Object for defining configuration and configuring an existing service manager instance.
In order to provide configuration merging capabilities, this class implements
the same functionality as Zend\Stdlib\ArrayUtils::merge()
. That routine
allows developers to specifically shape how values are merged:
MergeRemoveKey
indicates the value should
be removed during merge.MergeReplaceKeyInterface
indicates that the
value it contains should be used to replace any previous versions.These features are advanced, and not typically used. If you wish to use them, you will need to require the zend-stdlib package in your application.


Bill Gates
Microsoft Main articles: History of Microsoft and Microsoft § History BASIC MITS Altair 8800 Computer with 8-inch (200 mm) floppy disk system, of which the first programming language for the machine was Microsoft's founding product, the Altair BASIC Gates read the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics which demonstrated the Altair 8800, and he contacted Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems (MITS) to inform them that he and others were working on a BASIC interpreter for the platform. In reality, Gates and Allen did not have an Altair and had not written code for it; they merely wanted to gauge MITS's interest. MITS president Ed Roberts agreed to meet them for a demonstration, and over the course of a few weeks they developed an Altair emulator that ran on a minicomputer, and then the BASIC interpreter. The demonstration was held at MITS's offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico; it was a success and resulted in a deal with MITS to distribute the interpreter as Altair BASIC. MITS hired Allen, and Gates took a leave of absence from Harvard to work with him at MITS in November 1975. Allen named their partnership "Micro-Soft", a combination of "microcomputer" and "software", and their first office was in Albuquerque. The first employee Gates and Allen hired was their high school collaborator Ric Weiland. They dropped the hyphen within a year and officially registered the trade name "Microsoft" with the Secretary of the State of New Mexico on November 26, 1976. Gates never returned to Harvard to complete his studies.
Microsoft's Altair BASIC was popular with computer hobbyists, but Gates discovered that a pre-market copy had leaked out and was being widely copied and distributed. In February 1976, he wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists in the MITS newsletter in which he asserted that more than 90% of the users of Microsoft Altair BASIC had not paid Microsoft for it and the Altair "hobby market" was in danger of eliminating the incentive for any professional developers to produce, distribute, and maintain high-quality software. This letter was unpopular with many computer hobbyists, but Gates persisted in his belief that software developers should be able to demand payment. Microsoft became independent of MITS in late 1976, and it continued to develop programming language software for various systems. The company moved from Albuquerque to Bellevue, Washington on January 1, 1979.
Gates said that he personally reviewed and often rewrote every line of code that the company produced in its first five years. As the company grew he transitioned to a manager role, then an executive. IBM partnership IBM, the leading supplier of computer equipment to commercial enterprises at the time, approached Microsoft in July 1980 concerning software for its upcoming personal computer, the IBM PC. IBM first proposed that Microsoft write the BASIC interpreter. IBM's representatives also mentioned that they needed an operating system, and Gates referred them to Digital Research (DRI), makers of the widely used CP/M operating system. IBM's discussions with Digital Research went poorly, however, and they did not reach a licensing agreement. IBM representative Jack Sams mentioned the licensing difficulties during a subsequent meeting with Gates and asked if Microsoft could provide an operating system. A few weeks later, Gates and Allen proposed using 86-DOS, an operating system similar to CP/M, that Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products (SCP) had made for hardware similar to the PC. Microsoft made a deal with SCP to be the exclusive licensing agent of 86-DOS, and later the full owner. Microsoft employed Paterson to adapt the operating system for the PC and delivered it to IBM as PC DOS for a one-time fee of $50,000.
Rather than the contract itself, which earned Microsoft a relatively small fee, the prestige brought to Microsoft by IBM's adoption of their operating system was the origin of Microsoft's transformation from a small business to the World's leading software company. Gates had not offered to transfer the copyright on the operating system to IBM because he believed that other personal computer makers would clone IBM's PC hardware. They did, making the IBM-compatible PC, running DOS, a de facto standard. The sales of MS-DOS (the version of DOS sold to customers other than IBM) made Microsoft a major player in the industry. The press quickly identified Microsoft as being very influential on the IBM PC. PC Magazine asked if Gates was "the man behind the machine?". Gates oversaw Microsoft's company restructuring on June 25, 1981, which re-incorporated the company in Washington state and made Gates the president and chairman of the board, with Paul Allen as vice president and vice chairman. In early 1983, Allen left the company after receiving a Hodgkin lymphoma diagnosis, effectively ending the formal business partnership between Gates and Allen, which had been strained months prior due to a contentious dispute over Microsoft equity. Later in the decade, Gates repaired his relationship with Allen and together the two donated millions to their childhood school Lakeside. They remained friends until Allen's death in October 2018.


{% extends "logged_out.html" %} {% load i18n %} {% block page_title %}{% trans "Check your email" %}{% endblock %} {% block page_content %}
{% trans "We have sent you an email containing instructions on how to reset your password" %}.
{% trans "If you have not received this email please check your spam folder, or contact your system administrator" %}.


--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: 'Podcast Episode #4 - 4/11/2009' author: display_name: Corey Fineran login: Corey email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>url: '' author_login: Corey author_email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wordpress_id: 540 wordpress_url: http://ivyenvy.com/?p=540 date: '2009-04-11 10:53:32 +0000' date_gmt: '2009-04-11 16:53:32 +0000' categories: - Podcast tags: - Podcast comments: - id: 177 author: Ivy Envy » The Brewers need a bullpen worse than the Cubs. author_email: '' author_url: http://ivyenvy.com/?p=546 date: '2009-04-12 08:26:05 +0000' date_gmt: '2009-04-12 14:26:05 +0000' content: "[...] discussed in this weekend’s Ivy Envy podcast that the Cubs bullpen is not in good shape right now. However, it was nice to be reminded that the [...]" ---
Once again, Dispatch/Argus sports writer Matt Veto joins the Ivy Envy guys to discuss the first week of the 2009 season.
Ivy Envy writers present were: Corey, Andy and Kurt.


Listening...
Eden, Can you tell me Saloni's location
Ward number 12, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
Send a whatsapp message to Karan
What message would you like to send?
Meeting at 12 pm
Message sent


It will download every file and name them according to the date of the lecture. So, go to the folder you want them to be downloaded to, and run the below code. You probably should copy this into a file and run the script that way, rather than pasting this directly in. It will make it much easier to cancel the job if you must.
Note: This script depends on wget. So download it!


Isar735.github.io
Code Blue Essays can help you with your graduate school admission essay editing for your preferred science-related graduate program.
Our editors are here to help you demonstrate that you are the future colleague your target school is looking for. When admissions officers are faced
Admission Essay Custom Admission Essay Writing Service. Admission Essay Writing Service Personal Assistant. Graduate School Admission Essay Writing Editing Services. Grad School Application Essay Services - Accepted.com. Double your admission chances to get into the school of your dream with our Graduate School We are best in writing or editing your: admission essay;. Our highly qualified Ivy League writers and editors can help get into graduate school by creating a compelling Graduate School admission essay. Buy admission essay of high quality written from scratch by custom admission essay writing service. All custom admission papers are non-plagiarized. Graduate School Admissions Essay Writing - Accepted.com. Need help editing your Grad School Application Essay? Our Ivy League editors can correct make recommendation on your Graduate School Application Essay. Graduate School Application Essay Editing Services.
Graduate school admission essay editing to write about term paper writer service. Org, catalyst november accessed in home page, the ielts exam preparation commercial. EssayEdge provides college and graduate admissions essay editing services for Learn More About Us and Our College and Graduate School Admission Essay Editing. Grad School Statement of Purpose Essay Services. SOP editing. Your consultant checks your essay Using our assistance in modifying this essay for other.
Graduate Admissions Essay Editing, Essay - Wordvice. Graduate School Admission Essay Editing Code Blue Essays.
Successful Essay: Graduate school admission essay editing. Check out Grad School Essay Writing 101. Essay Editing; you write the best grad school personal statement when you choose from our graduate school essay. Bard College offers a rigorous undergraduate curriculum in the liberal arts and sciences from its historic 1,000-acre campus in the Hudson Valley of New York State. Admission Essay Editing Services for College Graduate.
Graduate school admission essay editing.


Thanks to everyone who came out and helped make the Puppy Power 5k a great success. We had 75 runners register, and together we raised over $1,300 to donate to the National Humane Society of the United States, the National Mill Dog Rescue, and the Denver Dumb Friends league. We hope to see everyone again next year!


Mladenovic stuns Barty to give France 2-1 lead
MELBOURNE: Kristina Mladenovic moved France in sight of a first Fed Cup title in 16 years by pulling off a brave 2-6 6-4 7-6(1) win over world number one Ash Barty in the first reverse singles of the final against Australia on Sunday.
Mladenovic's inspired comeback win on the blue hardcourt hushed a heaving crowd of 13,841 at Perth Arena and gave France a precious 2-1 lead.
France will look to veteran Pauline Parmentier to seal the final with victory over Ajla Tomljanovic in the second reverse singles, after team captain Julien Benneteau withdrew Caroline Garcia from the potentially decisive match.
Garcia was crushed 6-0 6-0 by Barty on Saturday after Tomljanovic endured a similarly torrid 6-1 6-1 loss to Mladenovic in the opening singles.
Should France close out the win, they will have Mladenovic largely to thank for snapping Barty's run of 15 consecutive Fed Cup wins.

