text:
Site Home Page Board index Movies & TV Films
DC Comics on Film
Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Brian C
Re: Comic Books on Film
#251 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:06 pm
captveg wrote: Take the *quality* out of the equation:
Why? The quality is the only thing anyone should care about.
All I did was propose a possibility to counter this idea that they've literally done nothing for months.
Literally no one said this. You're being weird.
#252 Post by domino harvey » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:10 pm
I don't understand this defense, captveg. Are we to be reassured by the mere virtue that the filmmakers are in fact making a film? Sausage is clearly speaking to questions of quality, not existence, so why are you trying to remove the only important component here? Also, any argument where someone will only accept a binary answer is usually one not going well
Not PETA approved
#253 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:11 pm
captveg wrote: Are Johns and Berg making plans?
I don't know and I don't care.
I'm very sure you don't know, either.
Brian C wrote: Why? The quality is the only thing anyone should care about.
I know, right?
Why would any of us want to discuss the fact a couple of producers plan to make movies? All the interesting questions happen after that.
captveg
#254 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:14 pm
Brian C wrote:
But like I said before - the quality of a Johns/Berg developed/produced film won't be known until Aquaman. So without that unknown variable all we have is positive or negative speculation.
captveg wrote: All I did was propose a possibility to counter this idea that they've literally done nothing for months.
Me: I don't buy the idea that they just sit in a room mashing beetles all day without any plan whatsoever.
You: And yet, the standalone film for their most important character just fell apart and had to be reconstituted on the fly.
Conclusion: You are saying that the recent problems with Batman is evidence that they have no plan whatsoever.
Do you see where this part of the discussion diverted now?
What evidence is there that these films will be good?
domino harvey wrote: I don't understand this defense, captveg. Are we to be reassured by the mere virtue that the filmmakers are in fact making a film? Sausage is clearly speaking to questions of quality, not existence, so why are you trying to remove the only important component here? Also, any argument where someone will only accept a binary answer is usually one not going well
I was arguing two separate points.
One was a factual one (see my last post).
One is the speculative/opinion one.
The answer to your question - " Are we to be reassured by the mere virtue that the filmmakers are in fact making a film?" - is No.
In relation to being optimistic/pessimistic about Johns/Berg as developers/producers of the DC films going forward, I don't think there's enough evidence to make a solid conclusions either way without an end product to evaluate how people react. Others may see trickles of development news as enough to draw conclusions from. To me that's too vague. Seeing an actual reaction by the public to a movie is more concrete, and it's too far off to know what that will be.
I do think there's enough bits and pieces to glean what a plan of theirs *may* be, and how it might be designed to play out, but that's again speculative, and the actually quality of any such plan is easily able to fall on any range of the quality scale in the end.
captveg wrote:
Me: It's silly to think that Jim isn't making an effort, he made twice as many sales calls as I did.
Coworker: And yet, his production is way behind yours.
captveg's conclusion: I'm lying about Jim's sales calls.
domino harvey wrote: What evidence is there that these films will be good?
None of any cinematic substance outside of the people they hire to write/direct/etc. And that is rarely a guarantee of anything (Jon Berg has produced Meet Dave and Edge of Tomorrow, for example. Hard to draw a solid conclusion on his ability for a DC based series on those extremes).
The source material is also too varied in quality to draw any concrete conclusions from.
So we revert to default states of optimistic/pessimistic speculation based on very minimal information.
Last edited by captveg on Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You removed the key word of "idea".
Me: It's a silly idea that Jim isn't making an effort, he made twice as many sales calls as I did.
Conclusion: I'm lying about the the very idea/concept of Jim making an effort.
So, we've cleared that up, and see where the disconnect over language was. I feel better now that I know you weren't trying to argue the very idea of Johns/Berg making an effort. That was frustratingly distracting me. *head stops spinning over this*
#260 Post by captveg » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:10 am
OK, back to an actual normal film conversation now. Specifically, back to this point:
MrSausage wrote: Marvel is lucky: it is only ever compared to itself, and it spends most of its time mimicking itself, so the comparison is in its favour--when you don't like it, you still like it. DC is only ever compared to Marvel (or hard-to-duplicate past success like Nolan's Batmans), so it's always stuck either failing to imitate another company's successes, or alienating the audience by breaking another company's mold too strongly. It's dancing around someone else's standard.
