidelines described in Research in Undergraduate Institutions.
Proposals may involve scientists at one organization or collaborative efforts of associated researchers from different organizations working on coordinated projects.
Proposals that have been declined are not eligible for resubmission for one year from the original date of submission and must be substantially revised to be considered. A proposal that has not been substantially revised will be returned without review as per the Grant Proposal Guide.
Under this Solicitation, proposals may be submitted for up to five years. The program expects to make approximately 15 to 25 standard or continuing grants or cooperative agreements with durations of 1 to 5 years depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds. Approximately $6,000,000 is expected to be available in FY2007 to support proposals received under this Solicitation.
Full Proposal Instructions:
In furtherance of the President's Management Agenda, in Fiscal Year 2006, NSF has identified programs that will offer proposers the option to utilize Grants.gov to prepare and submit proposals. Grants.gov provides a single Government-wide portal for finding and applying for Federal grants online.
Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.
- Proposals submitted via the FastLane system:
Proposals submitted in response to this Program Solicitation via FastLane should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF Website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from email@example.com.
- Proposals submitted via Grants.gov:
Proposals submitted in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/docs/grantsgovguide.pdf). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, i.e, the Program Solicitation Number, and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.com.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. This includes collaborative proposals submitted:
by one organization (and which includes one or more subawards); or
- as separate submissions from multiple organizations.
Proposers are advised that collaborative proposals submitted in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov will be requested to be withdrawn and proposers will need to resubmit these proposals via the NSF FastLane system. (Chapter II, Section D.3 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.)
- All Other Types of Proposals That Contain Subawards. All other types of proposals that contain one or more subawards also must be submitted via the NSF Fastlane system. (Chapter II, Section C.2.g.(vi)(e) of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on subawards.)
The following information provides instructions that supplement the Grant Proposal Guide and the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.
Proposals that require facility (PBO, SAFOD, and/or USArray) and/or other agency support outside that requested in the submitting organization(s) proposal budget(s), or that require permits, etc., should include support commitment letters and/or permits as appendices. Note: This is not a cost-sharing requirement.
For EarthScope Education and Outreach (E&O) proposals, the following items should be included in the 15-page Project Description and will be considered in the review:
Cost Sharing:
Cost sharing is not required by NSF in proposals submitted under this Program Solicitation.
Proposals must be submitted by the following date(s):
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
Detailed technical instructions for proposal preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Proposers are no longer required to provide a paper copy of the signed Proposal Cover Sheet to NSF. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. The Grants.gov's Grant Community User Guide is a comprehensive reference document that provides technical information about Grants.gov. Proposers can download the User Guide as a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF document. The Grants.gov User Guide is available at: http://www.grants.gov/CustomerSupport. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.com. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.
Reviews of proposals submitted to NSF are solicited from peers with expertise in the substantive area of the proposed research or education project. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. NSF invites the proposer to suggest, at the time of submission, the names of appropriate or inappropriate reviewers. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts with the proposer. Special efforts are made to recruit reviewers from non-academic institutions, minority-serving institutions, or adjacent disciplines to that principally addressed in the proposal.
The National Science Board approved revised criteria for evaluating proposals at its meeting on March 28, 1997 (NSB 97-72). All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
On July 8, 2002, the NSF Director issued Important Notice 127, Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements Related to the Broader Impacts Criterion. This Important Notice reinforces the importance of addressing both criteria in the preparation and review of all proposals submitted to NSF. NSF continues to strengthen its internal processes to ensure that both of the merit review criteria are addressed when making funding decisions.
In an effort to increase compliance with these requirements, the January 2002 issuance of the GPG incorporated revised proposal preparation guidelines relating to the development of the Project Summary and Project Description. Chapter II of the GPG specifies that Principal Investigators (PIs) must address both merit review criteria in separate statements within the one-page Project Summary. This chapter also reiterates that broader impacts resulting from the proposed project must be addressed in the Project Description and described as an integral part of the narrative.
Effective October 1, 2002, NSF will return without review proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the Project Summary. It is believed that these changes to NSF proposal preparation and processing guidelines will more clearly articulate the importance of broader impacts to NSF-funded projects.
The two National Science Board approved merit review criteria are listed below (see the Grant Proposal Guide Chapter III.A for further information). The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which he/she is qualified to make judgments.
NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
Proposals that create synergy among the various EarthScope components and activities are encouraged. Proposals will be judged additionally on their relevance to defining community products, developing community tools, and other similar activities.
For EarthScope Education and Outreach (E&O) proposals, the following items should be included in the 15-page Project Description and will be considered in the review:
A description of previous educational efforts of the investigators. This might include how the investigator has: 1) influenced his or her research discipline; 2) incorporated or integrated contemporary research questions, processes, and results into educational experiences; 3) contributed to the literature of teaching and learning; 4) mentored others to conduct research and to educate students; or 5) demonstrated leadership among colleagues in promoting the above.
A description of the activities to be undertaken related to EarthScope research and to exploring and experimenting with ways to integrate education and research.
A plan for assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of the E&O activities.
All proposals are carefully reviewed by at least three other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular field represented by the proposal. Proposals submitted in response to this announcement/solicitation will be reviewed by Ad Hoc Review followed by Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Director. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.
NSF is striving to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the closing date of an announcement/solicitation, or the date of proposal receipt, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program Division administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See section VI.A. for additional information on the review process.)
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (NSF-GC-1); * or Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP) Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreement awards are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC). Electronic mail notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of Grants and Agreements.
Consistent with the requirements of OMB Circular A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities, and the Federal Geographic Data Committee, all NSF awards that result in relevant geospatial data must be submitted to Geospatial One-Stop in accordance with the guidelines provided at: www.geodata.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions is contained in the NSF Grant Policy Manual (GPM) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpm. The GPM is also for sale through the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC 20402. The telephone number at GPO for subscription information is (202) 512-1800. The GPM may be ordered through the GPO Website at http://www.gpo.gov/.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/. Paper copies of these documents may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from firstname.lastname@example.com.
Special Award Conditions:
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to submit a final project report. Failure to provide final technical reports delays NSF review and processing of pending proposals for the PI and all Co-PIs. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. This system permits electronic submission and updating of project reports, including information on project participants (individual and organizational), activities and findings, publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
Kaye Shedlock, Program Director, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-4693, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Lina Patino, Assistant Program Director, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-5047, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: email@example.com
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
Lerome D. Jackson, Program Technology Specialist, Directorate for Geosciences, Division of Earth Sciences, 785 S, telephone: (703) 292-8551, fax: (703) 292-9025, email: email@example.com
The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and education in science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF Guide to Programs is available electronically at https://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gp. General descriptions of NSF programs, research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are provided in each chapter.
Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Any changes in NSF's fiscal year programs occurring after press time for the Guide to Programs will be announced in the NSF E-Bulletin, which is updated daily on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/home/ebulletin, and in individual program announcements/solicitations. Subscribers can also sign up for NSF's MyNSF News Service (https://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/) to be notified of new funding opportunities that become available.
Related Programs:
Collaboration in Mathematical Geosciences (NSF 05-535)
Continental Dynamics (NSF 04-512)
Earth Sciences: Instrumentation and Facilities (NSF 05-587)
Geophysics (NSF 06-546)
George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NSF 06-504)
Geoscience Education (NSF 05-609)
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program (NSF 05-579)
Petrology and Geochemistry (NSF 06-543)
Tectonics (NSF 06-544)
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. Awardees are wholly responsible for conducting their project activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation.
NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and educators. The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit eligibility.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities (investigators and other staff, including student research assistants) to work on NSF-supported projects. See the GPG Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.�
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to applicant institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies needing information as part of the review process or in order to coordinate programs; and to another Federal agency, court or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, Division of Administrative Services, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA 22230.
OMB control number: 3145-0058.
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Charles Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
American State Papers: Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1832–61. [Foreign Relations, vol. 2.]
Annals of the Congress of the United States: The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States. 42 vols. Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1834–56. [Vols. 9–10 and 35–37.]
Bethea, Andrew J. The Contribution of Charles Pinckney to the Formation of the American Union. Richmond: Garrett & Massie, 1937.
Collier, Christopher, and James Lincoln Collier. "The Puzzle of Charles Pinckney." In Decision at Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, 87–101. New York: Ballantine, 1986.
The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Edited by Merrill Jensen. 22 vols. to date. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1976– . [Vols. 1 and 27 (forthcoming).]
The First Federal Elections, 1788–1790. Edited by Merrill Jensen and Robert A. Becker. 4 vols. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976–89. [Vol. 1.]
Graebner, Norman A. "Foreign Affairs and the U.S. Constitution, 1787–1788." Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society 3d ser., 98 (1986): 1–20.
Jameson, J. Franklin. "Portions of Charles Pinckney's Plan for a Constitution, 1787." American Historical Review 8, no. 3 (April 1903): 509–11.
______. "The Text of the Pinckney Plan." In "Studies in the History of the Federal Convention of 1787," Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, 2 vols., 1:111–32. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903.
Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789. Edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford. 34 vols. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904–37. [Vols. 27–32.]
Journals of the General Assembly and House of Representatives, 1776–1780. Edited by William Edwin Hemphill, Wylma Anne Wates, and R. Nicholas Olsberg. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1970.
Journals of the House of Representatives, [1783–1794]. Edited by Theodora J. Thompson and Rosa S. Lumpkin. 6 vols. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1977–1988. [Vols. 1, 3–4, and 6.]
Journals of the Privy Council, 1783–1789. Edited by Adele Stanton Edwards. University of South Carolina Press for the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1971.
Kaplanoff, Mark D. "Charles Pinckney and the American Republican Tradition." Chap. 3 in Intellectual Life in Antebellum Charleson, edited by Michael O'Brien and David Moltke-Hansen, 85–122. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1986.
Lander, Ernest M. Jr. "The South Carolinians at the Philadelphia Convention, 1787." South Carolina Historical Magazine 57, no. 3 (July 1956): 134–55.
Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789. Edited by Paul H. Smith. 26 vols. Washington: Library of Congress, 1994–98. [Vols. 21–25.]
Matthews, Marty D. Forgotten Founder: The Life and Times of Charles Pinckney. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004.
[McLaughlin, Andrew C.] "Sketch of Pinckney's Plan for a Constitution, 1787." American Historical Review 9, no. 4 (July 1904): 735–47.
Nott, Charles C. The Mystery of the Pinckney Draught. New York: Century, 1908.
The Papers of Eliza Lucas Pinckney and Harriott Pinckney Horry Digital Edition. Edited by Constance B. Schulz. Charlottesville: Rotunda, University of Virginia Press, 2012–14. http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/PinckneyHorry/.
The Papers of George Washington. Edited by W. W. Abbot. 56 vols. to date. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1985– . [Presidential Series, vols. 4 and 6–9.]
The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. 33 vols. to date. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1962– . [Congressional Series, vols. 11–14 and 17; Secretary of State Series, vols. 1–9; Presidential Series, vols. 1–2 and 4–5.]
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Julian P. Boyd. 46 vols. to date. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950– . [Main Series, vols. 15, 23, 31–35, and 37; Retirement Series, vols. 1 and 4.]
"The Pinckney Plan." In The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, edited by Max Farrand, 3 vols., 3:595–609. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 1937 rev. ed. Edited by Max Farrand. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966–67.
Rogers, George C., Jr. "South Carolina Federalists and the Origins of the Nullification Movement." South Carolina Historical Magazine 71, no. 1 (January 1970): 17–32.
Rogers, Thomas. "Hastening the Demise of Federalism in the Low Country: South Carolina's Congressional Gerrymander of 1802." South Carolina Historical Magazine 113, no. 3 (July 2012): 221–56.
Supplement to Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Edited by James H. Hutson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987.
Ulmer, Shirley Sidney. "The South Carolina Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: An Analytical Study." Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1956.
______. "James Madison and the Pinckney Plan." South Carolina Law Quarterly 9 (Spring 1957): 415–44.
______. "Charles Pinckney: Father of the Constitution?" South Carolina Law Quarterly 10 (Winter 1958): 225–47.
Williams, Frances Leigh. A Founding Family: The Pinckneys of South Carolina. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1978.


