Date: 18.5.2017 / Article Rating: 4 / Votes: 579
Buzzessay.essayshark.life #Thesis header hook

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Thesis header hook

Thesis header hook

Mar/Thu/2018 | Uncategorized




How To Add Plug Ins To Your Blog, Thesis Theme, Thesis Open Hook


Diane s Free Wordpress Masterclass ... This is the final part of the three

Guide To Using Hooks In Custom Functions - wp sites

Thesis header hook

Write My Paper -
Thesis header hook

article essay sample The remainder of this essay writing tutorial is based on a short sample #039;divorce essay#039; (about 1,000 words). To complete all of the associated tasks, it is easiest if you have the sample essay in front of you. Thesis Hook. A major change that has occurred in the Western family is an increased incidence in bedford reader essays, divorce. Whereas in thesis header hook, the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become quite commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only one marriage in resort and spa thesis, ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is more than one in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change has been a substantial increase in the number of single parent families and the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997). An important issue for sociologists, and header hook, indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. In this essay I will seek to critically examine a number of sociological explanations for argument persuasive essay the #039;divorce phenomenon#039; and header, also consider the social policy implications that each explanation carries with it.

It will be argued that the best explanations are to be found within a broad socio-economic framework. One type of and spa thesis explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to hook, marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now more unstable. It is write essay, possible, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes in the law have been significant, because they have provided unhappily married couples with #039;access to a legal solution to pre-existent marital problems#039; (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates can be best explained in terms of changes in the legal system. The problem with this type of explanation however, is that it does not consider why these laws have changed in the first place. It could be argued that reforms to family law, as well as the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of more fundamental changes in society.

Another type of explanation is one that focuses precisely on thesis hook these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the write counter argument essay, result of economic changes that have affected the family. One example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of header families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of for research paper marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart#039;s explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce - for example, marital breakdown is liable to thesis header hook, occur in families where only the husband is resort, working. Nevertheless, her approach, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be more probing than one that looks only at legislative change. The two explanations described above have very different implications for social policy, especially in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability might be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of thesis liberal divorce laws, the writing money, obvious way to stem this rise is to thesis hook, make them less obtainable. This approach, one imagines, would lead to decision essay, a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine solution to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in header hook, society.

Indeed it would seem to be a solution directed more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the experience of social workers, working in the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple#039;s access to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate existing marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the essays, consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to more restrictive divorce laws seems to header, be a solution little favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990). Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), writing from a Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes in the capitalist economic system and their resultant effect on the roles of men and money amounts, women. It is difficult to know however, how such an analysis might be translated into practical social policies.

This is because the Hart program would appear to require in the first place a radical restructuring of the economic system. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not achievable in header hook, the present political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that much marital conflict can be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in many statistical surveys which show consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). And Design. This situation suggests then that social policies need to thesis hook, be geared to providing support and security for guide paper these types of families. It is little cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have shown an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind. It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation for the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even more difficult to thesis hook, find solutions that might ameliorate the problems created by money amounts in essays, it.

Clearly though, as I have argued in this essay, the most useful answers are to be found not within a narrow legal framework, but within a broader socio-economic one. Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in a time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. Hook. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, in the past, single parent and step families were more common than is assumed - although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of one or both parents. This situation suggests that in write argument, studying the modern family, one needs to employ a historical perspective, including the possibility of looking to the past in hook, searching for amounts in essays ways of dealing with problems in the present. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia . Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997) Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections . St Leonards. NSW: Allen and thesis hook, Unwin.

Bilton, T., K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology , 2nd edition. London: MacMillan. Haralambos, M. And Spa Thesis. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives , 3rd edition. London: Bell and header hook, Hyman. Decision Essay. Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce.

Family Matters . No 42 pp 34-35. Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women#039;s Refuge . Ringwood: Penguin. Kilmartin, C. (1997). Children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters . No. Thesis. 48. ( Available On-line ) McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia . Resort Thesis. Australian Family Briefings No 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Problems? Questions? Comments?

Please provide us feedback.

Buy Essays Online from Successful Essay -
Thesis Hook Header - Unisin

Science, Technology, and hook, Society (STS) National Science Foundation. Division of bedford 10th edition Social and Economic Sciences. Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): February 02, 2015. February 2, Annually Thereafter. August 3, Annually Thereafter. IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES. The solicitation revises the characterization of the program to emphasize that it studies the full range of thesis scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) disciplines, including medical science, using historical, philosophical, and and design, social scientific approaches; and thesis header, that it focuses on the intellectual, material, and social facets of STEM.

The solicitation being replaced emphasized the interface between science and society. Scholars Awards and Postdoctoral Fellowships are distinguished as separate modes of counter argument persuasive essay funding; they were previously combined into one mode. The caps set on specific budget items (such as those on undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral research assistants) have been eliminated. The caps on the award are now stated in terms of direct costs rather than the total costs, which included indirect costs; for most modes of funding, the designated cap effectively increases the cap on total costs indicated in the old solicitation. Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant proposals now only have one deadline per year, August 3, and they are submitted to the STS program only under this solicitation. Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 17-1), which is effective for hook proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 30, 2017.

Science, Technology, and Society (STS) The Science, Technology, and guide, Society (STS) program supports research that uses historical, philosophical, and social scientific methods to investigate the intellectual, material, and social facets of the scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) disciplines. It encompasses a broad spectrum of STS topics including interdisciplinary studies of ethics, equity, governance, and policy issues that are closely related to STEM disciplines, including medical science. The program#146;s review process is approximately six months. It includes appraisal of proposals by header hook, ad hoc reviewers selected for and spa their expertise and by an advisory panel that meets twice a year. The deadlines for the submission of proposals are February 2nd for proposals to be funded as early as July, and hook, August 3rd for proposals to be funded in or after January. There is one exception: Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant proposals will have only resort one deadline per year, August 3rd. The Program encourages potential investigators with questions as to whether their proposal fits the goals of the program to contact one of the program officers. Cognizant Program Officer(s) and Additional Points of Contact: Frederick Kronz-Program Director, Program Officer, 995 N, telephone: (703) 292-7283, email: fkronz@nsf.gov.

Wenda Bauchspies-Program Director, 990 N, telephone: (703) 292-5026, email: wbauchsp@nsf.gov. Alexandra Cohen-Science Assistant, 995, telephone: (703) 292-4927, email: acohen@nsf.gov. Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s): 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or Fellowship. Estimated Number of Awards: 40. Anticipated Funding Amount: $6,200,000. Approximately $6,200,000 will be made available in FY 2015 to support an thesis header hook, estimated 40 awards. Estimated program budget and number of awards are subject to the availability of funds. Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Organization limit varies by bedford, the mode of support: Standard Research Grants and Grants for Collaborative Research: US Academic Institutions and Non-Profit Research Organizations.

Scholars Awards and Postdoctoral Fellowships: US Academic Institutions and Independent Scholars. Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants: US Academic Institutions. Conference and Workshop Support: No limitations. See NSF's Proposals and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I, Section E for categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to NSF. See Section II. Program Description for detailed information about each mode of support.

PI eligibility limit varies by the mode of support. See Section II. Program Description for detailed information about each mode of support. Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits. Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: There are no restrictions or limits. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions. A. Proposal Preparation Instructions. Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and header hook, Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply.

The complete text of the PAPPG is argument, available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp. Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on thesis the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Indirect Cost (FA) Limitations: Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the bedford 10th, full text of this solicitation for further information. Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. Header? submitter's local time): February 02, 2015.

February 2, Annually Thereafter. August 3, Annually Thereafter. Proposal Review Information Criteria. National Science Board approved criteria apply. Additional award conditions apply.

Please see the full text of this solicitation for and design coursework further information. Standard NSF reporting requirements apply. Science, Technology, and Society (STS) is an hook, interdisciplinary field that investigates topics relating to the scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) disciplines, including medical science. The STS program supports proposals across a broad spectrum of STS research areas. STS research uses historical, philosophical, and social scientific methods to investigate STEM theory and practice, and aqa art and design, it may be empirical or conceptual. Specifically, it may focus on the intellectual, material, or social facets of STEM including interdisciplinary studies of ethics, equity, governance, and policy issues. STS is an interdisciplinary field that investigates topics relating to the scientific, technological, engineering and mathematical (STEM) disciplines, including medical science. STS research uses historical, philosophical, and social scientific methods to investigate STEM theory and practice with regards to history and header hook, socio-cultural formation, philosophical underpinnings, and impacts of science and technology on quality of decision making life, culture, and society.

STS researchers strive to understand how STEM fields contribute to the development and use of systems of thesis knowledge, the production and use of materials and devices, the co-evolution of socio-technical systems and their governance, and the place of science and technology in writing in essays the modern world. STS research focuses on the intellectual, material, and social facets of STEM. Such research endeavors to understand how scientific knowledge is produced and sanctioned, and how it is challenged and changes. Hook? It explores broader societal ramifications and underlying presuppositions. Decision In Groups Essay? STS research studies how materials, devices, and techniques are designed and developed; how and by whom they are diffused, used, adapted, and rejected; how they are affected by social and cultural environments; and how they influence quality of life, culture, and society. STS research explores how socio-cultural values are embedded in science and technology, and how issues of governance and equity co-evolve with the development and use of scientific knowledge and thesis header, technological artifacts. STS researchers make use of methods from a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, communication studies, history, philosophy, political science, and sociology. STS research includes interdisciplinary studies of ethics, equity, governance, and policy issues. STS studies may be empirical or conceptual.

The STS program supports proposals across the broad spectrum of STS research areas, topics, and bedford essays, approaches. Examples include, but are by no means limited to: Societal aspects of emerging high-tech technologies (e.g., nanotechnology, synthetic biology, neuroscience, robotics, drones, ubiquitous computing, crowdsourcing, remote-sensing) Societal aspects of emerging low-tech technologies (e.g., paper microscopes; whirlwind wheel chairs) Issues relating to equity, ethics, governance, sustainability, public engagement, user-centeredness, and inclusiveness. Integration of traditional STS approaches with innovative perspectives from the arts or humanities. Ethical, policy, and cultural issues regarding big data, surveillance and privacy in an increasingly networked world, and header, The science of broadening participation in STEM disciplines. In addition, the STS program is particularly interested in proposals that will contribute to NSF's research-focused Big Ideas: Harnessing the Data Revolution for 21st Century Science and Engineering Navigating the New Arctic The Quantum Leap: Leading the Next Quantum Revolution Work at the Human-Technology Frontier: Shaping the Future Understanding the Rules of Life: Predicting Phenotype Windows on the Universe: The Era of thesis Multi-Messenger Astrophysics. Effective STS proposals will clearly present the thesis, research questions, describe and explain the suitability of the writing amounts in essays, methods to be used to address those questions, and provide a detailed work plan with a timeline that demonstrates adequate resources and access to any required data.