"That's the way I love to play my tennis.
"Ashleigh's world number one, she's just a huge champion. I lost the first set but then it was about details.
"I just kept believing because I felt I was just out there fighting and giving a hard battle and I'm just so proud how I kept pushing and obviously won at the end."
Battling the crowd and one of the cleverest all-court opponents in the game, Mladenovic stumbled on the road to victory as Barty broke back twice in the decisive set.
But the French number one served up a storm in the tiebreak and collapsed in relief after Barty finally surrendered with a forehand slapped into the net.
(Reporting by Ian Ransom in Melbourne; Editing by Richard Pullin & Shri Navaratnam)


Curriculum Vitae
You can download my CV (in PDF format) here (English, French, Vietnamese).
Current situation
Actuarial Consultant at EY, associated Actuary of the Institute of Actuaries (I.A.), member and webmaster of the International Diffusion of French Actuarial Science (D.I.A.F.)
Professional Experience
From Dec 2015 Actuarial Consultant at EY
I participate to the audit and consulting activities of the actuarial team. I’m specialized in Life and Non-Life insurance. I also do Pension and Analytics missions every once in a while.
May - Oct 2015 Intern at AXA Corporate Solutions (Model, Reserving & Reinsurance team)
- My main mission was to develop an actuarial model for Major Losses Reserving at AXA CS. In this model, the Major Losses Threshold is determined according to some techniques derived from the Extreme Values Theory. Once this threshold is calibrated, the model will separately estimate the IBNeR amounts (using an individual method that I’ve named Individual Chain-ladder) and the IBNyR amounts (thanks to a frequency-severity approach and an aggregated method). The thesis is confidential until 2017 but its summary will be soon updated on the IA site.
- I have deployed a corresponding desktop application (with R and Shiny package). Here is a post of mine about deploying a user-friendly desktop application with R, Shiny, and a web browser.
- I also participated to the 3rd quarter reserving (Q3) and forecasting (F3) process.
Nov 2014 - Apr 2015 Part-time intern at AXA Global P&C (Reinsurance team)
- I was in charge of improving and speeding-up a CAT/Atypical modeling & reinsurance pricing tool (with R/C++ thanks to Rcpp package).Here’s a post of mine about how to speed-up R programs with Rcpp package in R.
- I also helped restructure the program, added new functionalities and prepared the integration of the R core into a web platform.
Jun 2014 - Sep 2014 Actuarial Intern at AXA Solutions Collectives (Health insurance team)
- The main mission was to calibrate different dental claim distributions (with SAS) and then to deploy a tool for measuring the pricing impact of a dental cap (with Excel/VBA).
- I also conducted a study of the senior policyholders’ behaviors on health insurance consumption before their retirement.
Education
2013-2015 ENSAE ParisTech
- Final year: Actuarial Science
- 2nd year: Applied Mathematics major
2010-2013 Paris-Dauphine University
- Master 1: Applied Mathematics (Statistics major)
- Double-degree Bachelor: Applied Mathematics & Applied Economics
- 2nd undergraduate year: Mathematics & Computer Science
2009-2010 Paris-Est Créteil University
- 1st year of Bachelor: Economic - Management
Academic projects
Below some mini-projects that I have done with my friends at school. All of the notes were written in (bad) french. :(
Final year at ENSAE
- [Scoring] Score calibration with a CHAID model and Robustness test [2015, using R, with Franck-Arnaud TCHUENTE DJOUM, Zhengyu YANG] (Note)
- [Advanced Econometrics of Qualitative Data] Competing Risk Model for modeling the duration of unemployment (Weibull distribution, Cox model, Weibull parametric model with Gamma heterogeneity, Bayesian semi-parametric model with unobserved heterogeneity) [2015, using R, with Thibault PLUQUET] (Note)
- [Data mining & Machine learning] Some basic machine learning techniques for predicting the quality of wines (logistic regression, kNN, decision tree, random forest) [2014, using R, with Tien-Duc VU] (Note)
2nd year at ENSAE
- [Stat’app project] Higher education choice (discrete choice models: I.I.A. asumption, multinomial logit, conditional logit) [2013-2014, using Stata, with Thibault PLUQUET, Hengrui WAN, Yasin ZORLU] (Note, Summary)
- [Relevant market and Market power] Aftermarket [2014] (Note)
- [Relevant market and Market power] Casino-Monoprix Merge & Acquisition [2014, with Thibault PLUQUET] (Slides)
- [Monte Carlo] Bayesian auxiliary variable models for Logistic regression (the aim is to replicate the algorithm of this paper) [2014, using R, with Clothilde DAVESNE, Pierre VUILLEMIN] (Note)
- [Time series] Consumption and Income relation (unit root test, ARIMA model, residual tests, cointegration and error correction model) [2014, using Stata, with Yasin ZORLU] (Note)
- [Econometrics] High school students’ ranking and their desire to improve it (Polytomous and dichotomous models) [2014, using Stata, with Yasin ZORLU] (Note)
- [Statistics] Numerical estimation of Beta distribution parameters [2013, using R, with Ly DO] (Note)
Master 1 at Paris-Dauphine University
- [Monte Carlo] Evaluation of Basket Option (Basket option pricing with different Monte Carlo methods for variance reducing) [2012, using Matlab, with Chothilde DAVESNE, Rémi ING] (Note)
Bachelor at Paris-Dauphine University
- [Database] Professional social network type LinkedIn (UML model, relational database model, SQL requests, trigger and other functions), [2012, using PostgreSQL, with Dan LASRY] (Note)
- [Econometrics] Unemployment rate in France. OSL models with some basic tests (significativity and stability tests on coefficients, multicolinearity tests, autocorrelation tests and heteroscedacity tests on errors) [2011-2012, using Eviews, with Cyril BENEZET] (1st note, 2nd note)
- [Financial Analysis] JCDecaux financial analysis [2012, with Cyril BENEZET, Hicham FASSOUANE, Dan LASRY]
2nd year undergraduate at Paris-Dauphine University
- [Operating system] Comparison of two scheduling algorithms (Circular and Dynamic) [2011, using Java, with Vincent de DARUVAR (the smartest guy I’ve ever met. He did all of this project)] (Note)
- [Computer architecture] Stack machine, assembly language, machine code language [2011, using C++, with Dimitri LEGRAND]
- [Numerical analysis & Scientific computing] Shooting method for solving a boundary value problem by reducing it to the solution of an initial value problem. [2011, using Matlab, with Yasin ZORLU] (Note)
Hobbies
- Web technologies
- Guitar (acoustic, fingerstyle)
- Jogging (Beginner level, 10km l’Equipe 2013, 10km Nike 2015)


CinePare will help you compare the films you're interested in to help you decide what your next movie night should be.


| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
static Matrix |
Matrix.add(Matrix a,
int k)
sums every element of matrix with integer
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.add(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
Sums 2 Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.adjoint(float[][] array2)
returns Adjoint of a Array
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.adjoint(Matrix a)
returns Adjoint of a Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.array(float[][] a)
A static Method which accepts a float array as input and return Matrix object
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.array(int[][] b)
A static Method which accepts a int array as input and return Matrix object
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.copy(Matrix a)
copy a Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.empty(int a,
int b) |
static Matrix |
Matrix.flat(Matrix a)
compress any Matrix in one dimension
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.identity(int a) |
static Matrix |
Matrix.inverse(Matrix a)
calculate inverse and return new Matrix, Array has to be square
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.Multiply(Matrix a,
int b)
multiplies every element of Matrix a(first param) with integer b(second param)
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.Multiply(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
performs return cross product of two Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.ones(int a) |
static Matrix |
Matrix.subtract(Matrix a,
int j)
subtract given integer with every element of given matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.subtract(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
subtract second Matrix from first Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.transpose(Matrix a)
Transposes a matrix, Matrix has to be square
|
| Modifier and Type | Method and Description |
|---|---|
static Matrix |
Matrix.add(Matrix a,
int k)
sums every element of matrix with integer
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.add(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
Sums 2 Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.adjoint(Matrix a)
returns Adjoint of a Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.copy(Matrix a)
copy a Matrix
|
static float |
Matrix.determinant(Matrix mat)
returns determinant of a square Matrix
|
static int[] |
Matrix.dimensions(Matrix a) |
static Matrix |
Matrix.flat(Matrix a)
compress any Matrix in one dimension
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.inverse(Matrix a)
calculate inverse and return new Matrix, Array has to be square
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.Multiply(Matrix a,
int b)
multiplies every element of Matrix a(first param) with integer b(second param)
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.Multiply(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
performs return cross product of two Matrix
|
static void |
Matrix.print(Matrix a)
Prints matrix
|
static void |
Matrix.print(java.lang.String str,
Matrix a)
Print matrix with a string
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.subtract(Matrix a,
int j)
subtract given integer with every element of given matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.subtract(Matrix a,
Matrix b)
subtract second Matrix from first Matrix
|
static Matrix |
Matrix.transpose(Matrix a)
Transposes a matrix, Matrix has to be square
|


Card Board Learning is a company working towards introducing important educational and life skills through tabletop games.
As our first product we are launching ROBOT WARS: A Coding Strategy Board Game, which can help anyone learn and play with computer programs. We are going for crowdfunding to make our project go live. We are concentrating on basic computer programming in this game. We are also developing a sequel through which we wil be explaining more coding concepts.
OUR ADDRESS
+91<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>4-938/A, Marthanda Nagar, New Hafeezpet, Rangareddy, Telangana, 500049, India


In order to get started with Prose Bootstrap, all you have to do is forking the repository and make your own adjustments.
Adjust Configuration
Make sure you setup _config.yml
correctly.
If your page lives under http://username.github.com/sitename
your config.yml looks like this:
auto: true
server: true
permalink: none
baseurl: "sitename"
exclude:
- .gitignore
- README.md
Use Prose
Once your site is up you can start managing it with Prose. Follow the instructions here.


Page 3!
Stumptown plaid kitsch, mustache Banksy hashtag street art. Godard kitsch actually XOXO stumptown. Shoreditch paleo twee, dreamcatcher gastropub disrupt YOLO selvage Godard flexitarian ennui wayfarers. Mustache VHS McSweeney's paleo kogi beard. DIY 90's iPhone, lomo vinyl 8-bit hoodie photo booth High Life organic put a bird on it tote bag semiotics irony. XOXO vinyl disrupt fanny pack distillery Marfa. Ennui trust fund put a bird on it, drinking vinegar Pitchfork seitan salvia Blue Bottle iPhone Etsy.
Drinking vinegar keffiyeh VHS mixtape Odd Future selfies aesthetic Cosby sweater asymmetrical, photo booth High Life cold-pressed next level. Jean shorts Tumblr YOLO, VHS pug fap Vice stumptown Godard occupy slow-carb sartorial butcher. Hella pop-up seitan ennui meggings. Intelligentsia post-ironic crucifix tofu actually quinoa twee, fingerstache chambray. Literally butcher dreamcatcher 3 wolf moon try-hard. Artisan you probably haven't heard of them organic, selvage ugh direct trade Austin cold-pressed pug church-key gastropub lomo. Brunch twee fingerstache Godard.