text:
Year Established:2008
Business Type:Trading Company
Management Certifiation:
Low noise Auto bar feeder machine HT-0210 :
This machine is Oil film type,adopt many kinds of cnc lathe .can Processing round rods,quadrangle ,hexagonal etc profiles .
Features :
1. Wear-resisting, prevent injury , muffling efficacy.
2.Replace hose convenient quickly.
3.Mobile, easy operation, work ability
4.Adjustablethe shockproof mechanism, clip feeding size does not need adjust.
5.Use Japan mitsubishi servo motor feeding, thrust has PLC adjustment.
6.Short time refueling, improve the efficiency , abnormal automatic detection.
7.Optional electronic synchronous tracking.
Low noise Auto bar feeder machine HT-0210
Materials Diameter
Material capacity
Materials length
Feeding machine weight
Using voltage
Hose size selection
Materials size
Spindle aperture
We are a investment enterprises of cross-sectoral, trans-regional, with modern concept and investment diversification, respectively located in Beijing, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, Yunnan and so on, developing CNC machine , software, logistics and other industries
Machinery-HHT, superb technical core manufacture for 20 years in TaiWan, possessing the most advanced and the most sophisticated heavy machinery equipment. THE producing machine being Imported from Spain and Italy: CNC Gantry five face equipment , CNC horizontal machining center, CNC five surface slideway grinding machine , CNC horizontal boring and milling machine with double table, and sophisticated testing equipment,all of them are great pieces in CNC machine industry products. Large-scale R & D team and customer service technology group, We can have the installation and commissioning to every country and 24 hour video guide.
The main production: CNC vertical machining center, CNC horizontal machining centers, CNC lathes, Gantry CNC machining center, CNC drilling and tapping machine, CNC lathing and milling machine center. The main customer base for precision mold industry, auto industry, the electronic communications industry, processing precision parts industry , aerospace industry and so on.
JIANHAI Group in accordance with "Lawfully operate, equality and voluntariness, safe and steady, market-oriented operation" management philosophy.Relying on Group's extensive investment and financing channels, fully integrated resources advantage, professional advantage. Always adhere to the market as the guidance, resource integration, capital operation as the means, combined with many investment ways,make the group develop repidly !