I do wonder how the trends are going to ebb and flow for comic book properties from major studios in the context of the standards you've very keenly outlined here. Fox seems to be having success with a more niche approach if Deadpool and Logan are an indication. So they're crafting a new identity that is not being compared to the MCU, yet is being embraced by critics and audiences. Highly likely the main X-Men series pulls closer to this approach in the next few years.
DC tried to repeat the Nolan approach but also roll in the MCU approach half way, and Snyder/Ayer could not pull it off for their films for critics and audiences alike. Now all indications are that they are going to move closer to that MCU model, but as you state the comparisons are to standards they didn't establish. So while they try to bring Wonder Woman and Justice League closer to that MCU standard, because of their production timing they are unlikely to do more than close the gap in the best of circumstances, a low-ish standard that people are skeptical of them accomplishing due to not liking BvS and SS.
That makes the Aquaman / Batman type projects all the more crucial. Will it be enough for them to simply be good in the MCU standards sense, even allowing for them to get to that particular level? I think that will make people willing to see the films, but only matter-of-factly. General audiences won't be enthusiastic about DC films unless they can hit an even higher, far tougher bar - setting a new standard that makes people not only enthusiastic about their films, but enough to where such an identity makes it seem to be another viable unique flavor.
Right now DC seems to be moving from from disliked black licorice (Snyder/Ayer) into hoping to be serviceable MCU red licorice. But that won't be really truly satisfactory since it'll always be an imitation until they hit upon their own licorice flavor that is distinctly theirs and also liked by a majority. Maybe Johns/Berg and Wan/Reeves/et al pull that off. It would be a real against the odds tale, even to this optimistic observer.
Last edited by captveg on Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:17 am, edited 3 times in total.
#261 Post by Brian C » Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:15 am
captveg wrote: So, we've cleared that up, and see where the disconnect over language was. I feel better now that I know you weren't trying to argue the very idea of Johns/Berg making an effort. That was frustratingly distracting me. *head stops spinning over this*
Um ............. OK fine. But in the future, if you're curious about what I mean, try reading everything I subsequently say.
But if you're satisfied now, good, I guess.
Talking past one another is gonna happen in the internet from time to time. We all want to keep it to a minimum.
matrixschmatrix
#263 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Continuing the part of this conversation that side stepped the weird Kremlinology of trying to determine what DC thinks it's doing: I have to say, even once Snyder's loathly touch is removed from the equation, I kind of hope the overall project of a conjoined DC film universe will fail. Nothing against the ip (I am a big Bat-fan generally and I loved the Timm/Dini DCAU) but because the idea that in doing something like this with popular enough properties, producers could finally have a totally safe, predictable money machine is terrifying. Franchises and sequels aren't great, creatively, but we seem stuck with them, and they've been a feature of filmgoing since I was a kid, but a world in which every $100m+ movie had to be part of some interconnected universe is genuinely upsetting; like, just look at the endless mess that got DC and Marvel the comic book publishers into.
Marvel, in particular, has a habit of launching some new, clean version of itself every little while- the Ultimate Marvel line, for instance- which shortly thereafter grows so overweighted with continuity that it's totally uninviting and impossible to pick up midstream, and it killed the Ultimate line altogether. It's not hard to see that happening with the movies, and some of the movies seem like they suffer because of it (Avengers 2 in particular. So if something like the DC version- which clearly wasn't put together as a smooth machine the way Marvel looks, at least in retrospect- could still become a monster of equal size, I feel like everyone would be chasing that dragon. If DC fails, maybe it will be written off as something only Disney really excels at, a conclusion which I would be pretty happy about.
#264 Post by captveg » Sat Feb 25, 2017 4:43 pm
Well, as a fan of DC characters more than Marvel characters I'd prefer they not be such a sacrificial lamb. And the reality is that the more expensive theatrical productions become the less risk they will take, and the serialized IPs will dominate further. More and more people are treating the theatrical experience as a theme park - tickets only to be bought for the biggest thrill ride experience. People pay to see the next $150m episode, while the $10m drama is seen less and less outside of the home.