If the plan involves research at archives, working in specific labs, or engaging with pertinent community groups, it is important to hook provide evidence of access and to indicate the specific questions to be asked or addressed. If the plan involves surveys, the proposal should discuss sample selection and survey design and content. Similar advice pertains for reader edition essays other modes of STS research involving focus groups, ethnographies, modeling, conceptual analysis, and so forth. Effective proposals suitably situate the thesis hook, proposed project in pertinent STS literatures, issues, and conceptual or theoretical frameworks, and articulate how the results of the proposed project would serve to advance STS, or subfields thereof. Finally, successful proposals make a strong case for broader impacts. The Project Summary should describe specific, feasible broader project impacts and detailed plans to achieve them. A work plan for maximizing potential broader impacts and guide for research, dissemination of results to thesis header hook multiple audiences including stakeholders and the public should be included in the Project Description. Thesis? PIs are encouraged to engage in new modes of disseminating results broadly, not just to academics, but to stakeholders and the general public. The STS program supports several distinct modes of funding in order to thesis header hook accommodate the diverse research needs of the STS community.

Modes of support include Standard Research Grants and Grants for Collaborative Research, Scholars Awards, Postdoctoral Fellowships, Conference and guide paper, Workshop Support, and Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants. To assist the program in thesis header hook reviewing the in essays, same types of thesis header proposals together, you must include a prefix in the title of the proposal that indicates the aqa art and design coursework, mode of support being requested; for hook example, if the workshop title is “On the Reliability of Evidence in Forensic Science,” the workshop proposal title should be “Workshop: On the Reliability of Evidence in Forensic Science.” 1. STANDARD RESEARCH GRANTS and GRANTS FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH. These grants support proposals for basic STS research. They also support proposals for infrastructure development that serves to enhance STS research; program support of infrastructure projects is directed towards scholarly research and data production, rather than administrative or logistical activities.

Eligibility Requirements for Standard Grants and Collaborative Research Grants. These grants are made to U.S. academic institutions and to U.S. non-profit research organizations. Budget Guidelines for Standard Grants and Collaborative Grants. These grants are governed by NSF’s general policy, which limits salary compensation for senior project personnel to resort and spa thesis no more than two months of hook their regular salary in any one year. Other restrictions apply; see NSF’s Proposals and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) for details. Thesis? Additional program guidelines and restrictions follow. Thesis Header? Research assistance may be requested and must be justified in aqa art and design the Project Description in laying out the plan of work.

Funds may also be requested for other research related expenses, such as data collection or data processing activities, or travel expenses for header research or for the dissemination of research results. Due to budgetary constraints, total direct costs will rarely exceed $400,000. (Total award size includes both total direct costs plus total indirect costs.) The duration is typically for and spa two to three years. Proposals requesting larger amounts of support or a longer duration will be considered, if extraordinarily well justified and thesis hook, merited. Scholars Awards provide up to full-time release for bedford reader edition essays an academic year and a summer to conduct research. This time can be distributed over header two or more years. In exceptional circumstances, longer releases can be requested. Some of the budgetary guidelines for Scholars Awards indicated below deviate from NSF’s Proposals and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). As indicated in the PAPPG, program solicitation guidelines supersede PAPPG guidelines.

Eligibility Requirements for decision Scholars Awards. Scholars Awards are normally made to U.S. academic institutions, although an individual who is not affiliated with an header, appropriate U.S. academic institution may submit a proposal as an counter argument, independent scholar, in header hook which case the scholar must be a U.S. citizen or national, or have permanent resident status. Budget Guidelines for making essay Scholars Awards. These awards provide course-release support for research up to one full-time academic year (nine person-months), covering both salary and fringe benefits. They may also provide support for up to two summer months, including salary and fringe benefits. Research assistance may also be requested and must be justified in the proposal's work plan.

Funds may also be requested for header other research related expenses, such as data collection or data processing activities, or travel expenses for research or the dissemination of guide for research paper research results. Hook? Due to budgetary constraints, total direct costs will rarely exceed $180,000. (Total award size includes both total direct costs plus total indirect costs.) The duration is typically for one year. Proposals requesting larger amounts of support or a longer duration will be considered, if extraordinarily well justified and merited. 3. POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS. Postdoctoral fellowships support researchers within five years of receipt of bedford reader edition essays their doctoral degree in order to enhance their methodological skills and research competence.

Proposals for postdoctoral fellowships must include a mentoring plan, consistent with the PAPPG (Part I: Proposal Preparation and Submission Guidelines, Chapter II) and which includes mentoring in header hook the ethical conduct of research. The site of the fellowship must be different than the institution where the scholar received her or his doctoral degree and the mentor must be someone other than members of the scholar’s doctoral committee. The proposal should justify the choice of bedford essays venue and the host faculty member. Host institutions should provide letters agreeing to provide appropriate space and facilities. A letter of support must also be included from the scholar's dissertation advisor. These letters should be placed in the Supplementary Documents section of the proposal.

Eligibility Requirements for Postdoctoral Fellowships. Postdoctoral Fellowships are normally made to U.S. academic institutions, although an individual who is not affiliated with a U.S. academic institution may submit a proposal as an independent scholar, in which case the thesis header hook, scholar must be a U.S. citizen or national, or have permanent resident status. Budget Guidelines for Postdoctoral Fellowships. Postdoctoral Fellowships normally provide an annual stipend of $50,000 per year to write counter essay cover both salary and fringe benefits for a maximum of two years. Funds may also be requested for thesis header other research related expenses, such as data collection or data processing activities, or travel expenses for counter persuasive research or the dissemination of research results.

Due to header hook budgetary constraints, total direct costs will rarely exceed $120,000. (Total award size includes both total direct costs plus total indirect costs.) The maximum duration is typically for two years. Proposals requesting larger amounts of support or a longer duration will be considered, if extraordinarily well justified and merited. 4. CONFERENCE AND WORKSHOP SUPPORT. These proposals should be prepared in resort and spa thesis accordance with NSF’s Proposals and Awards Policies and thesis header hook, Procedures Guide (PAPPG). Additional program guidelines and decision making in groups essay, restrictions are provided below. The STS program provides financial support for national and international conferences, symposia, and research workshops. The program is hook, particularly interested in proposals that promote new research networks between researchers in writing money STS and hook, scientists and engineers, or between STS scholars and members of scholarly communities not normally in contact with each other. A goal of the gathering should be development of a new field of scholarship, pedagogy, or research. Proposals for conference or workshop support should describe the persuasive, need for the gathering, the proposed date and location, topics and persons who will be involved, prior related meetings, publicity, and thesis hook, expected outcomes.

Conferences and workshops may be carried out as special sessions in for research regular meetings of professional societies if justified. Workshops may be held at NSF at no charge provided that meeting-room space is available. Meetings usually should be open. Every effort should be made to thesis include younger scholars and members of underrepresented groups as speakers, organizers, attendees and in other pertinent roles; these efforts should be described in the Project Description component of the proposal. Eligibility Requirements for Conference and Workshop Support. All categories of write counter argument proposers recognized by header hook, NSF are eligible to apply. For Research? See the PAPPG (Chapter 1, Section E) for more information about who may submit proposals.

Budget Guidelines for Conference and Workshop Support. Support for conferences and workshops typically do not exceed $25,000 in direct costs. Expenses (travel, stipends, etc.) for attendees should be entered on the Participant Support line of the budget. Hook? A small percentage of the total direct costs may be requested for administrative support, such as a graduate student paid to assist the 10th, organizer with logistical concerns. Dissemination of results to as broad an audience as possible is encouraged and hook, plans for maximizing broader impacts should be included in the project description. 5. DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH IMPROVEMENT GRANTS (DDRIGs) DDRIGs provide funds for dissertation research expenses not normally available through the student's university. The dissertation director is the Principal Investigator on these proposals; the doctoral student should be listed as Co-Principal Investigator. DDRIG proposals should be prepared in accordance with the guidelines for regular research proposals specified in NSF’s Proposals and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The Project Description should not exceed 10 pages and should describe the scientific significance of the work, including its relationship to other current research, and guide, the design of the project in sufficient detail to thesis permit evaluation.

It should present and interpret progress to date if the research is already underway. The Results from Prior NSF Support section is not required for these proposals. Awards are not intended to cover the full costs of a student's doctoral dissertation research. Resort And Spa? Funds may be used only for valid research expenses which include, but are not limited to, conducting field research in settings away from campus that would not otherwise be possible, data collection costs, payments to subjects or informants, supplies, travel to archives, special collections or seminars, and facilities or field research locations, and partial living expenses for hook conducting necessary research away from the student's university. Funds are to be used exclusively for the actual conduct of dissertation research and dissemination of results. These funds may not be used as a student stipend, for tuition, textbooks, journals, or for the typing, reproduction, or publication costs of the student's dissertation. Funds may be requested for research assistants only in very special circumstances, which should be carefully justified. The Results from Prior NSF Support section is not required for write counter DDRIG proposals.

The program has additional requirements that are specified below. Thesis? One of those requirements deviates from the PAPPG; specifically, the program requires that a letter of writing money amounts support from the student’s dissertation director is to thesis be included in the proposal. Please note that program solicitation guidelines supersede PAPPG guidelines, as indicated in the PAPPG. The proposal must include a letter from the dissertation director. This letter is and spa thesis, not intended as a traditional recommendation, but should evaluate the hook, student's promise as a researcher, the student's capabilities for undertaking this project, and the value and status of the proposed research. It should also discuss the and design, student's current progress in thesis the graduate program, affirming that the student has passed the qualifying exams, completed all course work required for for research paper the degree, and obtained official approval of the dissertation topic or will do so within six months. If the doctoral student will use the award for hook travel expenses to work with a specialist, the proposal should provide a justification for this choice and a letter of collaboration from the specialist agreeing to work with the student. This letter of writing amounts collaboration should not provide any evaluative content concerning the quality of the work or of the student. The letter of support from the dissertation director and letters of collaboration (if any) should be placed in the Supplementary Documents section of the FastLane proposal.

Eligibility Requirements for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants. Only doctoral students who are enrolled in graduate programs at US graduate research institutions are eligible to apply. Doctoral students must have passed the qualifying exams, have completed all course work required for the degree, and have official approval of the dissertation topic prior to receiving the award. Budget Guidelines for Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants. Due to budgetary limitations, dissertation grants typically do not exceed $10,000 in header hook direct costs for research in North America and $12,500 in direct costs for international research, plus applicable indirect costs. Neither the PI (the dissertation director) nor any of the Co-PIs (including the dissertation student) should be listed on the Senior Personnel Listing on the Budget page, since DDRIG proposals do not provide funds for salaries or stipends for the doctoral student, the dissertation director, or other faculty advisors. After the writing amounts, PI and the Co-PI(s) are entered on the Cover Sheet, their names should be manually removed from the thesis header, Senior Personnel Listing on the budget pages to avoid construal as voluntary committed cost sharing, which is not permitted. 6. OTHER GRANT OPPORTUNITIES.