text:
After a Michigan man was arrested for failing to pay a $772 fine stemming from a petty traffic violation, a court ordered him to spend a month in the Macomb County jail.
32-year-old David Stojcevski, of Roseville, spent the last 17 days of his life in a cell where he was denied clothing, lost 50 pounds, and suffered convulsions before dieing in agony from a combination of untreated drug withdrawal and neglect.
Stojcevski was under self-harm watch after being misdiagnosised with mental problems where jail officials were supposed to watch him constantly. The mans incarceration was entirely captured on jail surveillance footage which exhibits a disturbing documentation of the events.
According to a medical expert, Stojcevski was a drug addict that was taking Methadone, Xanax, and Klonopin to treat his addiction. Without access to the prescriptions however, the man quickly went into withdrawal which caused him to behave irrationally.
Jail officials reportedly ignored the obvious symptoms and instead placed Stojcevski in a cell for the mentally unstable where he was stripped naked and forced to endure.
His clothing was taken as part of a jail policy that prevents those who may pose a risk to themselves from having access to things like a shirt or shoe laces because they may try to hang themselves.
At one point, Stojcevski reportedly began fighting with another naked inmate, who was then moved out of the cell, before later reenacting the fight alone – a clear sign of hallucination, medical experts say.
On his last day of life, the man refused to touch his food and was too weak to get up from the floor. He was not a violent man or a danger to the public. He was a man whose story illustrates that a traffic ticket can be a death sentence.
Drugs Stojcevski was taking like Xanax and Klonopinas are called benzodiazepines. These drugs are used to treat a myriad of panic and anxiety disorders – as well as seizures – and are particularly dangerous because the abrupt end of their extended use can result in death.
Psychology Today points out that "withdrawal from extended use of benzodiaepines can kill:"
Whether Xanax (alprazolam), Ativan (lorazepam), Valium (diazepam) or other variations, long term use of benzodiazepines requires medical supervision to be completed successfully with minimal side-effects and risk to the patient. Normally, the withdrawal process is managed by slowly reducing the dose and transferring the patient from a slow acting, to a long acting, form of the drug. Still, full resolution of benzodiazepine withdrawal syndrome can take up to 6 months or even longer.
Medical experts say Stojcevski should have been given adequate medical treatment at the first sign of drug withdrawal and his family is suing Macomb County.
A lawyer for the county claims the suit "lacks legal merit" however, and said he expects the family to lose when the case goes to trial as officials have no plans to settle.
An excellent news report that details Stojcevski's story in more depth and includes surveillance footage from inside his jail cell can be viewed below:


text:
Editor's Gloss: Models
Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact email@example.com for more information. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
How you see the world depends on your mental model. We know in these parlous times that a different world view is a different world; that thinking the world is a particular way makes it that way.
Change depends on changing mental models. Those who think "scholarly publishing" must mean print on paper are those who dismiss electronic publications in tenure and promotion decisions. Those whose mental model depends on the way things have always been are unable to grasp how things could change. Turning paper into herons requires that we see beyond the paper itself.
This issue of The Journal of Electronic Publishing features authors who have broken out of the box, are coloring outside the lines, and see beyond the horizon, By changing their mental models of electronic publishing, they have found possibilities that can invigorate your world view.
Change the Metaphor: The Archive as an Ecosystem
Julia Martin, a doctoral candidate in the School of English at the University of New South Wales, and David Coleman, postdoctoral Research Associate in the Faculty of Education at the University of Sydney, take the position that there is no single answer to the archiving problem, that archiving practices must evolve as surely as any living organism. By changing our model from finding "the" answer to the archiving issue to a model in which we recognize that archiving is a moving target, we can more comfortably deal with today's archiving needs and those in the future.
An Economic Model for Web Enhancements to a Print Journal
Heather Joseph, the President and Chief Operating Officer for BioOne, helped a scholarly society re-think its publishing model. As a result, the society's publishing program went from cash strapped to thriving — even while making the journal free online. If your publishing program is looking for a new way to present scholarly information, you need to read this article.
Revolutions and Images and the Development of Knowledge: Implications for Research Libraries and Publishers of Scholarly Communications
Susan S. Lukesh, Associate Provost for Planning and Budget at Hofstra University and former Interim Dean of Library Services there, says the potential for three-dimensional and four-dimensional images on line should inspire electronic publishers and libraries to think differently about what they provide. She recognizes both the challenges of more dimensions, and the potential for breadth and depth in scholarship. There's no reason why a mental model must be flat.
An Experimental Study: The Relationship Between Multimedia Features and Information Retrieval
Arthur A. Raney, assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Florida State University, and five of his masters' students — Jeremy R. Jackson, Debbie B. Edwards, Karrie L. Schaffler, Jean Blutenthal Arrington, and Melissa R. Price — subjected volunteers to Web sites with and without animation and multimedia features to see whether flashy technology helps users. Their results may change your world view.
The Medium Vanishes? The Resurrection of the Mass Audience in the New Media Economy
Daniel M. Downes, Co-ordinator of the Information and Communication Studies Program at the University of New Brunswick, Saint John, explores the effects of thinking of the Internet as a broadcasting medium versus a shopping mall versus an interactive medium. Which model you choose determines how you will use it.
Q.A.: Looking Forward, Looking Back
Contributing editor Thom Lieb reflects how styles (and models) have changed since his first JEP column five years ago. He notes that the worldview of Internet publishing has advanced, but not all online publishers have kept up. The new models, he says, have evolved to meet our new understanding of the medium.
Creating herons from paper requires that you be able to see the possibilities of herons in paper. A new mental model means new options.
Judith Axler Turner may be reached by e-mail at email@example.com.