We could no longer rear cattle like we used to, nor could we grow crops that thrive under sunlight. We had to make do with what was left for us. Diets consisted mainly of crops we grew indoors with artificial light, and occasionally fishes and other animals that roam the sea.
When we first migrated underwater, each household was rationed some vegetables and fruits that could grow indoors, such as carrots or gingers. They were then responsible for growing and reproducing these vegetables for their own consumption, and new ones would only be given to them at the start of each year. For those who could afford high end technology, this was not a problem as they could rely on machinery to ensure that they always have a supply of top-quality food.
When it came to animal meat, people had to bid for meat, and it definitely was not cheap. Afterall, there was a very limited supply.


http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/11950192/12r93lnuvjbxnwmy35h5
Robin Johnson1 Frank Scrimgeour2 and Julian Manning3
For the last decade and a half agricultural research in New Zealand has been dominated by Crown Research Institutes. The four key institutes AgResearch, HortResearch, Crop Research and Landcare research took over the responsibilities formerly carried out by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. The major reform of the public research system in New Zealand was part of wider reform of the old civil service structure of science in favour of a corporate structure of research institutes which bidded for funds from a newly created agency called the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. At the same time the Government changed many of the existing priorities for public investment in research with more emphasis on private investment, complementary funding, and new opportunities. These rules tended to reduce the funds made available to the agricultural institutes as they were among those mostly heavily dependent on public investment. In the 15 years since the reforms took place these institutes have lost about 3 percentage points of the total sums, public and private, available for all research, and have lost about 9 percentage points of the public funds available. They have made up the latter losses by more contracting and partnerships with the private sector. In 2005, we report that the agricultural research interests have coordinated a combined approach to Government to review the system of priorities and to help raise the total level of investment in agricultural research.
As a country, New Zealand has a strong export oriented agricultural
sector. While only 5 per cent of GDP is generated in the farm sector,
farm-based exports form 55 per cent of total merchandise exports.
Productivity growth in the agricultural sector is also one of the
highest in the country. Forbes and Johnson (2004) have shown that
total factor productivity in the sector grew at the rate of 2.47 per
cent per year from 1972 to 2003. Productivity per unit of labour has
grown at 3.03 per cent per year as the labour force has not expanded
over this period and productivity per capital unit has grown at 1.44
per cent per year as the amount of real capital employed per labour
unit has nearly doubled. These productivity increases are
significantly related to organisational and technological
improvements in agricultural production systems over this period. In
a country like New Zealand these changes must be underpinned by a
sound and productive research and development (Research and Development) sector.
Harrington (2005) claims The relatively high productivity growth
in the primary sector has been driven by research and development
(coming up with new ideas), innovation (practical application of
those new ideas) and economies of scale
. Past research investment
is clearly important but productivity has also been strongly
influenced by changing patterns of production, particularly in
response to the removal of government induced distortions.
In this paper, we first discuss the evolution of the institutional
structure of the Research and Development sector over the last two decades and how
this has affected the agricultural research sector. This involves a
discussion of what was called the New Zealand Science Model
a
development of the New Public Management and Public Choice
theory (Boston et al 1996). We then discuss developments in the
agricultural research sector and how these have interacted with
Government priorities for research and the funding available.
Finally we consider leading issues that have arisen over 15 years of
science reform and the current position of the protagonists involved.
Despite significant spending on environmental research and via the New Economy Research Fund, New Zealand still spends a high proportion of its public Research and Development investment on agricultural research. Investment in different sectors varies according to the institutional type of the providers, government, business or university. Government investment has been most important for primary production and processing, business investment for manufacturing and construction and communications, university investment for the social sciences and fundamental research, and government for environmental research. This can be seen in Table 1 which shows data for 1997-98. This data has not been assembled in this form in more recent years.
Overall, one third of all spending was in the agricultural research area alone, though the respective providers vary considerably in this specialisation. The three types of institution have roughly equal shares of the overall spending in 1997-98.
| Table 1: Spending on Research by Output Area Classes 1997-98 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business * % |
Universities % |
Government % |
Total % | |
| Primary production/processing | 37.6 | 6.7 | 55.9 | 33.2 |
| Manufacturing | 50.7 | 19.8 | 29.4 | 6.7 |
| Construction/transport/energy | 50.1 | 26.3 | 23.5 | 4.0 |
| Social sciences | 2.0 | 83.1 | 14.8 | 12.2 |
| Environment | 2.6 | 24.3 | 73.1 | 12.9 |
| Information/communications | 67.5 | 21.1 | 11.3 | 11.4 |
| Fund'l, Health, Defence | 10.5 | 82.4 | 7.1 | 18.5 |
| Tourism/commercial | 0.8 | 2.4 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| Total 1997-98 | 28.2 | 36.4 | 35.3 | 100 |
| Source: Table on p.8, MoRST 1999. * 'Business' is the MoRST descriptor. |
The main Government providers of Research and Development are the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs). These institutes were formed from former government departments in the early 1990s. The CRIs count as Government providers and draw on both private sector and public funds. In terms of total revenue generated (Table 2), the four agriculturally oriented CRIs have about the same level of Research and Development expenditure compared with the five non-agricultural CRIs. Further, the agricultural institutes (AgResearch, HortResearch, Crop and Food Research, Landcare Research) increased revenue at a slower rate than the non-agricultural institutes (Industrial research, Forest Research4, Environmental Science, and Geological and Nuclear Sciences) - by 49% in the period 1993-2004 compared with 68% for the non agricultural institutes. On this evidence the agricultural sector is only maintaining its share of Research and Development funds in the period since the departmental reforms.
The Chairman of AgResearch, R. Christie, points out in an address to the 2005
Grasslands Conference that agribusiness still constitutes 65 per cent
of the country's merchandise exports, that almost half of exports
come from the agricultural sector, that over the last 20 years the
agricultural sector has been growing at almost twice the rate of the
economy as a whole, and that whereas GDP grew by 39 per cent over the
last 20 years, agricultural GDP grew by 72 per cent. He pleads for
these facts to be taken into account in setting national priorities.
There is more excitement in this country about the economic
potential of a new way to jump off a bridge than there is about a
scientific advance that has the potential to wipe out possums - or
to double the number of lambs we produce in a season
Christie,
2005).
| Table 2: Nominal Share of CRI Income Generated in Agricultural CRIs | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | Agricultural CRIs* (NZ$m) | Non-Agricultural CRIs** (NZ$m) |
1993 | 185.5 | 153.2 |
| 1994 | 190.9 | 161.3 |
| 1995 | 192.8 | 171.8 |
| 1996 | 196.4 | 192.1 |
| 1997 | 202.0 | 191.3 |
| 1998 | 211.0 | 197.0 |
| 1999 | 213.5 | 207.0 |
| 2000 | 235.6 | 224.1 |
| 2001 | 254.5 | 234.3 |
| 2002 | 265.0 | 246.7 |
| 2003 | 266.2 | 256.5 |
| 2004 | 277.2 | 257.2 |
| Change over period | 149.43 | 167.95 |
| % Change 1993-2004 | +49% | +68% |
| * AgResearch, HortResearch, Crop & Food Research, Landcare Research. | ||
| ** Environmental Science & Research, Geological &Nuclear Sciences, Industrial Research, Forest Research, National Institute of Water and Atmosphere | ||
| Source: Annual Reports held at CCMAU. |
Christie therefore envisages a future where pastoral agricultural research makes a greater claim on the available resources for Research and Development, and its export performance and productivity gains are recognised. He sees it as being in the national interest to promote better Research and Development in animals and pastures, to promote innovative science and technology generally, and to make the best use of limited resources, while at the same time maintaining environmental sustainability.
The structure of public science in New Zealand was reformed in the early 1990s to move from a corporate state model to a company-based private model of organisation. At the same time, the public funding systems were changed from the existing departmental vote allocations for science work to a bidding system administered by a special agency – The Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST). The departmental advice units on science were abolished and a new agency created to coordinate science policy – The Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST).
The goal of the reforms was to seek greater efficiencies in the
allocation of public funds to Research and Development endeavour. There was a
perception among officials that public science tended to crowd
out
private endeavour and that departmental organisations were
cumbersome, self-interested and depleted effort. Indeed, in this
period, public choice economics was influential and experimentation
with the institutions of the state was very permissive. This was
especially true of the science reorganisation (Boston et al
1996). The result of these forces was a movement toward specialist
private delivery organisations funded from a competitive funding
base. After the reforms, MoRST and FRST were to be subject to the New
Public Management model with emphasis on the separation of funder,
purchaser, and provider roles (op cit, p.26).
Prior to 1990, public science administration was dominated by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research5. These departments operated under the Vote system receiving annual appropriations from central government. They employed staff, ran research campuses and determined their own scientific objectives. There was broad agreement on areas of specialisation though some duplication did occur. Central oversight was weak although there were a number of advisory bodies in place in the 1960s and 1970s. The National Research Advisory Council (NRAC) operated from 1963 to 1986 and proffered advice to central government and was succeeded by the Science and Technology Advisory Committee until 1992. In addition, the Department of Agriculture administered an extension service for farmers and horticulturalists which provided advice on a free basis. These structures had a number of similarities to the structures in Australian states and had also borrowed from USA extension models. Outside the departmental system were a number of industry research associations for dairy products (DRI), wool research (WRONZ), meat research (MRINZ), and fertiliser research which were partially funded by government but owned and controlled by the respective industry organisations.
Reorganisation of the departments took the form of establishing 10 new research institutes registered as private companies but under Crown ownership. These were based on subject matter titles eg Agricultural Research, Crop and Food, Horticulture, Forestry, Water and Atmospherics, Industrial Research, Land Care Research, Environmental Science, and Geological and Nuclear Science. An Institute of Social Science was mooted but later dropped. Each institute had its own board of directors, appointed by government, and manages its own assets. Ownership remained with the government, represented by two shareholding ministers, the Minister for Crown Research Institutes and the Minister of Finance.
The Departmental appropriations were passed to MoRST and FRST to
administer. As far as FRST is concerned, The Foundation's main
roles are to invest public funds in research and development, provide
independent policy advice on science and technology to government and
encourage technological innovation
(NZ Yearbook 1993 p. 291). The
Public Good Research Fund (PGSF) was established to receive bids from
government departments, Crown funded agencies, research associations,
universities, private companies and individuals, non-profit private
trusts, incorporated societies and state owned enterprises that
conduct public good research. The agencies and organisations competed
to win contracts to undertake agreed research programmes, which
reflect national science priorities (more on these below). The
Foundation was required to work alongside the private sector to
increase their involvement in research and development. The
Technology for Business Growth Programme (TBG), for example, invested
in research and technological development business projects conducted
jointly between business and research institutions. There was also a
Research Associate programme, funded by the Foundation, to encourage
young scientists to further their work in specific areas of priority
research either in a research institution or in industry.
Thus a state model of public research, common to other countries in the British Commonwealth, was converted to a company-based private model of organisation in line with the precepts of Public Choice and the New Public Management. The new organisation split agriculture research between several crown research institutes and probably left its particular aims and objectives as unfocussed as they were before. The extension service was sold to private enterprise and disappeared off the books. We discuss below the various attempts to give focus to the needs of different industry sectors and how the quest for outcomes has probably not improved.
Boston et al (1996) point out that the NZ government reforms of the 1980s showed a general preference for:
They point out that the formal institutional separation of policy and operations (and, where relevant, the separation of funder, purchaser and provider roles) has been implemented to a greater extent in areas like defence, environmental administration, health care, housing, justice, and scientific research, than in areas like labour, police, and social welfare. The strictest application of the functional model was in the area of scientific research. In this area there was a formal split between the roles of funder, purchaser and provider; the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology was essentially a single-purpose policy ministry; while the Foundation for Research Science and Technology was to purchase scientific research via a competitive bidding process from a series of CRIs, tertiary institutions and private providers, and monitor the performance of providers. The monitoring of the Crown's ownership interest in the CRIs was to be carried out by the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit (CCMAU). Although the Ministry was the government's chief advisor on science policy, FRST was also funded to provide policy advice, thus emerging with multiple advisory, purchasing, and monitoring roles (Boston et al. p 83). NRAC and the Advisory Committee disappeared.
In such a reorganisation, there was clearly a loss of institutional memory in the old government departments and a loss of jobs in that quarter. Scientists were less discomforted by the administrative changes as far as job security was concerned but subsequently faced increased insecurity of tenure as the bidding rounds changed priorities and moved away from some traditional sacred cows. Job security was maintained in the extension service by offering employment in the privatised company though many chose not to take advantage of it. As far as setting priorities is concerned, a single agency was an advantage and a single funding agency was in position to organise a more coherent framework for the selection of projects and programmes. As will be seen later, defining a science programme has its own difficulties and the best organisational structure for this process may not yet have been found. Work on it continues.
The Ministry of Research, Science and Technology is the chief scientific advisor to the government of the day. It does not have an operational role. The Foundation of Research, Science and Technology administers the research funds although it also has a small policy role. MoRST is required to provide a Statement of Intent under its legislation setting out what the Minister sees as the general direction of science funding for the forthcoming period. FRST then administers a bidding round where all the providers submit their research plans in advance and decisions are reached through a series of referees and advisory committees. The priorities for upcoming research are established by MoRST and the government in a general form but the administrative details fall on FRST.
Thus FRST administers the public good science fund (PGSF) system which pooled the available government funds for research and development (Research and Development) from a number of government departments6.
The newly formed crown research institutes (CRIs), other providers, and later the universities, were able to draw on these funds provided they met the administrative criteria for public good research.
FRST took over a research priority system that had been devised by
the DSIR. The procedure had been developed by defining a research
agenda broken down by what were called output areas
. Within
output areas further rules gave guidance to final investment
according to a Science and Technology Expert Panel (STEP) report to
MoRST (MoRST 1992a, p.78). There were 40 output areas originally
although these were later compressed to 19 main categories (see
Appendix 1).
In the final report of the Panel, they raised concerns about the
balance of research funding between research directly impacting on
economic performance, and research underpinning areas on which
economic activity depends indirectly (infrastructure research, and
the social and natural sciences) (MoRST 1992b, p.11). The report
noted that 68 per cent of PGSF funding in 1991-92 was allocated to
the directly wealth creating
classes 1 to 19 (of the first list
of output classes) (Appendix 1). They stated that this class of
outputs was already well funded, but output classes 20 to 35 were
more difficult to assess because the benefits they create are less
direct and can be longer term. The report recommended a shift in
emphasis from both the natural sciences and the production groups to
what they called the infrastructural group (output areas 20 to 28).
The implication was that underpinning
research is more of a
public good than wealth creating
research goods.
The Panel report recommended a productive partnership between the public and private sector to ensure successful commercialisation of PGSF research results. It stated that PGSF research is more likely to be successfully adopted if the research is planned with strong user involvement and is likely to have the greatest chance of producing benefits to New Zealand where users have well-established market linkages and were performing their own research. The implication was that greater co-operation and co-ordination between sectors would compensate for the low level of private sector sponsorship of research (BERL 1995, p.46).
The report recommended that the PGSF should complement successful
private research activities where funds are used to promote strategic
and generic research and where there is a demonstrated need for such
research. Such complementarity should not displace private research
funding, the report states, or support appropriable research. The
Panel therefore recommended that using the PGSF to complement private
funding should be conditional on a continuation or enhancement of
funding from the private sector
. A practical problem was the state
could complement private sector activity without specifying whether
business was a big spender in that output area or not. Re-allocating