The STS Program also participates in Foundation-wide initiatives such as CAREER, ADVANCE, CCE STEM, NUE and INSPIRE. Writing Amounts? Investigators may also wish to view the SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (SMA) web site for additional funding opportunities. Anticipated Type of Award: Standard, Continuing Grant, or Fellowship Estimated Number of Awards: 40 Anticipated Funding Amount: $6,200,000 in FY 2015. Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Organization limit varies by the mode of support: Standard Research Grants and Grants for Collaborative Research: US Academic Institutions and Non-Profit Research Organizations. Scholars Awards and Postdoctoral Fellowships: US Academic Institutions and Independent Scholars. Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grants: US Academic Institutions. Thesis Header? Conference and Workshop Support: No limitations.

See NSF's Proposals and Awards Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I, Section E for writing in essays categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to NSF. See Section II. Program Description for thesis header detailed information about each mode of resort and spa thesis support. PI eligibility limit varies by the mode of header hook support. See Section II. Program Description for detailed information about each mode of support.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: There are no restrictions or limits. Limit on Number of for research Proposals per PI or Co-PI: There are no restrictions or limits. V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS. A. Header Hook? Proposal Preparation Instructions. Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to aqa art and design coursework this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system. Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and thesis hook, submitted in accordance with the coursework, general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

The complete text of the PAPPG is header hook, available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the aqa art, NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in thesis header hook the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Money? Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Header Hook? Failure to paper submit this information may delay processing. Full 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: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on header hook 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 thesis, funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the thesis, NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following: Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals. See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for bedford 10th guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. Additional Proposal Preparation Instructions. The title of the proposal must identify the mode of header support (five modes are distinguished above in Section II) using the appropriate title prefix: Standard Grant, Scholars Award, Postdoctoral Fellowship, Dissertation Grant, or Workshop. Section II of this solicitation provides detailed information and special instructions for each mode of support. And Spa? The instructions for some of these modes of support deviate from the guidelines in header the NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. Other Budgetary Limitations: See Section II. Program Description for detailed information. Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time): February 02, 2015. February 2, Annually Thereafter. August 3, Annually Thereafter. Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant proposals will have only one deadline per year, August 3rd.

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane: To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the argument persuasive essay, FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to header hook the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity. For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov: Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile.

Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of paper Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing. Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to thesis header use FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. Making? After proposers have received an hook, e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application. VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES. Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review.

All proposals are carefully reviewed by persuasive, a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to hook ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by counter essay, the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the header hook, review process. Proposers are invited to guide paper suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in thesis header the reviewer selection process at decision the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Thesis Header Hook? Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and decision making in groups, award process (and associated timeline) is included in thesis hook PAPPG Exhibit III-1. A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to making essay the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Investing in thesis header Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF Strategic Plan for reader 10th edition essays 2014-2018 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is hook, particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the aqa art coursework, frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy.

NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the thesis header hook, guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the guide paper, knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of thesis groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to write counter persuasive essay the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to header hook the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria. The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and coursework, enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of hook science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission to promote the progress of science; to advance the amounts, national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes. NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of thesis header hook projects. 1. Merit Review Principles.

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and aqa art and design, organizations when preparing proposals and thesis hook, managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply: All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These Broader Impacts may be accomplished through the resort and spa thesis, research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the thesis hook, project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. Counter Argument? If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to header be meaningful. Aqa Art Coursework? Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for header particular projects is counter persuasive essay, done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to thesis header hook be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project.

Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to and design do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of header those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the making essay, two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the header hook, specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below.

Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is and spa, successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against thesis two criteria: Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to paper advance knowledge; and Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria: What is the potential for header the proposed activity to Advance knowledge and bedford reader 10th edition essays, understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and hook, Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)? To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

Is the plan for amounts in essays carrying out the thesis header, proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities? Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. Writing Money In Essays? NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of hook women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and amounts, mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of thesis header hook a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education. Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and write argument essay, the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Proposals submitted in header hook response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of guide reviewers and header, will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the decision making essay, NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award.

NSF strives to be able to thesis header tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and decision making, processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to header hook the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and resort thesis, 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 thesis header 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 decision in groups, Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. Thesis Header? In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the bedford reader essays, names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to header hook award or decline funding. VII. Persuasive? AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION. Notification of the header hook, award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of bedford reader Grants and Agreements.

Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the thesis header, identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on in essays the review process). An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of hook proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and in groups essay, Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and thesis header hook, Agreements Officer and for research, transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail. *These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. More comprehensive information on thesis NSF Award Conditions and decision making, other important information on the administration of NSF awards is thesis, contained in the NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp. Life-changing situations during the period of the award. NSF takes seriously career-life balance. Awardees who encounter any life-changing situation (e.g. birth or adoption of a child, serious illness or death of family member) during the period of the award will be encouraged to reference http://www.nsf.gov/career-life-balance/ and to discuss resolutions with a program officer.

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and money, continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to header hook the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). Write Argument Persuasive? No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public. Failure to provide the thesis hook, required annual or final project reports, or the coursework, project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of thesis header hook any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and bedford reader essays, co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the thesis hook, formats of the required reports in advance to bedford 10th assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and hook, submission of annual and reader, final project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for thesis header the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project.

This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI. More comprehensive information on counter persuasive NSF Reporting Requirements and thesis hook, other important information on the administration of NSF awards is write counter essay, contained in header the NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=papp. Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for and design coursework any updates to the points of thesis hook contact. General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

Frederick Kronz-Program Director, Program Officer, 995 N, telephone: (703) 292-7283, email: fkronz@nsf.gov. Wenda Bauchspies-Program Director, 990 N, telephone: (703) 292-5026, email: wbauchsp@nsf.gov. Alexandra Cohen-Science Assistant, 995, telephone: (703) 292-4927, email: acohen@nsf.gov. For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact: FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov. For questions relating to Grants.gov contact: Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of counter persuasive information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. Header? In addition, NSF Update is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in for research proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. NSF Update also is header hook, available on NSF's website. Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on decision essay Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov. ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by header, the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the for research, purpose of the hook, NSF is to promote the progress of science; [and] to counter argument persuasive advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and header hook, education in all fields of science and resort, engineering. NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and thesis, other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for argument persuasive about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research. NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and hook, postdoctoral fellowships. Write Counter Argument Essay? The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. Thesis Header Hook? The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and guide for research, engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the header, NSF Proposal Award Policies Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals. The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about paper NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at hook (800) 877-8339. The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111. The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for coursework research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about hook program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of resort thesis awards, visit the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov. 4201 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22230.

Send an e-mail to: PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS. The information requested on proposal forms and header hook, project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and money in essays, reporting within the header hook, Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the write essay, proposal review process; to header proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to counter persuasive complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in thesis header a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about for research Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. Thesis Header Hook? See Systems of Records, NSF-50, Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records, 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records, 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and aqa art and design coursework, complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of thesis hook receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of guide Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for hook this collection is 3145-0023. Public reporting burden for this collection of for research information is estimated to header average 12 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for thesis reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton.

Reports Clearance Officer. Office of the General Counsel. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA 22230. The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA.

Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749.

Order Paper Writing Help 24/7 -
Thesis Hook Header - Unisin

adorno essay music Theodor Adorno and the Culture Industry, presented to the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association, Toronto (March 30, 1984) by Gordon Welty. Wright State University. Dayton, OH 45435 USA. Theodor Adorno was one of the more important philosophers of the Institute for Social Research, the Frankfurt School, which flourished in Weimar Germany. A friend and student of the Viennese composer Alban Berg, Adorno was a musicologist as well. Along with many members of the Institute, he emigrated to the United States during the Nazi era. He continued his critique of bourgeois culture, contributing to the Authoritarian Personality in 1950. He and his friend and collaborator, Max Horkheimer, returned to Frankfurt in 1953 and reestablished the Institute.

His last major writing, Negative Dialektik , was published in 1966. He died in 1969. I want to thesis review Adorno's conception of the amounts in essays culture industry as it is header hook found in three writings. The first is the essay On Popular Music, which was published in the Institute's organ, Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences , Vol. IX, No. 1. This essay both summarized Adorno's studies of popular music and decision in groups immediately prefigured the emergence of the theory of the culture industry. In 1944, Horkheimer and Adorno completed writing Dialektik der Aufklarung . This manuscript remained unpublished until 1947, when it came out under the imprint of Querido in header hook, Amsterdam.

As the authors later indicated, the book made its reputation only by degrees. It became better known after 1969, when it was republished by Fischer Verlag in decision making, Frankfurt am Main. A chapter in the book entitled The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception is the second item of interest to us. The third is Culture Industry Reconsidered. In 1963, Adorno gave a lecture in the International Radio University Program over the Hessian Broadcasting System which was published in 1967. This has been translated in New German Critique , No. 6. All human artifacts consist of materializations of labor; they incorporate labor and realize its intentions./1/ Thus they have two interrelated but analytically distinct aspects. On the one side a materialization of labor, a product of labor, is a use value.

As such, an artifact has utility for header someone, i.e. it can serve a need of individual or collective practical reason. The exchange value of writing money, a commodity depends upon its utility, as well as upon the institutional conditions of the market. On the other side, a materialization of labor is an thesis header objectivization or embodiment of paper, meaning or significance. As such, an artifact articulates with individual or collective theoretical reason or aesthetic sense. The monopolistic rental value of an artifact depends upon its significance, as well as the thesis hook institutional conditions which preserve the monopoly (e.g. copyright privileges).

Artifacts can be arrayed across a continuum from those where utility predominates to those where significance predominates. A piece of firewood illustrates the writing money amounts in essays former, a book of poetry, the latter. It would be unusual but not inconceivable to hook foreground the significance, say the guide for research artistic significance, of the firewood. And one could always start a fire with a page of thesis, poetry, highlighting its utility rather than its poetic significance. We will call all artifacts where significance predominates over utility, cultural products.

In particular, we are concerned here with the aqa art and design coursework cultural products which made up popular culture in Adorno's conception, including film, horoscope, jazz, magazines, radio, soap operas, television serials, etc. As cultural objects become more interchangeable, each one declines in header hook, significance, loses its aura, hence declines in monopolistic rent. Since the value of the cultural object is based on the monopolistic rent or, to a subordinate degree, on and spa thesis the object's utility, the value of the cultural object should decline as well. This doesn't occur under late capitalism, however. Hook? As Horkheimer and Adorno have put it, what might be called use value in the reception of cultural commodities is replaced by exchange value./2/ Replaced by exchange value! How can exchange value come to attain such autonomy in the sphere cultural production? Only through a widespread process of fetishization. The consumer is paying, not for the product but for the packaging. Rather than assessments of value based on the qualities of the product, judgments about the counter argument persuasive essay qualities of the product are based upon its exchange value, its price, its top-ten rating.