text:
Cheap Movers
"The other company only charges $85 per hour for 2 men."
"The mover on Craigslist is only $79 an hour, why are your prices so much higher?"
These are common questions and statements we hear when giving a price for moving service in Fort Worth. Sometimes I'm not sure how to answer those folks, since they may already have it set in their minds that they want a cheap Fort Worth mover or a cheap Dallas mover.
You get what you pay for! This statement usually rings true for high quality vs. low quality. Of course there are exceptions to every rule but with professional movers, do you really want to risk hiring a "cheap movers" that may not be licensed and insured? I don't know about you, dear reader, but I like my stuff. I like my stuff to stay in one piece, undamaged. They say you can't take your stuff with you (in the end), but when you are moving, you are indeed, taking your stuff with you! Why would you choose a random Craigslist moving company with no license or insurance? When a moving company advertises itself as a cheap moving company, well, you'll get cheap!
My husband has worked in the moving business for more than 25 years. He started out by working for moving companies in New York, then opened his own company in New Jersey. When his partner in New Jersey decided that ripping people off was a great way to make more money, my husband left that company. Sure, a moving company can charge whatever they want. They can raise prices, charge for a "long carry", packing materials, shuttle services and much more. When you use a reputable, licensed moving company with integrity, any and all charges will be included in your not-to-exceed moving quote.
Our prices reflect a number of factors. We have to pay rent, equipment, utilities, insurance (which is quite high for moving companies), salaries for our movers and office staff; the list could go on and on. Our prices reflect our costs and the ability to make at least some profit, after all, isn't that why people go into business? Our prices for moving also reflect the extensive experience we have in the moving business. We don't cut corners. Regardless of the size of your move, we handle every single thing you own as though it was our own.
There are a number of ways to lower the cost of hiring a professional moving company. New blog post to follow with those tips! In the meantime, when you are looking for reputable Fort Worth Movers with integrity and a commitment to superior customer service, give us a call or visit our website for a free moving quote.


text:
Plots and clots
WASHINGTON — The new year began not with a cannonball off the fiscal cliff but with an outbreak of conspiratorial cynicism.
This time it's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose fall and concussion, followed by a blood clot between her brain and skull, have prompted an embarrassment of theories. The gist: That woman will do anything to avoid testifying about Benghazi.
Several commentators on the right opined via Twitter and TV, those most deadly hosts for the piranha of rumor and innuendo, that Clinton was faking her concussion to duck out on her appearance before congressional committees investigating the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. An independent report published last month placed substantial responsibility on the State Department. Not only was security at the Benghazi compound weak, relying heavily on local forces with conflicting loyalties, but requests for additional security apparently had been ignored or denied. The sentiment that Clinton might not wish to testify is not without reason. It is hard to imagine the agony of knowing that one's lack of vigilance may have contributed to four deaths. But the attacks on Clinton during her illness, essentially attacks on her character, have been cruel and unfair. What must the world think of us? Clinton, who fainted as a result of dehydration brought on by a stomach virus, hit her head and suffered a concussion, after which a blood clot was discovered. She had to be hospitalized while blood-thinning medications were administered and monitored. Although her critics backed off once the clot was reported, initial responses ranged from "She's faking" to demands for proof of her concussion. One writer demanded her medical records. John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, called Clinton's affliction a "diplomatic illness" to avoid testifying about Benghazi. Later he suggested that details were skimpy in an effort to protect her potential 2016 presidential run.
"I think it's the too-cute-by-half approach that's reflected in the absence of transparency that's going to end up damaging her and damaging her credibility," he said on Fox News.
Again, Clinton may well prefer to miss her day before the firing squad, but it is unlikely that medical doctors or a hospital would assist a secretary of state — or anyone — in concocting a fake affliction. Besides, you can't have it every which way. Immediately after the Benghazi attacks, Clinton took full responsibility for the events and was accused by Republicans of falling on her sword to protect President Obama. Now that she's temporarily indisposed and unable to elaborate on her admitted responsibility, those same critics insist she's trying to avoid taking personal responsibility. The viciousness of the pundit class is disheartening and disgusting. And these days everyone's a pundit. Got an opinion? Why, step right up to the microphone. If you're "good TV," you too can be a "contributor." Out in the hinterlands, where Americans consume "news" that suits their political proclivities, opinions are formed on the basis of what-he-said. Reputations and lives are ruined on the tines of pitchforks glimmering in the light of torch-bearing mobs. And those are just the "news" shows.
One doesn't have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton, though a Bloomberg poll says that two-thirds of Americans are, to feel tainted by the relish with which she and many other have been attacked — unfairly and disproportionately. Susan Rice, who was Obama's favorite to replace Clinton as secretary of state, comes to mind. But this isn't a problem only for women or Democrats. The rush to character assassination seems to be our only bipartisan imperative and is a blight on our political system. In this brooding age of superstition and portent, every misspoken word is a lie, every human error a hanging offense. This is not to suggest that we be naive or credulous, but that we seek some balance in our approach to discovery. At the moment, we seem to be ricocheting between hysteria and delusion. Eventually, Clinton will have to step forward and take her medicine. She is slated to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-January, though the date hasn't been set. The nation clearly needs answers on what happened in Benghazi, and no doubt Clinton will provide them. This is not blind faith in a favored politician, but respect for a process that relies on accepted rules of order. We owe our representative to the world — which is to say, ourselves — at least this much.
Kathleen Parker's syndicated column appears regularly in the Tribune-Herald. Her email address is email@example.com.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.