#265 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:39 am
Is that actually true, though? If you look at the top 10 grossers last year, there are surely a fair number of mega franchise entries- the yearly Star Wars up top, and Civil War at number 3 (and number 1 worldwide), with the two DC entries and Deadpool all showing up- but more strikingly, and more profitably, the list is packed with kids' movies, which were cheaper to make. Number 11 is one, too, Moana- and a lot of these are original IP (Secret Life of Pets, Sing, Zootopia, Moana) or only connected to one other movie (the other two.) Of the big cluster franchise movies, Deadpool is kind of iffy, since it's not really clear how exactly it connects to any of the other X-Men movies; if you leave that out, we've got the admitted champion of the format, Disney, sitting up top with two powerhouses, and DC bringing up the rear with a semi success and a disappointment.
Now, I'll grant that it's rough going to find any adult oriented original IP anywhere in the top grossers- basically only Hidden Figures and La La Land in the top 20 (though both are phenomenal moneymakers in terms of roi)- but I don't think the list necessarily reflects a lot of success at managing the shared-universe concept outside of Disney, which is the point at issue, nor do I think it's one that I would look at as a studio exec and decide to move forward with my massive Beetle Bailey/Hi and Lois universe set of blockbusters.
#266 Post by captveg » Sun Feb 26, 2017 6:27 am
There's no singular way for success, but there are some models that are more successful on average. 3D animation is one of those more common and successful types, alongside the big IP franchises. In the case of animation, the IP is the studio who brought you Toy Story (Pixar), Minions (Illumination), Frozen (Disney) and such.
But yes, I was mostly speaking to dramas, as the ones with box office success in the last decade or so are definitely outliers. And even then movie studios would much rather spend $250m and make $800m then spend $25m and make 80m. That's why more often than not they'd rather let indie production companies do the hard work and then just buy distribution rights at film festivals. They certainly don't develop these movies themselves anymore.
#267 Post by matrixschmatrix » Sun Feb 26, 2017 11:43 am
By the time you broaden the concept of ip to include studio identity, it's meaningless- of course nearly every movie has SOME connection to other successful movies, through studio or actor or director or whatever else. The issue at hand isn't that, or leaning in tentpoles, it's specifically the shared universe nonlinear sequel idea that Marvel popularized. Like, Rogue One is the first Star Wars movie that fits the criteria- everything else is not a new phenomenon.
#268 Post by captveg » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:22 pm
I never claimed it was outright new, only that it was increasing in market share.
#269 Post by knives » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:24 pm
You're talking accounting; everyone else is talking movies.
We were talking both. They're intrinsicly connected once one starts referring to IPs, budgets, box office, studios chasing the highest popularity, etc.
#271 Post by Brian C » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:38 pm
captveg wrote: We were talking both. They're intrinsicly connected once one starts referring to IPs, budgets, box office, studios chasing the highest popularity, etc.
But none of that has anything to do with the Marvel-type model of shared universes linking multiple movies together, which is quite clearly what matrixschmatrix is griping about.
So, goal posts of what I'm allowed to bring into the conversation as relative moved again. Gotcha.
If one is going to make discussion of *why* studios chase certain production models off limits than there's no point in discussing their behavior to begin with.
#273 Post by domino harvey » Sun Feb 26, 2017 12:45 pm
No one is disallowing you to take your argument in that direction. It is however increasingly apparent that you are an uncritical fanboy who is unwilling to offer much more than token feints at clear and apparent negatives in the existent and future films in this series
captveg wrote: So, goal posts of what I'm allowed to bring into the conversation as relative moved again. Gotcha.
You have an obligation if you're going to argue with someone to make your argument relevant. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels and trying everyone's patience.
Besides which, every 4-year-old can understand *why* these movies get made. Studios are chasing lots of dollars. We get it. This does not qualify as an insight on your behalf.
#275 Post by captveg » Sun Feb 26, 2017 1:10 pm
You guys sure like to belittle and name call to make yourselves feel more important
Sausage brought up an idea about the establishing of audiences drawing comparisons between brand standards, on which I made a comment. Matrix then moved that conversation into one concerning success/failure, and that shifted to include "accounting".
So sorry to make offense to your delicate sensibilities.
Return to "Films"


continuous two ton per hour ball mill. We build high quality, robust, industrial machines used across many parts needed for a two ton per hour ballmill. Mill (grinding) Wikipedia. To calculate the needed grinding work against (kilowatt-hours per metric or short ton) W is the work index measured in a laboratory ball mill (kilowatt-hours per.