This is the header hook height of commodity fetishism. As Horkheimer and Adorno stressed, the essential characteristic of the culture industry is repetition./3/ Adorno illustrates this by contrasting popular and serious music. As early as his 1936 essay On Jazz, Adorno had argued that an essential characteristic of popular music was its standardization. On Popular Music, written in 1941 with the assistance of George Simpson, repeats this point. The whole structure of popular music is standardized, even where the attempt is made to circumvent standardization. Persuasive? Standardization extends from the most general features to the most specific ones./4/ Standardization implies the interchangeability, the substitutability of thesis header, parts. By contrast, serious music is a concrete totality for Adorno, whereby every detail derives its musical sense from the concrete totality of the piece. This is a dialectical relationship, whereby the totality is constituted of the organic interrelation of the particulars. In the case of serious music, interchangeability is not possible; if a detail is guide for research omitted, all is lost./5/ Other illustrations could be given, such as the soap operas with their substitutable episodes, horror films with their formulas, etc.

This repetition is due to the reflection in the sphere of cultural production of the standardized and header hook repetitive processes of monopoly capitalist industry. Under late capitalism, what happens at work, in the factory, or in the office can only be escaped by decision making essay, approximating it in one's leisure time. This sets the thesis header terms for cultural products: no independent thinking must be expected from the audiences instead, the product prescribes every reaction./6/ The standardization of the cultural product leads to the standardization of the audience. Man as a member of a species has been made a reality by the culture industry. Now any person signifies only those attributes by which he can replace everybody else; he is interchangeable./7/ Standardization, says Adorno, divests the listener of write argument essay, his spontaneity and promotes conditioned reflexes./8/ To this point, the argument suggests that both popular culture and its audience suffer a radical loss of significance under late capitalism. It might be argued that the standardization of the cultural product under late capitalism is technologically determined, the same as an industrial product such as a can of green beans. Horkheimer and Adorno begin by considering, and dismissing, the claim that the standardization, the identity of mass culture, can be explained in technological terms.

Technology attains its power, they argue, only through the power of monopolies and great corporations./9/ The most powerful industries, viz. banks, chemicals, electricity, petroleum, steel, control the header hook culture monopolies, which are weak and dependent in comparison./10/ The latter produce and market the mass culture. As Stuart Ewen has pointed out, mass society has two aspects, mass production and mass consumption./11/ Adorno stresses that the standardization of the cultural product is not a consequence of mass production. He states that the bedford reader 10th edition expression 'industry' [in the concept 'culture industry'] is not to be taken literally. It refers to thesis header the standardization of the thing itself -- such as the Western, familiar to every movie-goer -- and to the rationalization of distribution techniques, but not strictly to the production process./12/ Earlier, he had been even more specific. The production of popular music can be called 'industrial' only in its promotion and distribution, whereas the paper act of producing a song-hit still remains in a handicraft stage. It is still 'individualistic' in its social mode of production./13/ Rather, standardization is header hook a necessity of mass consumption.

Popular music must simultaneously meet two demands. One is for paper stimuli that provoke the listener's attention . by deviating in some way from the established 'natural' [music]. The other is for material to fall within the category of header, what the resort thesis musically untrained listener would call 'natural' music . that it maintain the supremacy of the natural against such deviations./14/ Adorno continues that the thesis hook paradox in bedford edition, the desiderata -- stimulatory and natural -- accounts for thesis the dual character of standardization itself. Stylization of the ever identical framework is only one aspect of standardization./15/ The necessary correlate of musical standardization is aqa art pseudo-individualization [i.e.] endowing cultural mass production with the halo of free choice or open market on the basis of standardization itself. Pseudo-individualization, for its part, prevents the listener from resisting the standardization which is reducing him to the animalistic level by making him forget that the thesis hook music was standardized./16/ This dual characteristic of popular music also proves to be significant for purposes of marketing it. In order to be mass marketed, a song-hit must have at least one feature by which it can be distinguished from any other, and yet possess the complete conventionality and triviality of all others./17/ Without pseudo-individualization, what the marketing industry calls product differentiation, the song could not be successfully marketed. Without standardisation, it could not be sold automatically, without requiring any effort on the part of the customer; it could not be mass-marketed at all./18/ As Horkheimer and paper Adorno point out, modern communications media have an header hook isolating effect./19/ This includes both social and money in essays physical isolation. The modern administration of capitalist society, with its effective means of communication, keeps people from gregarious interaction. Automobiles facilitate travel of people in complete isolation from each other. They continue that communication establishes uniformity among men by isolating them./20/ Let us consider how this uniformity is generated by popular music.

Popular music either promotes the thoughtlessness of the thesis header hook masses or else provides the resort and spa content of thesis header hook, their thought. Regarding the first of these, Adorno invokes the Distraction Thesis. Distraction is a correlate of capitalism; this mode of production, which engenders fears and anxiety about unemployment, loss of and design, income, war, has its 'non-productive' correlate in entertainment; that is, relaxation which does not involve the thesis header effort of concentration at all./21/ Thus, distraction is a presupposition of popular music. It is also a product of that music; the tunes lull the listener to inattention./22/ Regarding the next of these, Adorno suggests that popular music serves an ideological function for counter argument its listeners. Popular music is header above all a means by which they achieve some psychical adjustment to the mechanisms of present day life. Argument? There are two major types of mass response to popular music, that of the rhythmically obedient type and that of the emotional type./23/ Listeners of the rhythmically obedient type are particularly susceptible to masochistic adjustment to header authoritarian collectivism./24/ Listeners of the emotional type consume music in aqa art and design, order to be allowed to weep. They are taken in by the musical expression of thesis hook, frustration rather than by that of essays, happiness. Adorno continues: Music that permits its listeners the confession of their unhappiness reconciles them, by means of this 'release,' to their social dependence./25/ In sum, Adorno has provided a theory of the nature of the cultural product and its valuation at an appropriate level of discourse. The standardization and interchangeability of thesis header hook, cultural products under late capitalism leads to the interchangeability of persons in the audience. Edition Essays? Stylization has its counterpart, the hook pseudo-individualization of the culture product as well as the members of the audience.

Both stylization and pseudo-individualization contribute to essay the possibilities of mass marketing. The consequences for the audience in late capitalism are distraction on the one hand, and hook a means of ensuring the audience's adjustment -- whether fascistic or sorrowful accommodation -- to dependency on the other. The significance for our times of Adorno's thought on the culture industry is becoming increasingly apparent. On the one hand, the analysis of mass culture, mass society, and the like has proven less than satisfactory. It is necessary critically to delve into the material basis of the cultural apparatus which has ensnared the thinking, attitudes, and cultural practices of vast numbers of the populace. On the counter persuasive essay other hand, the manipulative power of that cultural industry grows day by day. The accession of a B-grade movie actor to the presidency, the advent of the Age of the Great Communicator -- an age revolving about the personality of a man bordering on the dementia of Alzheimer's disease -- only stresses the need for hook a radical critique of the cultural apparatus that has created this age and props up the chief character of this age's tragic farce.

1. Cf. Gordon Welty, The Materialist Science of Culture and the Critique of Ideology, Quarterly Journal of Ideology (1981), Vol. V, No. 2. 2. Writing Money? Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment , New York: Herder and Herder (1972), p. 158. 4. Theodor Adorno, On Popular Music, Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences (1941), Vol. IX, No. 1, pp. 17-18.

6. Horkheimer and header Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 137. 8. In Groups? Adorno, On Popular Music, p. Thesis Hook? 22. 9. Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of and spa, Enlightenment , p. 121. 10. Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment , p. 122.

11. Stuart Ewen, Captains of Consciousness, New York: McGraw-Hill (1976), pp. 24-26. 12. Theodor Adorno, Culture Industry Reconsidered, New German Critique (1975) No. Thesis Header? 6, p. 14. For Research Paper? 13. Adorno, On Popular Music, p. 23. 19. Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of thesis hook, Enlightenment , p. 121.

20. Horkheimer and Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment , p. 122.

Pay for Exclusive Essay -
Easily Customize Website Header using Thesis Theme Hooks

cmu resume examples Software Development Magazine - Project Management, Programming, Software Testing. A Risk-Driven Model for Agile Software Architecture. This article is thesis header, excerpted from Chapter 3 of the book Just Enough Software Architecture: A Risk-Driven Approach [6], available in hardback or as an e-book from http://RhinoResearch.com. 2010 George Fairbanks. Developers have access to more architectural design techniques than they can afford to apply. Aqa Art Coursework! The Risk-Driven Model guides developers to do just enough architecture by identifying their project’s most pressing risks and applying only architecture and design techniques that mitigate them. The key element of the Risk-Driven Model is the promotion of risk to header hook prominence. It is possible to apply the Risk-Driven Model to bedford 10th essentially any software development process, such as waterfall or agile, while still keeping within its spirit. As they build successful software, software developers are choosing from alternate designs, discarding those that are doomed to fail, and preferring options with low risk of failure. When risks are low, it is easy to plow ahead without much thought, but, invariably, challenging design problems emerge and header, developers must grapple with high-risk designs, ones they are not sure will work.

Henry Petroski, a leading historian of thesis engineering, says this about engineering as a whole: The concept of failure is central to the design process, and thesis header hook, it is by thinking in terms of obviating failure that successful designs are achieved. In Essays! . Thesis! Although often an write counter argument essay implicit and tacit part of the methodology of design, failure considerations and proactive failure analysis are essential for achieving success. And it is precisely when such considerations and thesis header hook, analyses are incorrect or incomplete that design errors are introduced and resort thesis, actual failures occur. [10] To address failure risks, the earliest software developers invented design techniques, such as domain modeling, security analyses, and encapsulation, that helped them build successful software. Today, developers can choose from a huge number of design techniques. From this abundance, a hard question arises: Which design and architecture techniques should developers use? If there were no deadlines then the answer would be easy: use all the techniques. Header Hook! But that is impractical because a hallmark of engineering is the ef#64257;cient use of resources, including time. One of the risks developers face is that they waste too much time designing. So a related question arises: How much design and architecture should developers do?

There is much active debate about this question and making, several kinds of thesis header hook answers have been suggested: No up-front design. Developers should just write code. Design happens, but is coincident with coding, and happens at the keyboard rather than in reader essays, advance. Use a yardstick. For example, developers should spend 10% of their time on architecture and header, design, 40% on coding, 20% on integrating, and resort, 30% on header hook, testing. Build a documentation package. Developers should employ a comprehensive set of design and write counter argument persuasive, documentation techniques sufficient to produce a complete written design document.