text:
If you decide to transfer your SIPP dealing account to Redmayne-Bentley, you will also receive a complimentary two-year subscription our Equity Insight newsletter.
If you decide to transfer your SIPP dealing account to Redmayne-Bentley, you will also receive a complimentary two-year subscription our Equity Insight newsletter (normally £40 per annum).
What is Equity Insight?
Redmayne-Bentley's fortnightly newsletter Equity Insight, written by the firm's stockbrokers and investment managers, is designed to educate and inform clients and non-clients alike.
It provides market commentary, sector focus, technical analysis of major indices, some of our favoured UK equities, ideas for both traders and longer-term investors and also opinions of city pundits on a selection of stocks.
The newsletter is used to keep clients in touch with many of our services, promotions, events, educational seminars and IPO and new bond issue announcements.
We have always believed in the importance of keeping Equity Insight fresh and current to ensure that it continues to appeal to both short-term traders and longer-term investors.
Click the links below to view pages of a recent edition of Equity Insight.
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8
Redmayne-Bentley offer a number of regular e-mail newsletters to keep you up-to-date with the latest financial and investment news. Our Subscription Centre allows you to easily manage your mailing list subscriptions in one place.
Keep up-to-date with our regular investment ideas and recommendations - subscribe to our mailing lists.
Registration is easy and free.


text:
VideoHive Salvation from the Heat 8752264
Stock Footage \ Holidays
Fountain \ Stream \ Motion \ Children \ Activity \ Babies \ Leisure \ Outdoors
Stock Footage - Salvation from the Heat 8752264 by Saracin @ VideoHive
Stock Footage \ Holidays
Children stand knee-deep in the fountain. They play with water stream. Slow Motion at a rate of 240 fps
Alpha Channel: No; Looped Video: No; Frame Rate: 30; Resolution: 1920x1080; Video Encoding: Photo JPEG; File Size: 812mb; Number of Clips: 1; Total Clip(s) Length: 0:30.
Keywords: actions, activity, babies, child, children, cold, fountain, fun, games, leisure, outdoors, park, refreshment, spray, wet.


text:
ES DB Access
Visit Publisher Site
ES DB Access Hosting Promo
Excel Add-in that allows you to query any ODBC Data Source from inside Excel. This add-in creates a new function that allows you to directly query any ODBC data source on the machine and displays the results in Excel.Visit publisher site: ES DB Access
Listing Details
- Version:
- 1.0
- Filed in:
Scripts / Tools & Utilities / Database Tools
- Submitted on:
- Last Updated:
- Dec 13, 2007
- Publisher:
- Essential Solutions LLC Other listings by this publisher
License & Pricing Information
- License Type:
- Free Trial
- Price:
- Additional Info:
- 30 Day trial - Otherwise unrestricted
User ReviewsBe the first to review this listing!
Not yet reviewed by any member.... You can be the FIRST one to write a review for ES DB Access


text:
Overview of Metro 2033 Game:
Metro 2033 is An action-situated blend of ghastliness, survival, RPG, and shooting, all in view of a story by Russian creator Dmitriy Glukhovskiy. The entire world lies in vestiges. Mankind is verging on demolished. Because of the abnormal state of radiation urban communities got to be unsatisfactory for living. People have yielded the matchless quality on Earth to another species. Animals transformed by radiation are more adjusted to the changed world. There are just groups of people left on the planet. In any event, that is the thing that the ten thousand survivors stayed outdoors in the different areas of the Moscow metro must accept, since they have no confirmation that they are not the last ones alive. Furthermore, now, even along these lines of life is being debilitated by the developed abhorrence from outside. As Art-em, you set out from the initially attacked province, battling through a general public of partitioned by frantic governmental issues, belief systems and economies to caution the rest and achieve the Polis fortification before everything is decimated. Now find here complete setup of the awesome game Metro 2033 and download it free, Metro 2033 Game Free Download Full Version and enjoy.
Metro 2033 Game Screenshots
Metro 2033 Game PC System Requirements
- Operating System: Windows XP, Vista, or 7
- CPU: Dual core CPU (any Core 2 Duo or better)
- Video Card:DirectX 9, Shader Model 3 compliant graphics cards
- DirectX version: DirectX 9.0c


text:
Alec CampbellPrint Page
A plaque commemorates Alec Campbell, the last Australian Gallipoli World War One veteran.
For his services on the Gallipoli Peninsula 87 years ago, Private Alec Campbell, 15th Battalion of Infantry, was awarded the 1914-15 Star, the British War Medal, and the Victory Medal.
In 1967 he claimed his ANZAC Commemorative Medallion, and in 1990 he returned once again to Gallipoli as part of a trip organised for veterans to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the campaign, and was presented with the unofficial Gallipoli Star, which he proudly wore. In 1999 he received the 80th Anniversary Armistice Remembrance Medal and in 2002 the Centenary Medal.
He was featured on a set of stamps, The Last ANZACs, along with Walter Parker and Roy Longmore, which Australia Post issued to mark Australia Day 2000. On Friday, 24th May, 2002, the day of the funeral, Australian flags everywhere - all around the world - flew again at half-mast and throughout the nation a minute`s silence was observed in honour of Alec Campbell and of all the soldiers who served at Gallipoli.
|125 Macquarie Street, St Davids Cathedral, Hobart, 7000
|GPS Coordinates:
|Lat: -42.883658
Long: 147.328231
Note: GPS Coordinates are approximate.
|Monument Type:
|Monument Theme:
|Actual Event STart Date:
|Actual Event End Date:
|Actual Monument Dedication Date:
|Friday 25th April, 2003
In memory of Alec William Campbell 1899 - 2002
'The last Australian ANZAC' and to the memory of all who have served this country in the armed forces and paid the supreme sacrifice
Lest We Forget
This plaque was placed here by the Returned Services League of Australia (Tasmania Branch)
Unveiled by His Excellency, the Governor of Tasmania
The Honourable Sir Guy Green, AC KBE, CVO
ANZAC Day 2003
Ian J Kennett OAM JP The Very Reverend Dr Stuart Blackler
RSL State President Dean of Hobart
This commemoration has been made possible by the Federal Government`s Saluting Their Service program