India widely used 10 ton per hour dry and wet ball mill machine. Add to Compare . 25 tons per hour output Continuous Ball Mill. Quotation More. Ball Mill Prices Wholesale, Ball Mill Suppliers. 2017 Hot Sale Laboratory Ball Mill / Ball Grinding Mill / Ball Mill Prices. Add to Compare .
Grinding Mills For Sale In Zimbabwe Wet Type Continuous Ball Mill . ... Write Zhongde your requirements here , Zhongde personnel will reach you in 24 hours. . 2 ton ball mill small ball mill used ball mill sale. Chat Online. Lab Scale Ball Mill. ... Perfect service Homemade Capacity 1 Ton 2 Tons 5 Tons Per Hour Ball Mill. Chat Online.
Ball Mill 1 Ton Per Hour Used Small Scale Mini 1 2 5 Ton Per Hour 4Tph 4L Laboratory Lab Scale Capacity ..... Gold wash 5 ton per hour ball mill , iron ore grinding machine price.
continuous two ton per hour ball mill conceptengineering. 2 Ton Ball Mill Alibaba. China professional supply 2 tons per hour cement ball mill machine/ceramic ball grinding mill price .
ball mill 10 ton per hour cost price YouTube. Mar 7, 2017 ... Ball mill, 10' diameter (3.05m) x . ... 1,000 ton per hour ball mill price 40 ton per hour ball mill Grinding Mill China 40 ton per hour ball mill.
crusher capacity 500 ton hour crushing cgm supply the price of coal 10 ton per hour gold plant capacity 2 tons per hour in 500 ton per and ball mill; Check price. Mill (grinding) Wikipedia. Ball mills are commonly used W is the work index measured in a laboratory ball mill (kilowatt-hours per metric or short ton) The largest SAG mill is 42' (12 .
250kg per hour ball mill - jspfoundationorg. continuous two ton per hour ball mill thepatriots continuous two ton per hour ball mill and the mill is producing 1/2 ton/hour, 250kg per hour wood MORE INFO 200 .
horizontal lead oxide continuous 2 ton lab ball mill. ... Used Small Scale Mini 1 2 5 Ton Per Hour 4Tph 4L Laboratory Lab Scale .. Lab scale horizontal grinding small conical ball mill for iron ore, cement, gold ore. Get Price. Ball Mill 900*1800 Alibaba.
May 07, 2017· Capacity Per Hour 2 Ton Ball Mill For Sale. Capacity Per Hour 2 Ton Ball Mill For Sale , Find Complete Details about Capacity . As clients' request, we will send technician to the mine site to guide the . to check the equipment working condition, offer suggestions for maintenance, and if.
Layout Of Crushing Plant Of Iron Ore 300 Ton Per Hour. price of a 400 ton per day dolomite crushing machine. ... The approximate cost for a 300 metric tons per day of cement plant … continuous ball mill design; ... cost 2 tonne hour ball mill – Crusher South Africa.
ball mill kapasitas 20 ton - gatewaypreschoolorg. A Ball mill is a horizontal cylinder partly filled with steel balls , 20 tph stone grit unit hammer mill , mineral ball mill 5 ton per hour .
trade assurance 5 ton per hour pellet mill machine for animal feed ... 1 Set (Min. .... good price pellet mill machine 5 ton per hour/sawdust making machine for sale .... Animal Feed Machinery 5 ton per hour Capacity Feed Pellet Mill Steady ... 2-10mm animal feed pellets poultry pellet feed machine/pellet mill machine 5 ton.
Continues Flow Ball Mill is an efficient tool for fine powder grinding. .... offer both Open Circuit and Closed Circuit Ball Mills capacities 2.5 Ton/hour to 50 Ton/hour. .... from small ball mills for fine ceramics to huge grinders for cement industry.


Huntley Equestrian Fancy Stitched Padded Leather Lead with Brass chain is constructed with the finest Sedgwick English Leather, Havana color. The Huntley leather lead includes high quality, durable 1" Inch wide leather that measures 6 Feet long, 12" inches of padding lining starting from the hardware sewn underside of the leather, and 30" inches of brass chain and snap. This leather lead is classically and beautifully constructed with white fancy stitching, soft padding for comfort leading and handling, hand-rubbed edges, brass hardware, finished with a tapered end design. This versatile leather lead is great for everyday use at the barn or traveling to shows. This Huntley leather lead will compliment any halter for any size horse or pony. Available in Havana color.