Ad hoc. Developers should react to the project needs and decide on the spot how much design to do. The ad hoc approach is perhaps the thesis header hook, most common, but it is also subjective and provides no enduring lessons. Avoiding design altogether is impractical when failure risks are high, but so is essay, building a complete documentation package when risks are low. Using a yardstick can help you plan how much effort designing the architecture will take, but it does not help you choose techniques.

This article introduces the thesis header, risk-driven model of architectural design. Its essential idea is guide for research paper, that the hook, effort you spend on designing your software architecture should be commensurate with the risks faced by your project. When my father, trained in mechanical engineering, installed a new mailbox, he did not apply every analysis and for research paper, design technique he knew. Instead, he dug a hole, put in a post, and #64257;lled the hole with concrete. The risk-driven model can help you decide when to apply architecture techniques and when you can skip them. Where a software development process orchestrates every activity from requirements to deployment, the risk-driven model guides only architectural design, and can therefore be used inside any software development process. The risk-driven model is thesis hook, a reaction to a world where developers are under pressure to paper build high quality software quickly and at header, reasonable cost, yet those developers have more architecture techniques than they can afford to apply.

The risk-driven model helps them answer the write counter essay, two questions above: how much software architecture work should they do, and which techniques should they use? It is an approach that helps developers follow a middle path, one that avoids wasting time on hook, techniques that help their projects only a little but ensures that project-threatening risks are addressed by appropriate techniques. In this article, we will examine how risk reduction is bedford 10th edition essays, central to all engineering disciplines, learn how to choose techniques to reduce risks, understand how engineering risks interact with management risks, and learn how we can balance planned design with evolutionary design. This article walks through the ideas that underpin the risk-driven model. 1 What is the risk-driven model? The risk-driven model guides developers to header hook apply a minimal set of architecture techniques to writing money in essays reduce their most pressing risks. Header! It suggests a relentless questioning process: What are my risks?

What are the best techniques to reduce them? Is the risk mitigated and can I start (or resume) coding? The risk-driven model can be summarized in three steps: 1. Identify and prioritize risks. 2. Select and apply a set of techniques. 3. Write Counter Essay! Evaluate risk reduction.

You do not want to waste time on hook, low-impact techniques, nor do you want to ignore project-threatening risks. 10th! You want to build successful systems by taking a path that spends your time most effectively. That means addressing risks by applying architecture and design techniques but only header hook when they are motivated by bedford reader, risks. 1.1 Risk or feature focus. The key element of the risk-driven model is the promotion of header hook risk to write counter argument prominence. What you choose to promote has an impact. Most developers already think about risks, but they think about thesis hook lots of other things too, and consequently risks can be overlooked.

A recent paper described how a team that had previously done up-front architecture work switched to a purely feature-driven process. The team was so focused on delivering features that they deferred quality attribute concerns until after active development ceased and the system was in maintenance [1]. The conclusion to draw is that teams that focus on features will pay less attention to other areas, including risks. Earlier studies have shown that even architects are less focused on risks and aqa art, tradeoffs than one would expect [5]. 1.2 Logical rationale. But what if your perception of risks differs from others’ perceptions? Risk identi#64257;cation, risk prioritization, choice of techniques, and evaluation of risk mitigation will all vary depending on who does them. Thesis Header Hook! Is the write argument persuasive, risk-driven model merely improvisation? No.

Though different developers will perceive risks differently and consequently choose different techniques, the risk-driven model has the header hook, useful property that it yields arguments that can be evaluated. An example argument would take this form: We identified A, B, and C as risks, with B being primary. We spent time applying techniques X and write counter argument persuasive essay, Y because we believed they would help us reduce the risk of B. We evaluated the resulting design and header hook, decided that we had sufficiently mitigated the thesis, risk of B, so we proceeded on to coding. This allows you to answer the header hook, broad question, How much software architecture should you do? by coursework, providing a plan (i.e., the thesis header hook, techniques to apply) based on the relevant context (i.e., the perceived risks).

Other developers might disagree with your assessment, so they could provide a differing argument with the same form, perhaps suggesting that risk D be included. A productive, engineering-based discussion of the risks and techniques can ensue because the rationale behind your opinion has been articulated and can be evaluated. 2 Are you risk-driven now? Many developers believe that they already follow a risk-driven model, or something close to it. Yet there are telltale signs that many do not. One is an reader inability to list the risks they confront and the corresponding techniques they are applying. Any developer can answer the thesis, question, Which features are you working on? but many have trouble with the question, What are your primary failure risks and corresponding engineering techniques? If risks were indeed primary then they would #64257;nd it an writing money easy question to answer. 2.1 Technique choices should vary. Projects face different risks so they should use different techniques. Some projects will have tricky quality attribute requirements (e.g., security, performance, scalability) that need up-front planned design, while other projects are tweaks to existing systems and entail little risk of failure.

Some development teams are distributed and so they document their designs for others to read, while other teams are collocated and can reduce this formality. When developers fail to align their architecture activities with their risks, they will over-use or under-use architectural techniques, or both. Hook! Examining the overall context of and spa software development suggests why this can occur. Most organizations guide developers to follow a process that includes some kind of header hook documentation template or a list of writing money amounts in essays design activities. These can be beneficial and effective, but they can also inadvertently steer developers astray.

Here are some examples of well-intentioned rules that guide developers to activities that may be mismatched with their project’s risks. The team must always (or never) build full documentation for each system. The team must always (or never) build a class diagram, a layer diagram, etc. The team must spend 10% (or 0%) of the project time on header hook, architecture. Such guidelines can be better than no guidance, but each project will face a different set of risks. It would be a great coincidence if the same set of diagrams or techniques were always the best way to 10th edition mitigate a changing set of risks. 2.2 Example mismatch. Imagine a company that builds a 3-tier system. The #64257;rst tier has the user interface and is exposed to the internet. Its biggest risks might be usability and security.

The second and third tiers implement business rules and persistence; they are behind a #64257;rewall. The biggest risks might be throughput and scalability. If this company followed the header, risk-driven model, the front-end and amounts in essays, back-end developers would apply different architecture and thesis, design techniques to address their different risks. Instead, what often happens is that both teams follow the same company-standard process or template and produce, say, a module dependency diagram. The problem is that there is writing money amounts in essays, no connection between the header hook, techniques they use and the risks they face.

Standard processes or templates are not intrinsically bad, but they are often used poorly. Over time, you may be able to generalize the risks on the projects at your company and and design coursework, devise a list of appropriate techniques. The important part is that the techniques match the risks. The three steps to risk-driven software architecture are deceptively simple but the devil is in the details. What exactly are risks and techniques? How do you choose an appropriate set of techniques? And when do you stop architecting and start/resume building?

The following sections dig into these questions in more detail. In the context of thesis header hook engineering, risk is for research, commonly de#64257;ned as the chance of failure times the hook, impact of that failure. Both the probability of failure and reader essays, the impact are uncertain because they are difficult to measure precisely. You can sidestep the distinction between perceived risks and header hook, actual risks by coursework, bundling the concept of uncertainty into the de#64257;nition of risk. The de#64257;nition of risk then becomes: risk = perceived probability of failure perceived impact. A result of this de#64257;nition is thesis, that a risk can exist (i.e., you can perceive it) even if it does not exist. Imagine a hypothetical program that has no bugs. If you have never run the program or tested it, should you worry about it failing? That is, should you perceive a failure risk? Of course you should, but after you analyze and test the program, you gain confidence in it, and your perception of risk goes down. In Groups! So by applying techniques, you can reduce the amount of hook uncertainty, and therefore the decision making in groups, amount of (perceived) risk.

3.1 Describing risks. You can state a risk categorically, often as the lack of thesis header hook a needed quality attribute like modifiability or reliability. But often this is too vague to be actionable: if you do something, are you sure that it actually reduces the categorical risk? It is paper, better to describe risks such that you can later test to see if they have been mitigated. Instead of just listing a quality attribute like reliability, describe each risk of failure as a testable failure scenario, such as During peak loads, customers experience user interface latencies greater than #64257;ve seconds. 3.2 Engineering and project management risks. Projects face many different kinds of thesis header risks, so people working on a project tend to pay attention to the risks related to resort their specialty. Project management risks. Software engineering risks.

Lead developer hit by bus The server may not scale to 1000 users Customer needs not understood Parsing of the thesis header hook, response messages may be buggy Senior VP hates our manager The system is working now but if we touch anything it may fall apart

Figure 1: Examples of project management and engineering risks. You should distinguish them because engineering techniques rarely solve management risks, and vice versa. For example, the sales team worries about writing money a good sales strategy and software developers worry about a system’s scalability. We can broadly categorize risks as either engineering risks or project management risks. Hook! Engineering risks are those risks related to guide for research the analysis, design, and thesis header hook, implementation of the product. These engineering risks are in the domain of the aqa art coursework, engineering of the system. Project management risks relate to schedules, sequencing of work, delivery, team size, geography, etc.

Figure 1 shows examples of hook both. If you are a software developer, you are asked to mitigate engineering risks and you will be applying engineering techniques. Guide For Research! The technique type must match the risk type, so only header hook engineering techniques will mitigate engineering risks. For example, you cannot use a PERT chart (a project management technique) to decision essay reduce the chance of buffer overruns (an engineering risk), and using Java will not resolve stakeholder disagreements. 3.3 Identifying risks. Experienced developers have an easy time identifying risks, but what can be done if the developer is less experienced or working in an unfamiliar domain?

The easiest place to start is with the requirements, in header hook, whatever form they take, and looking for things that seem difficult to achieve. Misunderstood or incomplete quality attribute requirements are a common risk. You can use Quality Attribute Workshops [2], a Taxonomy-Based Questionnaire [4], or something similar, to reader edition essays elicit risks and produce a prioritized list of failure scenarios. Even with diligence, you will not be able to hook identify every risk. When I was a child, my parents taught me to counter argument persuasive look both ways before crossing the thesis header, street because they identified cars as a risk. Aqa Art And Design! It would have been equally bad if I had been hit by thesis hook, a car or by a falling meteor, but they put their attention on the foreseen and high priority risk. You must accept that your project will face unidentified risks despite your best efforts. 3.4 Prototypical risks. After you have worked in and spa, a domain for a while, you will notice prototypical risks that are common to most projects in that domain. Thesis Hook! For example, Systems projects usually worry more about performance than IT projects do, and Web projects almost always worry about security. Complex, poorly understood problem.

Unsure we’re solving the real problem. May choose wrong COTS software. Integration with existing, poorly understood software. Domain knowledge scattered across people. Performance, reliability, size, security. Developer productivity / expressability.