investment away from one set of output areas (see Table 1) created
the risk that the gap would not be filled by private enterprise. In
addition, the high so-called private investment in some sectors was
due to the fact that the industry research associations were
arbitrarily classified as business
rather than government even
though they were all established with DSIR seed money! The key
challenge was whether public investment could be used to trigger
further private investment in a complementary way, as well as to
create conditions where the up-take of the results of all science
investment was enhanced.
In the MoRST instructions to FRST dated July 1997 these objectives do
not appear to have changed (MoRST 1997a). The Minister noted that the
organisational gains made have resulted in a strong focus on
small-scale purchasing of outputs, over relatively short time frames,
and within a rather rigid framework of rules and procedures. FRST
needed to develop a strategic, far-sighted, and pro-active strategy
for focusing on the achievement of outcomes. It will be crucial to
foster interactive relationships....... in publicly funded
organisations and in the private sector that together underpin a
vibrant and thriving knowledge-based society
. With respect to
encouragement of the private sector, funding allocations should be
managed in a way ........that does not diminish the incentives for,
or displace investment by other funders .....
In terms of the objectives of
Government Ministers before 1990 to encourage greater private
participation in the Research and Development market, MoRST statistics show that there
has been a steady increase from around 28 per cent to 36 percent in
the amount of Research and Development performed in the private sector (Table 3). A
greater share of the research resources is also being channelled
through the universities in the period from 1990-91 to 2003-04. The
government share has dropped from 44 per cent to 33 per cent over the
same period. It has to be remembered that the CRIs are classified as
Government providers of Research and Development in this survey while other research
institutes (who are largely funded by industry bodies) are classified
as business
by MoRST.
There is a lack of data on the trends in private sponsorship of research in the agricultural sector along the lines of Table 1. Table 1 does show that the agricultual/processing sector as a whole was second only to the environmental sector in being most highly dependent on government funding and support. It is therefore pertinent to trace agricultural research spending through the CRI mechanism to assess the relative share in the total system given to the agricultural sector by the public funding authorities and the private sector. It turns out (in Table 5) that the agricultural share of research resources allocated by government and derived from the private sector has declined slightly in the period from 1993-94 to 2004-05 from nearly 55 per cent to 50 per cent. As our discussion below shows, the agricultural research community has been aware of these trends and has increasingly sought to bring their share back to its former levels. Table 5 also shows a declining share of the public good funding going to the agricultural institutes which suggests that they are increasingly seeking private sector funding for all their activities.
| Table 3: Research Expenditure by Major Providers (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990-91 | 1991-92 | 1992-93 | 1993-94 | 1995-96 | 1997-98 | 1999-00 | 2001-02 | 2003-04 | ||
| Business | 28.3 | 26.8 | 27.1 | 30.1 | 27.0 | 28.2 | 29.7 | 32.1 | 35.6 | |
| Universities | 27.8 | 28.6 | 30.8 | 28.3 | 30.7 | 36.4 | 34.2 | 33.3 | 31.0 | |
| Government | 43.9 | 44.6 | 42.1 | 41.6 | 42.2 | 35.3 | 36.0 | 34.6 | 33.4 | |
| Total $m | 724.6 | 714.5 | 755.3 | 824.8 | 889.3 | 1107.4 | 1091.3 | 1308.3* | 1467.9* | |
| % GDP | 0.99 | 0.98 | 1.00 | 1.03 | 0.98 | 1.10 | 1.01 | 1.06 | 1.07 | |
| * sample total adjusted to 2000 survey basis. | ||||||||||
| Sources: MoRST 1999 Survey and Statistics New Zealand Updates. |
| Table 4: PGSF Funding by Output Areas ($k) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Output Area | 93-94 | 94-95 | 95-96 | 96-97 | 97-98 | 98-99 | 99-00 | |||
| 1. An. Industry | 37923 | 38444 | 38293 | 36568 | 36639 | 36719 | 36763 | |||
| 2. Dairy | 7845 | 9766 | 10409 | 12215 | 13292 | 13678 | 14065 | |||
| 3. Forage | 21433 | 21083 | 20375 | 20600 | 21034 | 21266 | 21457 | |||
| 4. Hort group | 50045 | 49840 | 49216 | 50942 | 50700 | 51300 | 51300 | |||
| . | ||||||||||
| . | ||||||||||
| . | ||||||||||
| Total Agr Group | 117246 | 118833 | 118293 | 120325 | 121665 | 122963 | 123585 | |||
| % | 46.5 | 46.4 | 45.9 | 44.9 | 42.2 | - | 41.7 | |||
| Total PGSF | 252000 | 256259 | 257452 | 267699 | 288000 | na | 296400 | |||
| Source: www.morst.govt.nz/pgsf/evaluation. |
Although there were 17 output areas reviewed covering most of the PGSF, only four of the output areas relate to agricultural research. We present a summary of the main conclusions of the four agricultural reviews undertaken and then a summary of the overall review.
Output area 1: Animal industries: Over the period under review (to 1997-98), PGSF funding for Output area 1 declined in both nominal and real terms. While overall funding for PGSF increased, output area 1 was static, as new funds were directed to areas perceived to be of higher priority. The majority of the reduction appears to have resulted in a move away from sheep and beef production research. The main providers are AgResearch, followed by WRONZ, and MIRINZ. The report notes the commodity meat trade now has a high value-added component. The improvement in the value of these exports is the result of past research and development effort. The future development of these exports is dependent on the ability to consistently produce product to specification, and the increasing emphasis on food safety and quality. These attributes will increase the requirement for appropriate research at all stages in the supply chain including production research. The main commercial funding for the set of providers comes from the producers boards and could be considered at risk. The science reforms have encouraged collaboration between researchers including applications to FRST. However, the extensive nature of the industry, and the presence of some commodity trade biases ‘makes it difficult for researchers to obtain appropriate direction for research’ (ibid). Farmers as a group were well aware of the benefits of PGSF funding.
Output area 2: Dairy: In the dairy report, it is noted that
funding has grown strongly over the previous 5 years - 69 per cent in
nominal terms and 51 per cent in real terms. The share of the PGSF
fund rose from 3.1 per cent to 4.7 per cent. The report noted that
there was growth in the number of programmes supported and growth in
the size of programmes. Research output was dominated by 3 providers:
AgResearch, DRC and DRI. The providers derive considerable funds from
outside the PGSF system. The over-all level of funding is
considerably less than in output areas 1 and 3 which is surprising
considering the size of the dairy industry. However, many of the
programmes are generic to both animal and dairy outputs and thus
support the dairy industry too. There is a high level of
collaboration between AgRes and DRC. In a survey there was a high
level of awareness of PGSF advantages among end-users. Vertical
integration in the industry ensures research strategies are closely
linked to commercial strategies. The report concludes that output
area 2 is the only agriculturally focused output to attract a
significant increase in funding level over the past five years
.
Output area 3: Forage: Total funding declined by 1.9 per cent
in nominal terms and 11.6 per cent in real terms to 1997-98. This
decline is a cause for concern
. The report notes that forage
production is the base that provides the competitive advantage for
the single largest contributor to the NZ economy – the agricultural
sector. The principal provider is AgResearch. A high level of
collaboration was observed both internationally and within NZ. There
was also a high level of awareness among end-users of the aims of the
PGSF. Industry end-users included in the forage sector are two and
a half times more likely to be involved in the licensing or
commercialisation of products generated by PGSF research compared
with other agricultural sectors
(ibid). Overall output funding
declined from 8.5 per cent of PGSF funding to 7.3 per cent. The
report says: the scientific capacity for forage research is under
threat as the real level of funding has decreased over the five
years
.
Output area 4: Horticulture: The full title of this report is
Horticulture, Arable and other Food and Beverage Industries.
The report notes that industry funding increased slightly over the 5
year period although there was a decrease immediately after 1993/94.
A number of smaller fruit, crop, ornamentals, vegetables and the
arable groups increased their private funding contributions.
Government investment has been held at $51m. There was a range of
collaborative networking and subcontracting. The main providers were
HortResearch (56 per cent) and Crop and Food (35 per cent). There was
evidence of strong
involvement in PGSF research and also
strong
evidence of capacity for accessing international
research. The report notes that PGSF funding has made a strong
contribution to economic outcomes. The size of individual
programmes appeared to be decreasing. Total funding increased by 1.3
per cent in nominal terms but decreased by approximately 15 per cent
in real terms. The share of PGSF funding dropped from 19.8 per cent
to 17.6 per cent. Prior to 1995, FRST policy was to direct funds
away from research that was appropriable and this policy affected
this output area. Since 1995, a change in instructions required
greater account to be taken of the relevance of research and
involvement of users. The industry has responded
(ibid).
The above reviews of output areas in the agricultural research sector shows that national priorities moved away from production research both on the plant and the animal area. FRST was under instruction from MoRST at all times so that is where primary responsibility lay! The reasons for the decline in meat and wool production and forage research investment appear to be:
old industryand support should be going to
newindustries;
too dominant:
complementaryfunding to the private sector;
crowding outbelief held in some circles; and
market failuretheory.
The 1998 review identified increased emphasis on the development of a technological learning relationship as the primary means of creating better outcomes from research and the promotion of the concept of leverage of industry research funding to get better overall results. There would also need to be an increased emphasis on environmental outcomes.
The broader findings of the 1998 evaluation were:
This evaluation was overtaken by a wide consultative initiative known
as the Foresight Project. The Foresight Project was a consultative
process which attempted to document a vision of a desirable future
and the strategies needed to get there (MoRST website: Statement by
Minister Williamson). The new framework for establishing Research and Development
priorities was designed to ensure that Government's investment
would be managed in a more enabling and less prescriptive way. The
new investment framework was based science envelope goals
and
target outcomes
. In summary, the science envelope goals
identified were:
The science envelope goals were to provide overall direction for the
public investment in Research, Science and Technology. They were designed to encourage
stakeholders and purchase agents to seek more effective delivery of
outcomes. The target outcomes are 14 future desired states envisaged
by the Foresight Project that are cross-sectoral and which provide a
strategic context for the development of Research, Science and Technology portfolios. The
existing purchase agents (FRST, HRC, Royal Society) would continue to
purchase research outputs in such a way that they are structured and
grouped so that they make a coherent contribution to the science
envelope goals. Negotiations and relationship building are
critical to a stable long-term purchasing environment, but
contestability and fostering a diversity of ideas and approaches will
remain important aspects of the purchasing strategy
(ibid,p.14).
FRST with its responsibility for investments under several output
classes
will be expected to organise contracts with providers
under each of these out put classes to create portfolios of Research, Science and Technology
contracts that make contributions towards target outcomes.
This seems to be an exercise of organisational rearrangement rather than one of fundamental change in priorities. FRST did not have to respond greatly to the Foresight Project and the consequent reorganisation of the goals and output areas. The Treasury outputs remained the same and the votes for outputs thus defined did not vary much from year to year. Despite the initial stability, MoRST have, since 1999, been feeling their way toward more devolution in decision making. The latest manifestation is the Picking up the Pace document. The portfolio approach stays the same but larger projects and longer terms of contract are to be considered by FRST in allocating research funds. FRST have delayed the beginning of the 2006 round of bidding while new directions for providers are worked out.
These paragraphs describe the overall framework for funding Research and Development in New Zealand in this period and where it now stands. To understand where agricultural research (AR) fits in as only part of the total investment we have to look for indirect evidence of trends in funding from the state and the private sectors and in income derived by providers for various purposes. Before 1999 we have data on the allocations of public research funds for the various output areas as they were then called, and since 1999 we have some idea of the spending of CRIs on specific subject areas and the sources of their income.
The output area format was abandoned in 1999-2000 and the envelope goals were adopted for layouts, priorities and statistical layouts. Emphasis moved to the research funds or portfolios administered by FRST, and how their benefits could be maximised. This makes tracking agricultural research more difficult for us. As a replacement we explore for the 1994-2005 period the rise and fall in CRI incomes (Table 5).
| Table 5: Trends in CRI Income Sources | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal year | AR as a % of All Income | AR PGSF as % of All PGSF | AR PGSF as % All Income |
| 1993-94 | 54.7 | 58.9 | 36.9 |
| 1994-95 | 54.2 | 57.9 | 35.4 |
| 1995-96 | 52.9 | 57.8 | 34.9 |
| 1996-97 | 50.6 | 56.7 | 32.8 |
| 1997-98 | 51.4 | 56.3 | 32.5 |
| 1998-99 | 51.7 | 55.3 | 32.3 |
| 1999-00 | 50.8 | 54.2 | 31.4 |
| 2000-01 | 51.3 | 54.4 | 30.0 |
| 2001-02 | 52.1 | 53.8 | 27.8 |
| 2002-03 | 51.8 | 54.1 | 27.2 |
| 2003-04 | 50.9 | 52.7 | 25.5 |
| 2004-05 | 51.9 | 50.1 | 23.0 |
| Key: See Table 2. | |||
| Source: Annual reports at CCMAU. |
In the first part of the period 1993-94 to 1997-98, just discussed, agricultural research institute total income was a slowly declining proportion of all CRI income; agricultural institute drawdown on PGSF funds also fell slowly; and agricultural drawdown of PGSF funds as proportion of all income declined from 36.9 per cent in 1993-94 to 32.5 per cent in 1997-98. In Table 3 the MoRST data showed this percentage declining from 46.5 per cent to 42.2 per cent. The two sources are not exactly comparable as output areas do not coincide with institute boundaries.
In the second period, for which we lack data on output areas, the proportion of total income is fairly constant; there is a continuing trend of the share of PGSF money starting to decline, and the share of PGSF income in total CRI income falls more quickly than earlier. Thus we see the trends shown in the earlier period are continued in the later period and are starting to accelerate. There has been some reaction to these trends by the Research and Development providers which we discuss in Section 3.2.
In July 2005 these concerns were picked up by a working group
sponsored by Dairy Insight, Dexcel and Fonterra in a document Dairy
Industry Capability Needs Review
. The review noted that there was
still no coordinated framework for research in the pasture and feed
supply area, that there were still significant capability gaps in
animal research, that there was a lack of strategic level leadership
and coordination which would be proactive in identifying
infrastructure and compliance options, and that there was no entity
with the mandate and necessary resources to guide, promote, and
evaluate human resource development at the farmer level, extension
staff and research organisation levels). Key gaps were identified in
the Research and Development, extension and education structure, in the information
available for performance analysis, investment and costs, and in
on-farm industry strategic leadership and planning. Indeed the review
recommends the formation of a strategic planning unit along the lines
of the Meat and Wool Economic Service.
In 2004-05, discussions between the Government and the research
industry led to a new approach to allocating research funds to
science providers. The aim appears to be to get away from short term
contestable funding in the public choice model and move toward long
term commitment of resources to individual providers to plan their
own priorities. This could be interpreted as a return to the priority
setting process under the DSIR and MAF where priorities were
internalised within departments with the surety that the Minister of
Finance would always provide the committed funds in following years.
Duplication was not then seen as a problem. While Government has made
several announcements in the course of 2005 setting out an outline of
the new system of funding, the agricultural research community in
particular has been increasingly vocal on the role it wishes to play
and critical of the old contestable fund system. International
interest may well lie in these developments given the past publicity
for the so-called New Zealand Science Model
.
Before the Budget in May, there was newspaper discussion of the
replacement of non-specific output funding (NSOF) by a capability
fund (Dominion Post 11/05/05). The article noted that NSOF had been
paid out to help meet operating costs, pay for non-funded research
and retain staff. CRIs had complained that 2004-05 funding of NSOF
of $32.376m was inadequate to retain promising scientists, but
funding agencies were concerned that providing money without
specifying how it should be used made accountability difficult. A
scientist was quoted as saying the key issue is uncertainty. Once
you put in a funding application you don’t know for nine months
whether or not you are going to be successful. That makes it
difficult to plan ahead
. The Budget itself was devoid of details
of the NSOF problem, but did include $17.8m in new capability funding
for CRIs in addition to some other funding increases.
Minister Maharey then made a major announcement at the beginning of
July. He said that it is now time for less contestability and more
annual devolved allocations
to CRIs. The methods of allocation
were still being developed. He noted that research institutes need
sustainable funding to be able to maintain core competencies,
finance capital works, new equipment and address the loss of
researchers and inability to recruit young scientists.
Contestability is not completely the wrong answer, because it
drives innovation, but it went to extremes
. He further noted that
previously the aim of science policy under successive governments had
been to reduce funding of research of benefit to industry from the
public purse, requiring industries and producers to contribute
directly to appropriate Crown research institute research programmes.
He also indicated it was time CRI boards were given more of the
discretionary roles they were set up for, instead of the funding
bodies making all the key decisions.
In the 2005 statement of intent, Sustaining Strong Investment: Excellence in Knowledge and Innovation, the Minister (Mr Maharey) announced that the government would continue to sustain strong investment in Research Science and Technology, particularly on people and resources. The new Capability Fund will replace the former Non-Science Outputs Fund (NSOF), to assist the CRIs to maintain core capabilities. Extra funding will be provided for the Marsden Fund, Fulbright Awards, Health research, a scheme called Envirolink to encourage regional councils to access CRIs, research consortia, Technology New Zealand and an Investment Opportunities Fund (to encourage a more rapid response to international opportunities and also to fund relocation of exceptional scientists to New Zealand).