text:
CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI)
Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Division of Computer and Network Systems
Division of Computing and Communication Foundations
Division of Information & Intelligent Systems
Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
First Wednesday in November, Annually Thereafter
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):
Second Thursday in January, Annually Thereafter
This is a revision of NSF 15-590. The revisions include:
Preliminary proposal and full proposal due dates are one week earlier.
Maximum funding for Community Infrastructure (CI) awards is lowered to $2,000,000.
A limit of 3 Institutional Infrastructure (II) proposals per institution is added.
Preliminary proposals are required to include a set of informational items at the beginning of the project description.
New language clearly stating that PIs, Co-PIs, and senior personnel must all be mentioned in the preliminary proposal is introduced. No additional PIs, Co-PIs, or senior personnel can be added in the associated full proposal. Proposals that violate this rule will be returned without review.
A statement is added clearly noting that a PI may not substantially change the focus or nature of the project from the project described in the associated preliminary proposal.
A requirement that PIs must include the related preliminary proposal number on the cover sheet of the subsequent associated full proposal is added.
New language is added, advising PIs to look for feedback on preliminary proposals in the Program Officer (PO) comments section of the preliminary proposal feedback documents.
Language is added making clear that the CRI program does not fund for-profit industry and will not accept collaborative proposals submitted by for-profit industry.
Details about required letters of collaboration are clarified.
The CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program drives discovery and learning in the core CISE disciplines of the three participating CISE divisions by supporting the creation and enhancement of world-class research infrastructure that will support focused research agendas in computer and information science and engineering. This infrastructure will enable CISE researchers to advance the frontiers of CISE research. Further, through the CRI program, CISE seeks to ensure that individuals from a diverse range of academic institutions, including minority-serving and predominantly undergraduate institutions, have access to such infrastructure.
The CRI program supports two classes of awards:
Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards support the creation of new (II-NEW) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (II-EN) of existing CISE research infrastructure to enable world-class CISE research opportunities at the awardee and collaborating institutions.
Community Infrastructure (CI) awards support the planning (CI-P) for new CISE community research infrastructure, the creation of new (CI-NEW) CISE research infrastructure, the enhancement (CI-EN) of existing CISE infrastructure, or the sustainment (CI-SUSTAIN) of existing CISE community infrastructure to enable world-class CISE research opportunities for broad-based communities of CISE researchers that extend well beyond the awardee institutions. Each CI award may support the operation of such infrastructure, ensuring that the awardee institution(s) is (are) well positioned to provide a high quality of service to CISE community researchers expected to use the infrastructure to realize their research goals.
Harriet G. Taylor, Lead Program Director, 1175, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: htaylor@nsf.gov
Tao Li, Program Director, CCF, 1115, telephone: (703) 292-8238, email: taoli@nsf.gov
Mimi McClure, Associate Program Director, CNS, 1145, telephone: (703) 292-8950, email: mmcclure@nsf.gov
Wendy Nilsen, Program Director, IIS, 1125, telephone: (703) 292-2568, email: wnilsen@nsf.gov
47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
With up to 15 Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards and up to 15 Community Infrastructure (CI) awards in each competition. The majority of the II awards will be made in the $200,000 - $750,000 range, though a small number of II awards may be made in the $750,000 - $1,000,000 range. The majority of the CI awards will be made in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range, though a very small number of CI awards may be made in the $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) awards will be made in the $50,000 - $100,000 range.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $18,000,000
annually, subject to the availability of funds.
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic institutions.
Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research activities.
A university or organization may submit no more than three Institutional Infrastructure (II) proposals per competition. There is no limit on Community Infrastructure (CI) proposals per competition.
These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an institution or organization exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on the earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first three II proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2
In each annual competition, an individual may participate in at most two proposals, across all classes, as PI, Co-PI, or Senior Personnel.
These eligibility constraints will be strictly enforced in order to treat everyone fairly and consistently. In the event that an individual exceeds this limit, proposals received within the limit will be accepted based on the earliest date and time of proposal submission (i.e., the first two proposals received will be accepted and the remainder will be returned without review). No exceptions will be made.
Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
Cost Sharing Requirements:
Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.
Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:
Merit Review Criteria:
National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
Award Conditions:
Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements:
Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.