Figure 2: While each project can have a unique set of risks, it is possible to generalize by domain. Prototypical risks are ones that are common in writing amounts in essays, a domain and are a reason that software development practices vary by domain. For example, developers on thesis header hook, Systems projects tend to resort and spa use the highest performance languages. Prototypical risks may have been encoded as checklists describing historical problem areas, perhaps generated from architecture reviews. These checklists are valuable knowledge for less experienced developers and hook, a helpful reminder for experienced ones. Knowing the prototypical risks in your domain is a big advantage, but even more important is realizing when your project differs from the decision making, norm so that you avoid blind spots. Thesis Header Hook! For example, software that runs a hospital might most closely resemble an IT project, with its integration concerns and and spa thesis, complex domain types. However, a system that takes 10 minutes to reboot after a power failure is usually a minor risk for thesis header hook, an IT project, but a major risk at a hospital.

3.5 Prioritizing risks. Not all risks are equally large, so they can be prioritized. Most development teams will prioritize risks by discussing the priorities amongst themselves. This can be adequate, but the team’s perception of risks may not be the same as the stakeholders’ perception. If your team is spending enough time on software architecture for it to be noticeable in your budget, it is best to validate that time and money are being spent in money amounts, accordance with stakeholder priorities. Risks can be categorized on hook, two dimensions: their priority to stakeholders and their perceived difficulty by guide paper, developers. Be aware that some technical risks, such as platform choices, cannot be easily assessed by stakeholders.

This is the same categorization technique used in ATAM to prioritize architecture drivers and quality attribute scenarios [3]. Formal procedures exist for cataloging and prioritizing risks using risk matrices, including a US military standard MILSTD882D. Formal prioritization of header risks is writing money amounts in essays, appropriate if your system, for header, example, handles radioactive material, but most computer systems can be less formal. Applying design or architecture pattern. Breaking point test.

Figure 3: A few examples of reader 10th edition essays engineering risk reduction techniques in hook, software engineering and reader 10th edition, other #64257;elds. Modeling is commonplace in thesis header, all engineering #64257;elds. Once you know what risks you are facing, you can apply techniques that you expect to reader 10th reduce the risk. The term technique is quite broad, so we will focus specifically on software engineering risk reduction techniques, but for convenience continue to use the simple name technique. Figure 3 shows a short list of software engineering techniques and techniques from thesis header, other engineering #64257;elds.

4.1 Spectrum from analyses to solutions. Imagine you are building a cathedral and you are worried that it may fall down. And Design Coursework! You could build models of various design alternatives and calculate their stresses and strains. Alternately, you could apply a known solution, such as using a #64258;ying buttress. Thesis Header! Both work, but the edition, former approach has an analytical character while the latter has a known-good solution character. Techniques exist on a spectrum from pure analyses, like calculating stresses, to pure solutions, like using a #64258;ying buttress on a cathedral. Header Hook! Other software architecture and design books have inventoried techniques on the solution-end of the spectrum, and making essay, call these techniques tactics [3]or patterns [12,7], and thesis hook, include such solutions as using a process monitor, a forwarder-receiver, or a model-view-controller. The risk-driven model focuses on techniques that are on the analysis-end of the spectrum, ones that are procedural and making essay, independent of the problem domain. These techniques include using models such as layer diagrams, component assembly models, and deployment models; applying analytic techniques for performance, security, and reliability; and leveraging architectural styles such as client-server and pipe-and-#64257;lter to achieve an header hook emergent quality. 4.2 Techniques mitigate risks.

Design is a mysterious process, where virtuosos can make leaps of reasoning between problems and solutions [13]. For your process to thesis be repeatable, however, you need to make explicit what the thesis hook, virtuosos are doing tacitly. In this case, you need to be able to explicitly state how to choose techniques in aqa art and design, response to thesis risks. Writing Amounts In Essays! Today, this knowledge is mostly informal, but we can aspire to creating a handbook that would help us make informed decisions. It would be #64257;lled with entries that look like this: If you have a risk, consider a technique to reduce it. Such a handbook would improve the repeatability of designing software architectures by encoding the knowledge of thesis virtuoso architects as mappings between risks and techniques. Any particular technique is good at reducing some risks but not others. Thesis! In a neat and header, orderly world, there would be a single technique to money amounts in essays address every known risk.

In practice, some risks can be mitigated by multiple techniques, while others risks require you to invent techniques on the #64258;y. This frame of mind, where you choose techniques based on risks, helps you to work efficiently. You do not want to waste time (or other resources) on low-impact techniques, nor do you want to ignore project-threatening risks. You want to build successful systems by taking a path that spends your time most effectively. That means only applying techniques when they are motivated by header hook, risks.

4.3 Optimal basket of techniques. To avoid wasting your time and money, you should choose techniques that best reduce your prioritized list of aqa art and design coursework risks. You should seek out opportunities to kill two birds with one stone by applying a single technique to mitigate two or more risks. You might like to think of it as an optimization problem to choose a set of techniques that optimally mitigates your risks. It is harder to header hook decide which techniques should be applied than it appears at #64257;rst glance. Every technique does something valuable, just not the valuable thing your project needs most. For example, there are techniques for improving the usability of your user interfaces. Coursework! Imagine you successfully used such techniques on thesis, your last project, so you choose it again on your current project. You #64257;nd three usability #64258;aws in your design, and #64257;x them. Does this mean that employing the usability technique was a good idea?

Not necessarily, because such reasoning ignores the opportunity cost. The fair comparison is against the other techniques you could have used. If your biggest risk is that your chosen framework is argument persuasive, inappropriate, you should spend your time analyzing or prototyping your framework choice instead of on usability. Your time is scarce, so you should choose techniques that are maximally effective at reducing your failure risks, not just somewhat effective. 4.4 Cannot eliminate engineering risk. Perhaps you are wondering why we should try to create an header optimal basket of techniques when we should go all the reader 10th edition essays, way and eliminate engineering risk. It is tempting, since engineers hate ignoring risks, especially those they know how to header address.

The downside of trying to eliminate engineering risk is counter essay, time. As aviation pioneers, the Wright brothers spent time on mathematical and thesis header hook, empirical investigations into writing money in essays, aeronautical principles and thus reduced their engineering risk. But, if they had continued these investigations until risks were eliminated, their #64257;rst test #64258;ight might have been in 1953 instead of thesis header 1903. The reason you cannot afford to eliminate engineering risk is because you must balance it with non-engineering risk, which is predominantly, project management risk. Aqa Art And Design Coursework! Consequently, a software developer does not have the option to apply every useful technique because risk reductions must be balanced against time and cost. 5 Guidance on choosing techniques.

So far, you have been introduced to the risk-driven model and have been advised to choose techniques based on your risks. You should be wondering how to make good choices. In the future, perhaps a developer choosing techniques will act much like a mechanical engineer who chooses materials by referencing tables of properties and thesis header hook, making quantitative decisions. For now, such tables do not exist. You can, however, ask experienced developers what they would do to mitigate risks. That is, you would choose techniques based on their experience and your own. However, if you are curious, you would be dissatis#64257;ed either with a table or a collection of advice from software veterans.

Surely there must be principles that underlie any table or any veteran’s experience, principles that explain why technique X works to writing money amounts mitigate risk Y. Such principles do exist and we will now take a look at hook, some important ones. Amounts In Essays! Here is a brief preview. First, sometimes you have a problem to thesis #64257;nd while other times you have a problem to prove, and your technique choice should match that need. Second, some problems can be solved with an analogic model while others require an guide for research paper analytic model, so you will need to differentiate these kinds of models. Third, it may only be ef#64257;cient to analyze a problem using a particular type of thesis header hook model.

And #64257;nally, some techniques have affinities, like pounding is coursework, suitable for thesis hook, nails and twisting is suitable for screws. 5.1 Problems to #64257;nd and prove. In his book How to write counter Solve It, George Polya identifies two distinct kinds of math problems: problems to thesis #64257;nd and problems to prove [11]. Guide Paper! The problem, Is there a number that when squared equals 4? is header, a problem to #64257;nd, and you can test your proposed answer easily. On the other hand, Is the set of prime numbers in#64257;nite? is a problem to prove. Finding things tends to be easier than proving things because for proofs you need to demonstrate something is true in all possible cases. When searching for a technique to address a risk, you can often eliminate many possible techniques because they answer the wrong kind of Polya question. Some risks are specific, so they can be tested with straightforward test cases. It is easy to imagine writing a test case for Can the 10th, database hold names up to 100 characters? since it is a problem to #64257;nd. Similarly, you may need to hook design a scalable website. This is also a problem to #64257;nd because you only need to design (i.e., #64257;nd) one solution, not demonstrate that your design is optimal.

Conversely, it is bedford 10th essays, hard to imagine a small set of test cases providing persuasive evidence when you have a problem to prove. Consider, Does the thesis, system always conform to persuasive the framework Application Programming Interface (API)? Your tests could succeed, but there could be a case you have not yet seen, perhaps when a framework call unexpectedly passes a null reference. Another example of a problem to prove is deadlock: Any number of tests can run successfully without revealing a problem in a locking protocol. 5.2 Analytic and analogic models. Michael Jackson, crediting Russell Ackoff, distinguishes between analogic models and analytic models [8,9].

In an analogic model, each model element has an analogue in the domain of interest. A radar screen is an analogic model of some terrain, where blips on the screen correspond to thesis airplanes - the decision in groups essay, blip and the airplane are analogues. Analogic models support analysis only indirectly and usually domain knowledge or human reasoning are required. A radar screen can help you answer the question, Are these planes on a collision course? but to thesis header hook do so you are using your special purpose brainpower in and spa, the same way that an out#64257;elder can tell if he is in position to catch a #64258;y ball. An analytic (what Ackoff would call symbolic) model, by contrast, directly supports computational analysis. Mathematical equations are examples of analytic models, as are state machines.

You could imagine an analytic model of the airplanes where each is header, represented by writing money in essays, a vector. Thesis Header! Mathematics provides an analytic capability to relate the vectors, so you could quantitatively answer questions about collision courses. When you model software, you invariably use symbols, whether they are Uni#64257;ed Modeling Language (UML) elements or some other notation. Writing Money In Essays! You must be careful because some of header those symbolic models support analytic reasoning while others support analogic reasoning, even when they use the same notation. For example, two different UML models could represent airplanes as classes one with and one without an writing money amounts attribute for the airplane’s vector. The UML model with the vector enables you to compute a collision course, so it is an analytic model. The UML model without the vector does not, so it is an analogic model. Header Hook! So simply using a de#64257;ned notation, like UML, does not guarantee that your models will be analytic. Architecture description languages (ADLs) are more constrained than UML, with the intention of nudging your architecture models to be analytic ones. Whether a given model is analytic or analogic depends on the question you want it to answer. Either of the UML models could be used to count airplanes, for example, and so could be considered analytic models.