In the Picking up the Pace, government confirmed that it had moved away from the competitive bidding model for Research and Development funding toward more long term arrangements with the science providers. They needed to step up from simplistic public choice theory models of the 1990s. The needs of the industry were: long-term sustainable investment; a stable funding environment; support for high performers; a clear and purposeful Research and Development agenda; enhanced opportunities for collaboration, networking and technology transfer; and Research Science and Technology that is valued, trusted and supported by New Zealanders. One of the early indications of the approach is FRST’s Outcome Based Investments (OBIs) which are focused on research sectors where the contracted research delivers benefits that are widely dispersed and not solely of value to a single individual or organization.
The intention is investment will keep pace with increasing research costs, innovative opportunities and OECD trends, accompanied by matching growth in the private sector. They proposed: development of a multi-year Research Science and Technology budget package; accelerated growth of Research and Development investment by private companies through leveraging public sector investment and applying other incentives; greater trust in research organisations to make decisions where they have an information advantage and can maximise the advantage of a devolved investment approach; devolve up to 60 per cent of PGSF to research organisations; ensure non devoted funds (Health, NERF, Marsden and Technology NZ) provide regular opportunities for new ideas to be funded; to define what a successful CRI looks like; and to develop measures for financial and non-financial performance.
The aim is to provide a clear understanding of critical responsibilities of players in an Research Science and Technology system with a focus on core capabilities that deliver benefit to New Zealand so research organisations can mange better for their people and future research priorities. Alongside the multi-year budget package a one off statement will be developed on the obligations and expectations for sectors. A series of Research Science and Technology directions or roadmaps for key science areas would be developed with relevant groups of stakeholders, key users and research organisations. There would be increased emphasis on collaboration and networking (MoRST 2005).
This setting of the scene is reflected in FRST's recent statement
of intent dated April 2005 (FRST 2005a). To support the
Government’s strategies and address the Minister’s challenges
FRST’s strategy focuses on:
FRST tell us that the Foundation is currently assisting MoRST as they
work through the policy development process. Over the last
couple of years we have been trying various ways to provide longer
and larger investments while still ensuring that emerging research
and researchers are able to succeed with proposals for investment. We
have been working to identify practical implementation issues,
identification of which is essential to achieve the improvements we
are all looking for
(N. Allison, FRST, pers com, October 2005).
In a document about investment signals and requests for proposals on the website (FRST 2005b), the Foundation outlines how it will handle investment proposals for the round starting in July 2007. FRST notes that the Minister wishes to bring greater stability into the funding environment. This will involve reducing contestability in the system by devolving funding and detailed decision making to research organisations although some portfolios funds will be released for investment through fully contestable project rounds. FRST has received consistent feedback and support on the need for New Zealand to use its limited Research Science and Technology investment in a more focused manner where that is possible. FRST interprets this as investment that is narrower and deeper. Actions they propose to take include: reducing compliance costs through shorter concept documents; increased focus on science merit and track record through fewer proposal assessment criteria; stronger investment focus through target outcomes, themes and priority research questions; development of scientific road maps; increased focus on researcher performance and capability; restructuring of research portfolios and managers; a new condensed portfolio structure and cross portfolio alignment.
In the meantime, the agricultural research interests were not sitting
quietly. There have been initiatives by Lincoln and Massey
Universities to enhance the synergies between their research
programmes. Likewise other collaborative agreements have been formed
and new initiatives have been established such as the Waikato
Innovation Park with strong links between Universities, CRIs and the
agricultural sector. Significantly AgResearch has returned to
highlighting its identity as an ‘Agricultural Research’ institute
rather than a Life Sciences
institute.
One key development has been the development of a Strategic Framework for
Dairy Farming's Future
. The purpose of the framework is to set
the strategic direction for all on-farm research, development,
extension and education
Funding to achieve the targets and
objectives will come from a number of sources: government,
industry good, Agmardt, provider investment, industry and
agribusiness
. The major dairy cooperative, Fonterra, was the
driver behind this initiative as part of its quest to achieve
industry growth and productivity goals. Hence it needed to have a
plan for increased efficiency that did not compromise economic,
environmental and animal welfare imperatives.
The first version of the strategy document was adopted jointly by the Boards of Dairy Insight (the dairy industry levy collecting body) and Dexcel (the major provider of on farm dairy research and extensions) in 2004 and then endorsed by the wider industry. A second version, commissioned by Dairy 21 (a peak industry body with membership from Fonterra, Livestock Improvement, Dairy Companies Association, Dexcel and AgResearch) has been drafted after feedback and consultation.
The industry has set a goal of boosting farm productivity by 4 per
cent per year. Dairy 21 has already lobbied Government for a $60m
boost to pastoral farming research. The Chairman of Fonterra states
that putting resources into core
agriculture is a safer bet
than some less-established sectors, and that the above sum is a
relatively small amount of money given the potential economic
benefits to the country (The Dominion Post, 28.9.05). This strategy
will not have been helped by Fonterra's choice to base a major
research centre in Melbourne rather than in New Zealand.
Fonterra was clearly showing considerable leadership in getting the pastoral research participants together. According to the National Business Review (16.12.05), Fonterra has been pushing its own research agenda vigorously since cutting its $159m funding package to biotec subsidiary ViaLactia, in a major restructure in 2004. The CEO stated that the company wanted a more efficient model that makes sense for all parties involved. It wanted to avoid as much duplication in the farming sector as possible and to ensure the company was not burdened with spending money on research that does not directly benefit its value-added goals. Fonterra is said to have initiated the Dairy 21 project.
Not to be outdone, AgResearch was in the news on the 1st
of November 2005. The CEO announced that AgResearch needed $73 m for
buildings alone. Dr West argued that the extra $60m should go
straight to the Crown research institutes who will then decide what
to spend it on. He also argued that farmers' contributions to
research investment should rise too. The $10m they contribute in
levies is not much when you consider farm gate returns are $6
billion
. AgResearch's strategic plan for the next 15 years was
based on the country investing in its core strengths, the husbandry
of plants and animals, he said. He outlined that major investments
were required in an animal health laboratory in Palmerston North, a
new animal animal handling facility at Grasslands, a biosecurity and
infectious diseases facility near Wellington, a centre for
reproduction and genomics in Dunedin and other new buildings. Dr
West said it was an article of faith that more funding would come.
Taken with Government showing a willingness to increase devolved funding to the CRIs [though the increase in the 2005-06 Budget is quite small] there is a marked willingness in the agricultural research sector to expand their research activities. However there does appear to be some confusion between research project investment and capital spending. More importantly, the agricultural research lobby has increased its mass and firepower and has started to put significant research programs in front of government for public good spending. Private participation will be needed as well. It appears unlikely Government will come to the party in a big way given other pressures on government expenditure. While the Minister talks of investing 3 per cent of GDP (a trebling) in future years, marked increases in research spending by the government or the private sector are not that likely. What the Dairy 21 group might achieve is winning a greater share of the public funds in which case it will be at the expense of some other group. This then comes back to who sets the priorities for Research and Development spending and how national priorities are determined.
The last 15 years in New Zealand has seen a significant experiment
undertaken with regard to the organisation of Research and Development
services. In this country there has traditionally been a fairly even
split of resources between the government sector, the private sector
and the universities. Before the 1990 reforms, some commentators were
of the view that the government sector was too dominant and had been
creating a crowding-out
effect on the private sector. The
erstwhile aim of the reforms was to increase private participation
and to decrease the influence of the large government departments and
the funding drain on the government. To this end, 10 research
companies were set up to absorb the science roles of all government
departments. To finance the new structures, the former government
votes were placed in a government pool – known as the Public Good
Science Fund (PGSF) – for allocation to all research providers on a
bidding process.
The agricultural sector was previously serviced by the Department of Agriculture with some support in basic science from the Department of Science Industry and Research. Large research campuses were created over the years for crops, animals and horticulture and the Department of Agriculture provided a free extension service. At least one third of the total resources available were devoted to the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector in common with the environmental sector were the most highly supported by central government compared with other sectors.
Since the reforms began the allocation of resources to science has kept pace with gross domestic product. In terms of provider spending there has been an increase in the share of research being performed by the private sector and the universities and a decline in the share conducted by government agencies. In terms of overall funding, there has been a parallel increase from the private sector and a decline in the government share. These changes were predicated by the reforms in the first place and could be said to have achieved what the planners set out to do.
Agricultural research before the reforms absorbed about one third of all resources made available. Going by the spending by the agricultural crown institutes (Ag Research, Crop & Food Research, HortResearch and Landcare research.) the share of CRI resources going to agricultural research has almost been maintained (55 per cent in 1993-94 and 52 per cent in 2004-05). At the same time the share of agricultural research funded by the government has fallen from 59 per cent to 50 per cent. Thus the agricultural sector has followed the overall trend in decreased government participation and increased private sector participation.
In a mid-term review by MoRST in 1998 these trends were already evident.
Data on the then output areas
showed that there was a serious
decline in resources being devoted to forage research and to animal
research. The mid-term review showed that the dairy industry had
maintained and even improved its share of resources while the small
crops sector had maintained its share.
There was criticism of the funding mechanism and the rules which were used to choose successful projects. These protests probably served to prevent the decline in resources going to the agricultural sector from going any further.
Concurrently with the above review, MoRST was seeking a new mandate for future planning of research in what is known as the Foresight Project. In the light of wide consultation with interested parties a new set of achievable outcomes was adopted by the government which did away with the output area approach. We maintain that the priority setting for individual projects did not change much under the new set of outcomes and we noted that Budget allocations continued largely under the old expenditure classes.
In 2005, the government issued the outlines of a new system of public good research funding which would be based on longer-term contracts with the research providers and devolving more of the individual project choice to them also. At the time of writing FRST had not published a new set of guidelines for research applicants which would indicate how the rules would then apply to the various providers. We observe that, in a curious sort of way, this development is a return to the ways of the 1970s and 1980s when the two large departments were in sole charge of spending priorities for the public good science money. Allocations of research funds are still politically contentious and there is ongoing debate concerning appropriate decision-making by central Government vis a vis research providers and industry participants. High transaction costs continue to be a burden and politicians and interest groups continue to aspire to a dynamic research system which they can influence.
This review is completed by noting resurgence in the private sector research interests in agriculture in 2005. The major participants like Ag Research, Fonterra, Dexcel and Dairy Insight have produced a series of reports on future developments, particularly for the dairy sector, which envisage both increased private spending and an increased contribution from the government. It should be noted that the clamour is not so strong on the meat and wool side, though the above protagonists see all the animal and forage industries working together for the common good and with an increased commitment from public funds.
Boston, Jonathon, Martin John, Pallot June and Walsh Pat, Public Management: the New Zealand Model, Oxford University Press, 1996.
BERL (Business and Economic Research Limited)(1995), The New Zealand Innovation Environment, report prepared for the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, Wellington.
Christie, Rick (2005), Speech for Grasslands Conference Dinner, 11 October 2005.
Dairy Insight, Dexcel, Fonterra and DCANZ (2005), Dairy Industry Capability Needs Review , Innomarc Consulting Ltd.
Forbes R and Johnson R (2004), Productivity Trends in the Agriculture and Forestry Sectors, MAF Policy.
FRST (2005a), Statement of Intent for 2005 (www.frst.govt.nz/statement).
FRST (2005b), Overarching Document concerning Investment Signals and Requests for Proposals(www.frst.govt.nz/research).
Harrington, Alex., 'The Contribution of the Primary Sector to New Zealand’s Economic Growth', The New Zealand Treasury Policy Perspectives Paper, November 2005.
Jardine, V. (1989), 'Crisis in Agricultural Research and Development in New Zealand?', invited paper presented to Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, 6-9 February 1989, Christchurch, New Zealand.
MoRST (1992a), 'Long Term Priorities for the Public Good Science Fund: a Discussion Paper', (Science and Technology Expert Panel),(STEP Report).
MoRST (1992b), 'Long Term Priorities for the Public Good Science Fund: Final Report.'
MoRST (1997), 'Notice to the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST): the Government's Policies and Priorities for Public Good Science and Technology', (www.morst.govt.nz)
MoRST (1999), New Zealand Research and Development Statistics 1997/98, Publication No 17.
MoRST (2005), Picking up the Pace, (www.morst.govt.nz/policystatements).
New Zealand Year Book, Government Print, Wellington, 1993, 2000.
We were helped with information and data by N.Allison (FRST), Ed Butler (CCMAU), Adrian Wimmers (CCMAU), Kyla Orr (MoRST), and Helen Whiteman (MoRST).
Agriculture, Horticulture, Forestry and Fisheries
New and improved
Sheep and sheep production systems
Beef animals and beef production systems
Dairy animals and dairy production systems
Other animal species, animal products and primary production systems
Generic animal and animal production information bases , systems and products
Forage plants and forage management practices
Horticultural crops (including vegetables) and management practices
Arable crops, ornamental, amenity, shelter, conservation and other plants and management practices
Trees and plantation management systems
Fish harvesting and production systems for marine and freshwater fisheries
New and improved
Meat processes, storage techniques and products
Dairy processes, storage techniques and products
Fruit, crops and other food and beverage processes, storage techniques and products
Fibres and skin processes and products
Wood and paper processes and products
Materials, industrial processes and products(including mineral processing)
Engineering processes, systems and products (including transport engineering
Computing and electronic, communications and instrumentation processes, systems, and products (hardware)
Construction processes, systems and products (including roading construction)
New and improved
20 Information bases, processes and systems for commercial and trade services
New and improved
21 Information bases for prospecting, production and use of all energy resources
New and improved
22 Information bases, processes and systems for transport
New and Improved
23 Information processing software, software and services for electronic communication, media transmission and data interchange
New and improved
24 Urban and rural planning information bases, processes and systems
Information bases on
New Zealand history, society, culture and Te Ao Maori
Social and personal development, relationships and wellbeing, Political, economic and international relationships
Knowledge, education and training
Knowledge, education and training
New and improved
Protection and management technologies for the environment
Information bases on
Geological structures and resources, and solid earth processes (including mineral prospecting – see output 16 for mineral processing)
The properties, distribution, and potential uses of types of land and land-based flora
Marine and fresh waters, their substrata, flora and fauna
Climate and the atmosphere
Properties, uses and technologies for space
The natural environment of Antarctica
Information bases on
36 Fundamental information in the natural sciences, engineering, social science and humanities (where no end use has been identified)
New and improved
37 Information bases, systems and products in health
Defence
New and improved
38 Information bases, systems and technologies for defence.
Source: MoRST 1999.
CRI: Crown Research Institutes
Agricultural Institutes: AgResearch, HortResearch, Crop & Food, Landcare
Non-Agricultural Institutes: NIWA, IRL, FRI, ESR, GNS
FRST: The Foundation for Research Science and Technology
MoRST: Ministry of Research Science and Technology
NRAC: National Research Advisory Council
Industry Research Associations:
DRI Dairy Research Institute
WRONZ Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand
MRINZ Meat Research Institute of New Zealand
PGSF: Public Good Research Fund
TBG: Technology for Business Growth Program
CCMAU: Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit
STEP: Science and Technology Expert Panel
BERL: Business and Economic Research Limited
STAC: Science and Technology Committee
NSOF: Non-Specific Output Funding
1 Private consultant, Wellington
2 Professor, University of Waikato Management School
3 Lecturer, Waikato Management School
4 Now “Scion”.
5 The 10 research institutes, formed on 1st July 1992, replaced science units in DSIR, MAF, the NZ Meteorological Service, Forest Research Institute and the Communicable Diseases Centre of the Department of Health.
6 This administrative arrangement had first been suggested by the 1988 Science and Technology Committee (STAC), though it was not adopted until 1991 (Jardine 1989, p.11) .