Since its inception, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported the development of research infrastructure in order to advance the frontiers of science and engineering. These research infrastructure investments enable an academic science and engineering research enterprise that continues to be among the world's best. Similarly, NSF's Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) has a tradition of supporting CISE research infrastructure to enable transformative research at the frontiers of core CISE research disciplines and to provide unique opportunities for current and future generations of CISE researchers. The CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program draws on the rapidly evolving nature of the CISE disciplines and the unique infrastructure needs of CISE researchers to explore and extend the boundaries of CISE research frontiers.
With its CISE Research Infrastructure (CRI) program, CISE drives discovery and learning in the core CISE disciplines covered by the three participating CISE divisions through support for the creation and enhancement of world-class research infrastructure that will enable focused research agendas in computer science. Further, through the CRI program, CISE seeks to ensure that individuals from a diverse range of academic institutions, including minority-serving and predominantly undergraduate institutions, have access to such infrastructure.
Examples of research infrastructure of interest to the program include, but are not limited to: systems of security and monitoring devices, linguistically annotated electronic language and vision corpora, spectrum and protocol analyzers, system testbeds, suites of robots, clusters of graphic processing units, software libraries and tools, networks of wireless and mobile devices, programmable network components, integrated systems of sensors, data repositories and visualization capabilities. These computing infrastructure resources (and others not listed here) are expected to enable unique and compelling research opportunities otherwise inaccessible to the core CISE research community.
Cognizant of the diversity of research infrastructure needs in the CISE research community, the CRI program supports two classes of projects as defined below.
Institutional Infrastructure
Each Institutional Infrastructure (II) award supports the creation of new (II-NEW) CISE research infrastructure or the enhancement (II-EN) of existing CISE research infrastructure. The proposed research infrastructure must enable compelling new research opportunities for the proposing PI or team of PIs and associated students and collaborators (i.e., for individuals at the awardee and collaborating institutions). II proposals involving multiple investigators from one or more departments and/or institutions are welcome. Projects must include substantial involvement of CISE researchers and enable projects with a clear research focus related to the core CISE disciplines. II proposals that are led by or include 2-year, predominantly undergraduate, and/or minority-serving institutions are especially encouraged. II proposals may request up to $1 million total for project durations not to exceed 3 years.
Community Infrastructure
Each Community Infrastructure (CI) award supports:
planning (CI-P) for CISE community research infrastructure,
creation of new (CI-NEW) CISE research infrastructure,
enhancement of existing (CI-EN) CISE research infrastructure, or
sustainment of existing (CI-SUSTAIN) CISE research infrastructure for the long term,
in order to provide compelling new research opportunities for a broad-based community of CISE researchers that extends well beyond the awardee institution(s). Furthermore, each CI award may support the operation of such infrastructure, ensuring that the awardee institution(s) is well positioned to provide a high quality of service to CISE community researchers expected to use the infrastructure to realize their research goals. CI projects should include a vision for future long-term community sustainability and operation of the infrastructure. Projects must include substantial involvement of CISE researchers and enable a focused research agenda related to the core CISE disciplines. CI proposals must provide compelling evidence that a diverse community of investigators will find the proposed infrastructure valuable to their research endeavors.
Support for CI projects is provided in four award categories:
CI Planning (CI-P): Will fund grants of up to $100,000 for durations of up to 1.5 years to prepare for the submission of a CI-NEW or CI-EN proposal; and
CI New (CI-NEW): Will fund grants of up to $2 million for durations of up to 3 years to create new CISE research infrastructure (NSF will provide no more than $250,000 per year for operating the infrastructure);
CI Enhancement (CI-EN): Will fund grants of up to $2 million for durations of up to 3 years to enhance existing CISE research infrastructure (NSF will provide no more than $250,000 per year for operating the infrastructure); and
CI Sustainability (CI-SUSTAIN): Will fund grants of up to $1 million for durations of up to 3 years to provide, for an existing infrastructure that is of value to the community, resources for (a) continued operation and (b) the implementation of a credible plan for achieving community sustainability at the end of the 3 years of funding (NSF will provide no more than $250,000 per year for operating the infrastructure). Projects that have received prior CI-EN awards (or legacy awards such as CI-ADDO-EN) must use this route for continued CRI funding. Resources that receive a CI-SUSTAIN award are not eligible for any future funding from the CRI program.