When you know what risks you want to mitigate, you can appropriately choose an analytic or analogic model. For example, if you are concerned that your engineers may not understand the relationships between domain entities, you may build an decision making in groups analogic model in UML and confirm it with domain experts. Conversely, if you need to calculate response time distributions, then you will want an analytic model. 5.3 Viewtype matching. The effectiveness of thesis header hook some risk-technique pairings depends on paper, the type of model or view used. The module viewtype includes tangible artifacts such as source code and classes; the runtime viewtype includes runtime structures like objects; and the allocation viewtype includes allocation elements like server rooms and hardware. It is easiest to reason about modifiability from the module viewtype, performance from the runtime viewtype, and security from the hook, deployment and module viewtypes. Each view reveals selected details of a system. Reasoning about a risk works best when the view being used reveals details relevant to counter that risk.

For example, reasoning about a runtime protocol is easier with a runtime view, perhaps a state machine, than with source code. Thesis Header Hook! Similarly, it is easier to coursework reason about single points of failure using an header allocation view than a module view. Despite this, developers are adaptable and and spa, will work with the thesis header, resources they have, and will mentally simulate the other viewtypes. For example, developers usually have access to the source code, so they have become quite adept at guide, imagining the runtime behavior of the thesis header hook, code and where it will be deployed. While a developer can make do with source code, reasoning will be easier when the risk and viewtype are matched, and the view reveals details related to aqa art and design coursework the risk. 5.4 Techniques with affinities. In the physical world, tools are designed for a purpose: hammers are for thesis hook, pounding nails, screwdrivers are for counter persuasive, turning screws, saws are for cutting. Thesis Header! You may sometimes hammer a screw, or use a screwdriver as a pry bar, but the results are better when you use the tool that matches the writing money amounts, job. In software architecture, some techniques only go with particular risks because they were designed that way and it is thesis, difficult to use them for for research paper, another purpose. For example, Rate Monotonic Analysis primarily helps with reliability risks, threat modeling primarily helps with security risks, and header hook, queuing theory primarily helps with performance risks. The beginning of edition essays this article posed two questions.

So far, this article has explored the #64257;rst: Which design and architecture techniques should you use? The answer is to identify risks and choose techniques to combat them. The techniques best suited to one project will not be the ones best suited to another project. But the mindset of aligning your architecture techniques, your experience, and header hook, the guidance you have learned will steer you to appropriate techniques. We now turn our attention to the second question: How much design and architecture should you do?

Time spent designing or analyzing is guide paper, time that could have been spent building, testing, etc., so you want to get the balance right, neither doing too much design, nor ignoring risks that could swamp your project. 6.1 Effort should be commensurate with risk. The risk-driven model strives to efficiently apply techniques to reduce risks, which means not over-or under-applying techniques. Thesis! To achieve efficiency, the risk-driven model uses this guiding principle: Architecture efforts should be commensurate with the risk of failure.

If you recall the story of resort and spa thesis my father and the mailbox, he was not terribly worried about the mailbox falling over, so he did not spend much time designing the solution or applying mechanical engineering analyses. He thought about the design a little bit, perhaps considering how deep the hole should be, but most of his time was spent on implementation. When you are unconcerned about thesis hook security risks, spend no time on guide for research paper, security design. However, when performance is a project-threatening risk, work on it until you are reasonably sure that performance will be OK. 6.2 Incomplete architecture designs.

When you apply the risk-driven model, you only design the areas where you perceive failure risks. Most of the time, applying a design technique means building a model of some kind, either on paper or a whiteboard. Consequently, your architecture model will likely be detailed in some areas and header, sketchy, or even non-existent, in others. For example, if you have identified some performance risks and no security risks, you would build models to address the performance risks, but those models would have no security details in aqa art, them. Thesis! Still, not every detail about performance would be modeled and decided. Remember that models are an intermediate product and you can stop working on them once you have become convinced that your architecture is suitable for addressing your risks.

6.3 Subjective evaluation. The risk-driven model says to prioritize your risks, apply chosen techniques, then evaluate any remaining risk, which means that you must decide if the bedford reader 10th, risk has been sufficiently mitigated. But what does sufficiently mitigated mean? You have prioritized your risks, but which risks make the cut and which do not? The risk-driven model is a framework to header hook facilitate your decision making, but it cannot make judgment calls for you. Bedford 10th Essays! It identifies salient ideas (prioritized risks and corresponding techniques) and guides you to thesis hook ask the right questions about your design work. By using the risk-driven model, you are ahead because you have identified risks, enacted corresponding techniques, and reader 10th edition essays, kept your effort commensurate with your risks. Hook! But eventually you must make a subjective evaluation: will the architecture you designed enable you to overcome your failure risks? About the reader essays, article. This article is excerpted from Chapter 3 of the book Just Enough Software Architecture: A Risk-Driven Approach [6], available in hook, hardback or as an e-book from http://RhinoResearch.com.

2010 George Fairbanks. [1] Muhammad Ali Babar. An exploratory study of architectural practices and challenges in using agile software development approaches. Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture 2009 European Conference on Software Architecture 2009, September 2009. [2] Mario R. Bedford 10th Essays! Barbacci, Robert Ellison, Anthony J. Hook! Lattanze, Judith A. Money Amounts In Essays! Stafford, Charles B. Thesis! Weinstock, and William G. Wood. Aqa Art And Design Coursework! Quality attribute workshops (qaws), third edition. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. [3] Len Bass, Paul Clements, and Rick Kazman.

Software Architecture in Practice. AddisonWesley, second edition, 2003. [4] Marvin J. Carr, Suresh L. Konda, Ira Monarch, F.Carol Ulrich, and Clay F. Walker. Taxonomy-based risk identi#64257;cation. Hook! Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-6, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, June 1993. [5] Viktor Clerc, Patricia Lago, and Hans van Vliet. The architect’s mindset.

Third International Conference on Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA), pages 231– 248, 2007. [6] George Fairbanks.#9;Just Enough Software Architcture: A Risk-Driven Approach. Marshal and Brainerd, 2010. E-book available from rhinoresearch.com. [7] Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. In Groups! Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (Addison-WesleyProfessional Computing Series). Addison-Wesley Professional, 1995. [8] Michael Jackson.

Software Requirements and Speci#64257;cations. Addison-Wesley, 1995. [9] Michael Jackson. Thesis! Problem Frames: Analyzing and Structuring Software Development Problems. Addison-Wesley, 2000. [10] Henry Petroski. Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering. Cambridge University Press, 1994. [11] George Polya. How to Solve It: A New Aspect of bedford 10th edition Mathematical Method (Princeton Science Library). Header! Princeton University Press, 2004.

[12] Douglas Schmidt, Michael Stal, Hans Rohnert, and resort and spa thesis, Frank Buschmann. Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture Volume 2: Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects. Wiley, 2000. [13] Mary Shaw and David Garlan. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline.

Prentice-Hall, 1996.

Order Paper Writing Help 24/7 -
Thesis Hook Header - Unisin

Food vs. Fuel: A False Dilemma for Cuba:A Survey of the Issue. The objective of this essay is broadly to thesis header assess the counter essay, factors that determine whether the production of biofuels from biomass could be viable in Cuba and whether it could compete with food production. This question is important in view of the thesis, significant decreases that have occurred in Cuba’s agricultural and food production during the past several decades. In particular, shortages of staple food products have characterized the last twenty years and, although famine conditions have never materialized, the country has had to import foodstuffs it used to decision making in groups produce before. In 2006, according to the Communist Party official newspaper Granma, Cuba commercially imported nearly 85 percent of its food needs. For more than a decade, it has also depended on food donations from the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) to feed more than 700,000 families in the five eastern-most provinces. In addition, Cuba’s capacity to import the food it needs, as well as other critical goods, has severely deteriorated with the collapse of key exports sectors, particularly sugar, and the suspension of large subsidies from the former Soviet Union. Currently, capacity to header hook import food has increased somewhat with the subsidies from Venezuela.

A large portion of these food imports comes from the United States. The potential dilemma between the production of bio fuels, based on agricultural feedstock, and food production has become a controversial issue for for research, policy makers. Hook! In this context, biofuels include ethanol and and spa thesis biodiesel. Currently, strong interest in the production of biofuels derives from several factors. To wit:

First, the high price of oil prevalent during the past few years, as the result of supply limitations agreed upon by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In addition, the world is experiencing an apparently insatiable demand for hydrocarbons, spearheaded by thesis header, countries such as China and India. High oil prices have enhanced the economic viability of producing biofuels. Second, has been the growing consensus, now supported by scientific evidence, about the impact of hydrocarbon consumption on climate change. Indeed, most scientists now believe that continuous and increasing use of hydrocarbons is a major factor in global warming. This impact, if not abated, could have significant negative effects on the world’s ecology, on agricultural productive capacity, and on write counter argument essay, food production in most countries.

This last concern is important because, according to the Food and header hook Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, there are an estimated 850 million people with diets well below internationally-accepted minimum norms. Widespread decreases in writing amounts food production would make this situation worse. It is important to hook note, however, that there is resort and spa, consensus on the fact that poverty—lack of income—and not the level of thesis header available food supply, currently adequate, is the major cause of hunger in the world. Third, added to the potential impact of global warming, is competition for persuasive essay, productive land. Hook! A major concern has been that production of biofuels, based on agricultural feedstock, might divert agricultural land and feedstock into biofuel production, thus decreasing food supply and increasing the resort and spa thesis, price of staples.

Recently, the price of both sugar and maize, main inputs used to produce ethanol, has risen rapidly as demand for them by ethanol distillers has increased significantly. This is the core reason for the food vs. fuel potential dilemma. Finally, economic and hook political vulnerability. That is, the concern, on the part of oil importing countries, particularly the United States and the European Union (EU), that continuous dependency on decision making in groups, oil from a few, often strongly adversarial and unstable producers, is thesis header, not politically advisable and could lead to political instability. These preoccupations have resulted in bedford reader 10th essays government policies that emphasize the hook, production of alternative fuels, mainly ethanol and biodiesel, which could decrease the demand for hydrocarbons. These actions have also led to governments’ decisions to set mandatory levels of use of these alternative fuels in the short to medium term. Additional attention has been placed on research on the direct uses of writing amounts in essays biomass for the production of energy, a practice that has been extensively followed by the world’s peasantry in their households and by many countries in some of their industries. These issues and factors are important for Cuba. The country does not produce but one-half of the oil required to meet its current energy needs, even for an economy at thesis, a depressed level of activity.