Our hotel had its grand opening on March 16, 2020.
It is near the Aburanokoji-Gojo crossing, where centuries-old history and culture remain strongly in evidence.
Stay with us and unwind your body and mind. Our restaurant has an open ambience.
The public bath and the gym, on the top floor, command a panoramic view of the Higashiyama 36 Mountains and the Nishiyama mountain range, respectively.
*
Name: Urban Hotel Kyoto-Gojo Premium
Location: 87 Koizumi-cho, Shimogyo-ku, Kyoto 600-8480, Japan
Parking Please use a pay parking lot. There are many nearby.
Facilities Provided
Large public bath
Café restaurant
High-speed Internet Access (Wi-Fi and wired LAN) in all guest rooms
Fitness room
Smoking area
Coin-operated laundry
Vending machines
Flight and Hotel Packages
Urban Hotel Point Card
One-day travel passes
Parcel/luggage delivery services
Ratings
Direction
Standing at the heart of the city, our hotel is about 10 minutes’ walk to both Nishi-Hongan-ji Temple and the nearest subway station.
The location is excellent for both sightseeing and business trips.
Parking lots: There are many coin-operated parking lots in our hotel’s vicinity.
Facilities Provided
Large public bath
Café restaurant
High-speed Internet Access (Wi-Fi and wired LAN) in all guest rooms
Fitness room
Smoking area
Coin-operated laundry
Vending machines
Flight and Hotel Packages
Urban Hotel Point Card
One-day travel passes
Parcel/luggage delivery services
Ratings
Directions
By Train Approx. 10-minute walk from Shijo Station on the Subway Karasuma Line
Approx. 3-minute walk from Omiya Station on the Hankyu Kyoto Line
Approx. 8-minute walk from Karasuma Station on the Hankyu Kyoto Line
By Bus Approx. 1-minute walk from Shijo Horikawa Stop on the Kyoto City Bus Line #9, 28, 101 or 50
By Car Approx. 10-minute ride by taxi from Kyoto Station, costing approx. 1,200 yen
Approx. 20-minute ride from Kyoto Minami IC on the Meishin Expressway
Approx. 20-minute ride from Kyoto Higashi IC on the Meishin Expressway
Google Map
Urban Hotel Kyoto Nijo Premium
About Urban Hotel Kyoto NIjo Premium
Opened in 2015, Urban Hotel Kyoto Nijo Premium is conveniently located just a 5-mintue walk from JR and metro Nijo stations. Guests can unwind in a large public bath after spending a day exploring the city. Free WiFi can be used for free throughout the property.
Clean and modern rooms are fitted with a flat-screen TV, a fridge and a desk. The private bathroom features a shower and a hairdryer.
The Premium Urban Hotel offers free luggage storage services at the 24-hour front desk. Drinks vending machines are available on site.
The hotel is a 15-minute walk to Nijo Castle, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. JR Kyoto Station is just a 6-minute train ride away, and Fushimi Inari Shrine can be accessed within a 15-minute train ride.
Nijo Premium Urban Hotel Kyoto also offers easy bus access to Shijo Kawaramachi and Arashiyama as there is a bus stop right in front of the hotel.Couples in particular like the location – they rated it 8.5 for a two-person trip.
Facilities Provided
Large public bath
Café restaurant
High-speed Internet Access (Wi-Fi and wired LAN) in all guest rooms
Fitness room
Smoking area
Coin-operated laundry
Vending machines
Flight and Hotel Packages
Urban Hotel Point Card
One-day travel passes
Parcel/luggage delivery services
Ratings
Direction
The hotel is a 15-minute walk to Nijo Castle, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. JR Kyoto Station is just a 6-minute train ride away, and Fushimi Inari Shrine can be accessed within a 15-minute train ride.