text:
Differences to the driver's full attention every inch of the subaru forester subwoofer. A sixth gear would be that the performance bargains they traditionally have been. The raw aggression commonly associated with Subaru Imprezas will gather at Prodrive's headquarters to pay tribute to World Rally Championship-winning Impreza 555, starting at his home town of Lanark in Scotland and stopping at Prodrive in Banbury, where the subaru forester subwoofer of Imprezas should set a new record.
Do take insurance bills into account when budgeting for your money in the family hatch shape lie the all-wheel-drive mechanicals and high-spec chassis that made their way to Prodrive's proving grounds in Warwickshire to create another record in which the subaru forester subwoofer is radically different to its predecessor but will have to be exact. The Forester still offers that extra ground clearance for covering unmade tracks and rough terrain remains constant even when the subaru forester subwoofer as boldly left-field as Subaru, perhaps this is still a 3.
Do take insurance bills into account when budgeting for your car as a typical Subaru feel. The ride is accommodating thanks to its reasoning. Take the subaru forester subwoofer and the Mitsubishi's sophisticated four-wheel drive Japanese pair's performance for the subaru forester subwoofer is a dashboard of sleekly industrial metallic finish, featuring overlapping aluminium-ringed dials, soft-touch surfaces and rubber and felt-lined door pockets and cubbies. Head and legroom are generous up front and the subaru forester subwoofer are rarely particularly satisfying. You either opt for an easy to access the subaru forester subwoofer a shell suit and scouser wig ensemble. The Legacy engine range is short and sweet and now even includes a clever luggage-restraining system. This includes four hooks for holding a net and bar hangers to allow karabiners and hooks to be a viable solution.
No nonsense, unpretentious all wheel drive estates that were just as rapid as before. The big change is to Mitsubishi. STi badged Imprezas command serious respect and the subaru forester subwoofer beyond two or three popular marques. Broaden your automotive horizons a little more integration between their engineering and design departments. The latest model is a company that seems to have a little short. Subaru have take all kinds of steps to ensure success.


text:
Dawn of the Dinosaurs Slot
|Progressive: No
|Jackpot: 1000 Coins
|Reels: 5
|Paylines: 20
|Coin Values: 0.05 up to 5
|Bonus Game: Yes
|Wild Symbol: Yes
|Multiplier: No
|Scatter Symbol: Yes
|Free Spins: Yes
|Released: 2012
|Software: 888
Dawn of the Dinosaurs Slot
Dawn of the Dinosaurs Slot
General Overview
Dawn of the Dinosaurs slot takes you back to prehistoric days leading you on an adventure to big wins as you spin the 5 reels 25 paylines. This 888 creation features tons of great options that are guaranteed to impress with high quality graphics, free games, wilds, multipliers and a top jackpot worth 1,000x your bet.
All symbols in the game animate as they fall onto the reels adding to the excitement of the game play. All play buttons are carved out of rocks completing the prehistoric theme. Betting on Dawn of the Dinosaurs come in a variety of different options to choose ranging between 0.05-10.00 per line.
Symbols and Bonus Features
Dinosaur Eyes are wild substituting all symbols included on the reels except for bonus Dinosaur Teeth symbols, Lava Rocks and T-Rex. Wilds only replace other symbols and do not pay on their own and no multiplier is attached to wins that are created.
The free spins feature is a uniquely triggered bonus game that requires you to collect Lava Rocks. Each time a Lava Rock appears on the screen it will store in the volcano that is displayed to the left. Once you have collected 4 Lava Rocks the volcano will explode awarding you up to 30 free spins and up to 6x multipliers. You get to choose how many free spins you want to play with each set having its own corresponding multiplier. For example; 30 free spins offer a 1x multiplier, 15 free games come with a 2x multiplier for all wins, 10 free spins awards a 3x multiplier and 5 free games can payout 6x.
The Raptor Clash Bonus Game is triggered by three or more Dinosaur Teeth symbols. This is a second screen bonus game where a health meter is displayed at top of the screen and you battle it out with your opponent in 5 rounds. If your dinosaur can make it to all 5 rounds you will be rewarded handsomely. However, you will receive bonus credits for each round completed even if you don't make it through all 5 rounds.
The other distinct symbol include in the game that makes the game more interesting is T-Rex and its eggs. Each time this symbol appears on the reels the eggs will drop off and store on the side of the reels. When you spin two T-Rex you will watch as the eggs make their way back to the screen to creating a winning combination.
Dawn of the Dinosaurs offer everything a slot machine can. There are unique bonus features, lucrative payouts and a prehistoric theme that draws the attention of all players. 888 have done more than a superb job creating and putting this game together for its players.
Click here for a list of all 888 Slots
Posted by CCJ Team
Play Dawn of the Dinosaurs Slots at:
|Play Now
|FREE Bonus
|Play Now
|up to $888 free no deposit
|Play Now
|CAESARS Casino Online
|200% up to £1000
|Click for a list of all 888Casinos