Organizations may submit CI-NEW and CI-EN proposals without having previously received CI-P grants. However, it is often the case that CI-NEW proposals benefit from a significant planning activity, often via a CI-P award. In particular, investigators considering new CI projects should ensure that their proposed projects are sufficiently well-developed and based on prototypes or preliminary investigations.
The receipt of a CI-P grant does not guarantee support for a subsequent CI-NEW or CI-EN proposal.
Projects that involve enhancements of either institutional or community infrastructure must show clear evidence of:
Success of the initial implementation;
Usage by a diverse population of CISE researchers;
Need for and benefits of the enhancement; and
CISE community support for the enhancement.
Successful CISE Research Infrastructure projects often:
Provide infrastructure that enables research with a clear intellectual focus related to the CISE core disciplines that the three participating CISE divisions support. A clear research agenda that is enabled by the implementation of the infrastructure is the central element of a successful CRI project. In particular, each CRI project demonstrates a clearly focused research agenda associated with a group of research faculty with expertise in the particular CISE sub-disciplinary focus area.
Involve participation by a group of CISE-focused researchers and leadership by CISE discipline researchers. Projects may enable other faculty and interdisciplinary groups, but clear CISE participation, involvement, and interest in the research is essential.
Enable innovative CISE research that is not possible without the infrastructure and that support emerging CISE research frontiers.
While educational benefits and outreach to a diverse group of researchers are also desirable elements of successful projects, projects that do not enable CISE disciplinary research are not responsive to the CRI solicitation. The primary motivations and outcomes from CRI funding must be related to potential research outcomes rather than potential educational benefits.
The CISE Research Infrastructure program is a special program offered by the CISE Directorate to focus on the unique infrastructure needs of CISE disciplinary researchers. CRI is about enabling change and transformative research in CISE core disciplines. CRI does not typically support upgrades of university computing facilities or infrastructure for groups that are primarily made up of non-CISE researchers.
CRI seeks projects that support a focused research agenda related to the CISE core disciplines; the focus must be clear and not simply computer science broadly across a range of disciplines. The emergence of Big Data and its involvement in research is now driving the need to upgrade and enhance infrastructure at many institutions. CRI needs to invest wisely in such infrastructure and support those projects that enable a compelling and focused research agenda related to Big Data and any associated data science methodologies. CRI proposals that are based on Big Data as the underlying research driver for the infrastructure must clearly describe a more focused research agenda related to specific types of Big Data and detail the Big Data to which the researchers involved in the associated research projects have access or reasonably expect to have access if the infrastructure is developed, enhanced, or sustained.
CRI provides the funding needed to create, enhance, or sustain research infrastructure. While this infrastructure should benefit a group of researchers pursuing subsequent research projects utilizing the infrastructure, the work required for the CRI project itself often does not require a large team of PIs and Co-PIs. CRI proposals should therefore only include personnel as PIs and Co-PIs who have a direct role in the CRI project itself. A CRI project descriptions must include a workplan that shows how the PIs and Co-PIs will share the responsibility for implementing the CRI projects. Vitae of others who might use the resource for their research may be included in the CRI proposals to demonstrate the research capacity of institutions for using the resource effectively.
Likewise, the past years have seen the emergence of a number of community resources and testbeds funded through CRI, NSF, and other sources to support CISE research. For example, cloud computing resources such as NSFFutureCloud as well as the collection of cloud resources now available beyond those supported by NSF offer excellent opportunities for investigations and data management that do not require significant additional infrastructure investments. Researchers should first consider use of currently available resources before submitting a CRI proposal. All CRI proposals must clearly demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed research agenda demand the new or enhanced infrastructure requested in the CRI proposal and cannot be accomplished using other existing resources.
Since CRI does not typically support researchers in other disciplines who are simply employing existing computing and computational science approaches in their research, these researchers might look to infrastructure programs in their related NSF Directorate for possible support. Other NSF infrastructure programs that might be appropriate include those offered by CISE's Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) such as Campus Cyberinfrastructure (CC*) and Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs), as well as the NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program.