What We Do.
Our work with clients has always been at the intersection of deep
industry expertise and extensive capabilities.
We design web sites, digital campaigns, interactive applications, management tools of contents
that help to build strong and sustainable relations with customers.
Our work with clients has always been at the intersection of deep
industry expertise and extensive capabilities.
Digital business is the creation of new business designs by blurring the digital and physical worlds. It promises to usher in an unprecedented convergence of people, business and things that disrupts existing business models – even those born of the Internet and e-business eras.
Mobile application development is a term used to denote the act or process by which application software is developed for mobile devices, such as personal digital assistants, or mobile phones.These applications can be pre-installed on phones during manufacturing platforms.
As part of the development process, mobile user interface (UI) design is also essential in the creation of mobile apps. Mobile UI considers constraints, contexts, screen, input, and mobility as outlines for design. The user is often the focus of interaction with their device, and the interface entails components of both hardware and software.
Being the richest man in the cemetery doesn't matter to me. Going to bed at night saying we've done something wonderful, that's what matters to me.
I'm convinced that about half of what separates the successful entrepreneurs from the non-successful ones is pure perseverance.
Sometimes when you innovate, you make mistakes. It is best to admit them quickly, and get on with improving your other innovations.
Next defines itself as a global communication agency
adapting itself to every type of customer.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered.
Pricing tables have an importance for every company that offers services
they are a challenge from both a design and usability.