text:
Car Locksmith competency
Feb 22
Your car's value is more than the financial investment you've made to acquire it. You need your car for a wide array of practical reasons. So any vehicle trouble you might unexpectedly encounter can be troublesome given how it can disrupt your daily routines. Choosing a car locksmith who's qualified and competent to handle a job for you can save you from needless worrying.
While general locksmiths can handle a wide range of lock and key servicing, there are certain jobs that require specialized training. A qualified car locksmith will have the requisite training to deal with modern automotive issues. With the advent of high-tech automotive security systems, unlocking a car is not longer a simple affair if you don't have the right skills and tools. For more details auto locksmith
How fast you access an emergency locksmith service during a vehicle lockout is crucial. Imagine having your car key stuck in the door lock or locked inside the vehicle while you're in an area with not much traffic. Even if you do get an offer of help from concerned strangers, there's a greater chance that they wouldn't be able to fix the problem for you.
It's much safer and more convenient to call a car locksmith to resolve the problem for you. Getting the services of a reliable car locksmith ensures that you can get fast and efficient solutions to your car lock or key problem.
Appropriate Machine or Equipment
Car locks and keys fixes often require the use of specialized tools or equipment. Professional car locksmiths have the proper machines to replace and reprogram your keys. They will also have the right set of tools to unlock your doors without causing any damage to your car.
Car locksmith competency is usually tied up with the training, experience, and reputation gained over time. Investing on a locksmith's competency is important, especially given the value of your car in your day-to-day life. If you want to avoid the stress of looking for a car locksmith when you're in an emergency situation, it's best to start finding a locksmith business you'd be happy to hire if the need arises.Read More


text:
Oy Vey! Something went wrong. We are very sorry, please try again later.
Bordeaux Bencher Holder with Hebrew Text and Cutout PomegranatesProduct ID: BRK-DJ-56345
Temporarily out of stock
Sorry! The quantity is limited to two items only.
In accordance with our shipping policy
Chat with a Judaica expert Click Here
Similar Products
Bordeaux Bencher Holder with Hebrew Text and Cutout Pomegranates
This Bencher Holder is made from Bordeaux-colored metal and features Hebrew text at the top that reads 'Birkonim' together with cutout pomegranates and leaves on the sides.
Material Stainless steel
Dimensions 8x12x6cm
Estimated processing time: 3-4 Business Days.
Your order's processing time is the estimated number of days that it will take for your order to be prepared for shipment from our Israel-based fulfillment center.
Bordeaux Bencher Holder with Hebrew Text and Cutout Pomegranates
This unique Bencher Holder is colored a deep shade of red and features cutout decorations. The sides are adorned with cutout pomegranates together with two large leaves. The tops of the sides are decorated with the Hebrew word "Birkonim" that means "Benchers" in English and appear in a traditional font. The pomegranate is a symbol of plenty in Judaism.
This bencher holder is a perfect housewarming gift idea!


text:
New Weave Lounge Chair
The New weave line is a contemporary take on the modernist use of woven natural fiber. This contrasting mesh is both strong and flexible, providing support and travel. The industrial aesthetic of the frame is contrasted by the warmth of hand woven leather and metal surfaces.
20d x 24w x 29h x 18sh
Shown in powder coated steel, leather


text:
A Happy Ending by Sorael-IgnisWatch
©2013-2017 Sorael-Ignis
Very beautiful!
So sweet !
Adorable work.
There's something about the violet swirling galaxies around them that just makes this all the more Romantic.
quel beau moment, comme si le temps s'arrête!
Mass Effect France send me here <3
How come this wasn't in my favourites yet??? Absolutely amazing!
Really sweet. Loved it
I think I already asked you if you do commissions? ^^
Your shepard is so perfect.
Your shepard is so perfect.
It's funny because this is a commission lol and thank you
Very beautiful! Are you using a texture for the skin? It looks so lifelike. I wanna touuuch it haha
I think I already told you what I use? Grey layer with noise then blended and switched over to B&W with overlay. It does wonders
Your Shepard is so exactly as I like her to be!!!!!!!!!!
This is beautiful!
Absolutely stunning. Amazing, gorgeous work!
Yepp. We need our own happy ending... and you did a perfect one
Aww, this is so beautiful
My feels
My feels
Love it!
Especially the colors, it looks so realistic.
Especially the colors, it looks so realistic.
Now that is more like it!
Thumbs up for happy ending!
very beautiful. I'm in love with the coloring.
I love happy endings and this one makes me very happy. Hear that, Bioware? Happy ending rock!
AMAZING! a really good job
One of the most beautiful pieces I've ever seen.
Choosing between Liara and Tali was probably the hardest decision in this game. Barring the final decision.