Cuba, however, has had long—albeit limited—experience in the production of ethanol from sugar and of its use as a supplement for gasoline, as well as in the direct use of biomass (sugar cane bagasse) to produce energy in bedford reader edition the sugar mills’ boilers. Because of the dismal status of the island’s agriculture and food sector, the food vs. fuel dilemma could be real for Cuba, should there be a policy shift to thesis hook emphasize ethanol production from sugar cane and for research other feeddstock. Whether or not it is an issue would depend on a thorough assessment of suitable land availability, yields, and technologies available or used in the country or, said in simpler terms, economic feasibility of thesis hook different alternatives, under different policy frameworks and organizational sectoral structures. Only such an assessment would answer the question of decision making essay whether Cuba has the physical and ecological capacity to hook produce most of the food it requires while also producing feedstock for a biofuel industry. Technologies used to produce ethanol from corn and cane sugar are well known and writing relatively straightforward. In the thesis header hook, case of biodiesel, currently derived from oil seeds such as rapeseed, as well as from palm oil and guide for research paper soybeans, the thesis, technology is also simple but more costly, on decision making essay, a per hook, unit basis, than that used for ethanol. For both ethanol and money biodiesel production, even with oil at $70 a barrel, production is not cost competitive with hydrocarbons in most countries. Thus, in all countries, except currently in Brazil, there is significant protection via tariffs or subsidies. As the thesis header hook, price of essays oil inches its way to $100 per thesis header hook, barrel, however, cost ratios will change in favor of biofuels. Ethanol can also be produced from a wide variety of resort other feedstock. These include prairie grasses, renewable biomass and residues from forestry and hook agricultural cropland, and even municipal wastes.

Many of these agriculture-based sources grow on marginal lands, not suitable for food crops. Therefore, their use as feedstock would not divert land from food production. However, the technology necessary for producing cellulose-based ethanol from these sources is still under development. According to rough estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production are several times greater than those for writing amounts, conventional ethanol production. LOCATION OF CURRENT BIOFUEL PRODUCTION. Brazil and the United States are the world’s largest producers of ethanol, the first relying on sugar cane, and the second mostly on hook, maize, a basic food and feedstuff. According to a recent World Bank study on trade and resort and spa thesis biofuels, prepared by its Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), only Brazil’s ethanol program has attained economic sustainability, as the thesis header hook, country, after two decades, no longer uses subsidies or protection to support growth of the industry.

Certain tax incentives, favoring the use of gasohol or pure ethanol as transportation fuels, remain though. Close to 50% of the sugar Brazil produces goes into ethanol production. Write Counter Persuasive! Parallel to this, its automotive industry has developed a variety of cars and trucks that can use a wide range of combinations of ethanol and gasoline. Ethanol now accounts for more than 40% of Brazil’s ethanol/gasoline sales. In addition to sugar cane, ethanol can be produced from other food stock such as maize, sugar beets, wheat, cassava, and other starches. Header Hook! Sugar, however, seems to be the most cost effective raw material. In the United States, ethanol production originates mostly from maize. This crop is heavily protected by a tariff on ethanol imports, without which ethanol production from maize would be unprofitable. It is because of this tariff, and the government-mandated use of ethanol as a supplement to write counter argument persuasive essay gasoline, that the industry subsists and grows.

Biodiesel production, concentrated in the EU and hook based mostly on rapeseed oil, is still far from commercial viability and remains heavily underwritten by tax incentives and trade protection. Amounts! In fact, where it is header hook, available in Europe, mainly Germany and guide paper Switzerland, the price of header hook biodiesel at the pump is commonly lower than that of regular diesel. Biodiesel can also be produced from soybean oil, palm oil, waste oil, and other vegetable oils. Non-EU countries, which have begun production of biodiesel, include Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and India. Brazil is assessing feasibility of producing biodiesel from soybeans and from low-quality coffee beans. In India, with millions of hectares of marginal lands, the paper, use of jathropa, an oil seed that grows well in such land, is undergoing experimentation. There is hook, widespread concern that in these countries, cropland will be diverted to the production of biodiesel feedstock. Furthermore, fears abound about deforestation in the Amazon and in aqa art and design the Indonesian forests, in thesis header hook order to plant soybeans and oil palm, because that shift would increase the environmental and ecological costs of producing biofuels. IS THE THREAT AGAINST FOOD PRODUCTION TRULY SERIOUS? According to a study by the UN Foundation, as well as the FAO (OECD and FAO, Agricultural Outlook, 2007–2016), there are sufficient land areas worldwide to increase production of feedstock for biofuels without significantly affecting the amounts, adequacy of the food supply.

The development of cost effective cellulosic ethanol technology would decrease pressure on cropland, as agricultural residues could then become major feedstock to thesis the industry. For instance, agricultural residue from paper maize areas could be the source of ethanol without affecting the thesis header, use of maize grain for food and feed. By way of illustration, in the United States, there are about 400 million acres under cultivation. These areas consistently produce surplus food crops. However, it is estimated that one half of nation’s 2.26 billion acres have some potential for biomass production. In addition, most researchers believe that increases in food crop yields will continue that will make feasible to feed more people from a given area cropped. It is also feasible to use residues from the production of ethanol from biomass as cattle feed, thus reducing the need to use maize for write counter persuasive, this purpose. In addition, from an income standpoint, given that the major cause of hunger is poverty, increased demand for biofuels is likely to increase prices paid to producers of hook feedstock and/or result in more paid employment. In Brazil, the number of new jobs created by the sugar/ethanol industry is estimated to be 1 million.

Thus, more people will be able to access the food they need. There are social problems that could/will arise. For example, some NGOs in Brazil, including religious ones, submit that working conditions in many of the sugar plantations in that country are just slightly better than slavery. Cuba has a long history of using biomass to produce energy and other products. In addition to sugar, the sugar cane industry has produced ethanol for fuel as well as molasses for cattle feed, and rum. Sugar cane bagasse, the decision, residue from the cane harvest, was traditionally used to run the sugar mill boilers, either by itself or by mixing it with bunker oil. Hook! This practice continues to essay this day.

Bagasse was also used, during the decade of the 1950s, to hook produce newsprint and compressed boards. During the same decade, ethanol, mixed with gasoline at aqa art and design, a 10/90 ratio, was sold as vehicular fuel. At the time, it was called the header hook, “national fuel.” No data is available regarding what share of consumption this fuel accounted for. During the last 15 years, sugar production in Cuba has decreased precipitously. In 1959, Cuba was the world’s largest exporter of sugar and literally dominated the international market, with total exports of sugar surpassing 5 million tons per resort and spa thesis, annum. Thesis Header! In contrast, the 2007 sugar harvest, at about one million tons, was the decision, lowest in more than 100 years, sufficient only to cover local (rationed) consumption of roughly 700 thousand tons and not quite enough to fulfill export contracts with China.

After the 2002 government decision to restructure the sugar industry, the number of sugar mills decreased drastically. Only 42 mills participated in the 2007 harvest. More than half of the 161 mills active in the 1980s have been either dismantled or literally abandoned to rust. More than 200,000 workers have been released by the industry. In 2005, the government announced new investments to reactivate the sugar sector in order to take advantage of header higher sugar prices. That effort, if it was carried out, seems to have produced nothing. Agricultural yields have also decreased radically. Cuban fields now yield less than 30 tons of sugar cane per hectare compared with a world average of 63 tons per bedford reader essays, hectare. Hook! Concerning production of sugar, the Cuban government has reported that, in write counter argument essay 2006, industrial yields averaged less than 11%, compared with the average 12.83% reached during the decade of the 1950s.

Underlining these decreases in productivity, there has been a serious deterioration in the quality of soils in sugar cane plantations. Mismanagement of harvesting machinery has resulted in widespread soil compacting and, in many areas, water-logging. Too late and haphazard harvesting of sugar cane have destroyed many of the thesis header, cane plants that were traditionally able to produce for several years without replanting. Furthermore, over one million hectares of land (about 2.5 million acres), of the total 1.8 million hectares (about 4.5 million acres), formerly planted with sugar cane, have been abandoned and taken over by marabu, a variety of acacia, a deep-rooted bush that produces nothing of value and is very difficult to eradicate. Thus, close to 2 million hectares of write counter persuasive essay land could be used in the future for an integrated sugar industry: one that could produce sugar, ethanol, paper, cattle feed, and other products without competing for foodstuff cropland, provided that a return to earlier productivity levels are achieved. The possibility of directly using sugar cane biomass to produce surplus electricity, in addition to fueling the mill during the harvest, has also been technically proven profitable. The international market for sugar, though, has changed radically since the hook, beginning of the resort, Revolution. In 1959, Cuba exported more than three million tons of sugar to header the United States, under a preferential quota.

In 2006, total U.S. Counter Argument! imports of sugar were lower that 1.6 million tons. The United States now produces close to 8 million tons of sugar, from both sugar cane and sugar beets. Header! Furthermore, production and consumption of non-sugar sweeteners has exploded. For domestic political reasons and the present allocation of import quotas, it is unlikely that U.S. domestic production would decrease to permit Cuba to become again a highly significant player in U.S. sugar imports. An additional factor is that, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) after 2008, Mexican sugar will have unrestricted access to the U.S. market. Write Argument! Other than cane sugar, however, U.S. demand for ethanol and other sugar canebased products could provide the new market for a renewed Cuba’s sugar cane sector. I have asserted that, if former sugar cane areas are recoverable, Cuba will have close to 2 million hectares of land available to produce sugar cane.

As mentioned before, the historical experience of Cuba and Brazil shows that many products can be obtained from sugar cane, in addition to thesis header sugar itself, for example molasses for making in groups, cattle feed, newsprint, rum, etc. All of these products can be produced using the entire cane plant, without competing for thesis header hook, land for food crops and using existing technology. To achieve such goals, a truly radical restructuring of the Cuban agricultural and sugar sector will be required. This restructuring will require a drastic policy shift that can/should be rapidly implemented regardless of the government in power. Counter Argument! There needs to be a clear government policy that establishes the goal of rescuing the sugar industry, which identifies the thesis header hook, actions proposed to reader reach these goals. In my opinion, overall, agricultural land and the sugar mills should be privately owned, the property of the producers, as individuals, cooperatives, or corporations. Foreign direct investment and join ventures in the sector should be legal, subject only to key necessary regulation and taxation. The market for labor should be free. That means that owners hire workers and pay them directly. Labor unions should be legal and independent from the hook, state. A competitive factors’ market, as well as a national financial system, should be functional.

A functioning free market determining prices should be the rule. Intermediation should be legal and highly competitive. Contracts should be enforceable. In conclusion, the physical resources, however deteriorated, exist that can be used for a sugar industry renaissance that can lead to increased exports and employment for Cuba in the future. This would be possible without diverting any cropland from food production, thus permitting a higher capacity to import foodstuff that Cuba cannot produce for ecological reasons. In this effort, the resort and spa, role that capital, market, and technical know-how of Cuban exiles can play cannot be overemphasized, but will require a soft touch to insure its full participation in header hook the process. Save-the-date for the 27th Annual Conference, July 27-29, 2017.

5931 Beech Avenue. Bethesda, MD 20817. Copyright 2017 · ASCE · All rights reserved.