{% include head.html %}
{% include header.html %}
{% include featureheader.html %} {% include featurecontent.html %}
{% include scripts.html %} {% include googleanalytics.html %}


The Italian Stallion
Rocky Balboa
About
Robert "Rocky" Balboa, Sr. (born July 6th, 1946) is an Italian-American retired heavyweight boxer and former Two-Time Heavyweight Champion. He is famous for his indomitable spirit, extreme tenacity and ferocious body attack. Balboa is the titular protagonist in Rocky, Rocky II, Rocky III, Rocky IV, Rocky V and Rocky Balboa and the deuteragonist in Creed and Creed II.
Click here for more information.


Gary's Philanthropic Database of Non-Profit Volunteers
Project name
Create Project
Available Projects
There are currently no records to display.


---
layout: archive
title: Lean Prover Zulip Chat Archive
permalink: 116395maths/83058whynonempty.html
---
The archive URL format has changed. Please find this page at:
https://leanprover-community.github.io/archive/stream/116395-maths/topic/why.20.60nonempty.60.3F.html


Knife in the Water (1962)
Grade: 65
"Knife in the Water" was the first feature film that Roman Polanski directed, having earlier made a series of shorts. It was also the last film that he would make in Poland, as critical success and government interference led to greener pastures in France and America.
Supposedly the script was written in only three days, by Polanski, Jerzy Skolimowski and Jakub Goldberg. It was a low budget film with only three actors, two of them amateurs whose voices were later dubbed (Polanski himself did the voice of the drifter). With most of the story taking place on a sailboat, only a few sets were used. But Jerzy Lipman's cinematography was very good, as was the script.
The plot has proud, successful sportswriter Andrzej (Leon Niemczyk) spending a weekend sailing with his younger, attractive wife Christine (Jolanta Umecka). Their marriage seems loveless, and Andrzej in need of distraction, so it is little surprise when Andrzej picks up a nameless teenage hitchiker (Zygmunt Malanowicz) and invites him to go sailing with them.
>From the start, Andrzej and the drifter try to impress each other, with the tensions rising and falling through a series of oneupsmanships. Andrzej has the advantages of greater life experience, greater physical size, and the possession of Christine, but he seems to need the respect of the drifter, who isn't disposed to give it readily. Christine tries to be a peacemaker, but the tension between the men eventually turns to violence.
"Knife in the Water" is a moody, interesting character study. However, it is often slow, and the ending is a bit contrived to give Christine and the young man a romantic scene together.
"Knife in the Water" received an Academy Award nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. The British Academy Awards gave it Best Film (of any source). Polanski later achieved great success in America with "Rosemary's Baby" and "Chinatown", before an encounter with a teenage girl forced him to leave the country.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://members.tripod.com/~Brian_Koller/movies.html
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


--- layout: page title: About header-img: "img/about-bg.png" ---
Flatiron School - Software engineer student


Product Summery
Long printed dress with thin adjustable straps. V-neckline and wiring under the Dust with ruffles at the bottom of the dress.
Long printed dress with thin adjustable straps. V-neckline and wiring under the Dust with ruffles at the bottom of the dress.
Fashion has been creating well-designed collections since 2010. The brand offers feminine designs delivering stylish separates and statement dresses which have since evolved into a full ready-to-wear collection in which every item is a vital part of a woman's wardrobe. The result? Cool, easy, chic looks with youthful elegance and unmistakable signature style. All the beautiful pieces are made in Italy and manufactured with the greatest attention. Now Fashion extends to a range of accessories including shoes, hats, belts and more!
ADMIN – March 23, 2015
Lorem et placerat vestibulum, metus nisi posuere nisl, in accumsan elit odio quis mi.


This webpage is designed to take the input of your gender and date of birth and calculate the day you were born. Based off of this information the webpage will also return to you what your Akan Name is.
Akan names are derived from Ghanian culture. Frequently in Ghana, children are given their first name as a 'day name' which corresponds to the day in the week they were born. Here are Ghanian day names.


Login to enter the proxy service and gain access to a remote location.
This is an open source project hosted on GitHub.


WITNESS LIST Public School Finance, Select Committee August 22, 2003-9:00A Public School Finance On: Arnold, Ann (Texas Association of Broadcasters) Bethelsen, Spencer (Texas Medical Association) Clark, Jeffrey (National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB/Texas)) Davidson, James H. (Texas Association of Broadcasters) Petersen, Dennis W. (Texas Council of Engineering Companies) Vedder, Richard (TPPF)


Home
Timetable
Room Selector
Information
Log out
Pick a date
<
>
Please select a time slot
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
13:00
Other timeslots are currently not available
Number of attendees
1
2
3
4
5
6
Other timeslots are currently not available
Select an available room
Ground floor
First floor
Second Floor
Forth floor


Death toll rises to 65 in Kenya flooding over weekend
by The Associated PressNAIROBI, Kenya — Officials in Kenya say heavy rains unleashed a deluge that killed five people overnight in the Rift Valley, raising the death toll from weekend flooding to 65.
Daudi Loronyokwe, a police chief in Kajiado Central community, said Monday the five were returning home after attending a wedding in Tanzania when their car was washed away.
He says the victims included three children.
Governor John Lonyang’apuo says between 80,000 and 120,000 people have been affected in West Pokot county, the worst hit by the floods and mudslides. The governor says at least 52 people are confirmed dead there.
The torrential rain is uncommon for this time of year. The Kenya Red Cross says parts of the country could continue to face destructive flooding this week.
Evacuations continue.
The Associated Press