NSF expects to make the following types of award(s): Standard or Continuing Grants. Up to 15 Institutional Infrastructure (II) awards and up to 15 Community Infrastructure (CI) awards are anticipated in each competition. The majority of the II awards will be made in the $200,000 - $750,000 range, though a small number of II awards may be made in the $750,000 - $1,000,000 range. The majority of the CI awards will be made in the $500,000 - $1,000,000 range, though a very small number of CI awards may be made in the $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 range. The majority of the Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) awards will be made in the $50,000 - $100,000 range.
Additional Eligibility Info:
Infrastructures that have received prior CI-EN or legacy (e.g., CI-ADDO-EN) awards may only submit proposals to the CI-SUSTAIN track. Resources that receive a CI-SUSTAIN award are not eligible for any future funding from the CRI program. The resource must either be transitioned to long-term community sustainment or seek other sources of funding at the end of the CI-SUSTAIN funding.
Preliminary Proposals (required): Preliminary proposals are required and must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system, even if full proposals will be submitted via Grants.gov.
Submitters will receive feedback from program staff indicating either encourage or discourage. An encourage finding generally indicates that the proposal appears to be responsive to the CRI program guidelines and is a candidate for further development relative to the CRI solicitation. A discourage finding generally indicates that the project is typically not responsive to the CRI program, is more suited to another NSF opportunity, or has serious conceptual flaws that would not benefit from further development as a CRI submission. Project-specific feedback will be in the Program Officer Comments (PO Comments) section of the Encourage or Discourage response rather than in formal reviews. The feedback provided pursuant to the preliminary proposal is advisory only; submitters of both "encouraged" and "discouraged" preliminary proposals are eligible to submit full proposals.
Submission of a Preliminary Proposal is required to be eligible to submit a Full Proposal. Preliminary proposals must be submitted, via FastLane, by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on the due date for preliminary proposals.
Preliminary proposals are started in the same way as new full proposals.
Proposers must be sure to check the box "If this is a preliminary proposal then check here" in the middle of the cover sheet.
This box appears on the cover sheet template just under the section labeled "Previous NSF Award." Check the box to indicate that you are submitting a preliminary proposal and then submit the three pieces (cover sheet, project description, and one biographical sketch) as detailed below.
For collaborative projects, a single preliminary proposal should be submitted by the lead institution only. The collaborative partners should be indicated in the Collaborative Partners section of the preliminary proposal as described below.
All PIs, Co-PIs, and senior personnel who are to be included in the full proposal must be listed in the preliminary proposal. Full proposals may not add any additional PIs, Co-PIs, senior personnel or collaborators. Full proposals that include personnel not listed in the corresponding preliminary proposals will be returned without review. Note that while personnel listed in a given preliminary proposal can be excluded from the corresponding full proposal, the lead PI cannot change.
The CRI program does not accept submissions from for-profit industry. While CRI projects may include collaboration with industry, they cannot include collaborative submissions from industry collaborators or funding of industry collaborators.
Required components of the preliminary proposal are given below. Page limitations given here will be strictly enforced. Proposers should review the most current NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedure Guide (PAPPG) for specific information on signatures and format for the required sections.
The preliminary proposal should consist of three elements: cover sheet, project description, and bio-sketch. No other sections are required or may be included in the preliminary proposal.
Cover Sheet. The PI and all Co-PIs should be indicated. The budget indicated on the Cover Sheet should be the overall project budget total including all collaborative pieces. The Project Title on the Cover Sheet should begin with CRI Preliminary followed by a colon, then the acronym for the CRI project type (II-New, II-EN, CI-P, CI-New, CI-EN, or CI-SUSTAIN), followed by a colon, then the project title.
Project Description (2-page limit). The following information is required at the beginning of the project description:
Project title;
Project type (II-New, II-EN, CI-P, CI-New, CI-EN, or CI-SUSTAIN);
Project Personnel: This should include the following three sections with the indicated section titles clearly shown in the preliminary proposal:
1. Lead Institution: List the PI, Co-PIs, and Senior Personnel and their departmental affiliations;
2. Institutions submitting collaborative proposals: For each collaborating institution, list the PI, Co-PIs, and Senior Personnel with their institutional and departmental affiliations; clearly indicate the lead PI as well as any Co-PIs;
3. Other Collaborators: List other non-funded collaborators and their institutional affiliations; if there are no external collaborators, simply put No External Collaborators for the content of this section;
CISE core division (CCF, CNS, IIS) most relevant for the submission – the CISE division to which the proposal will be submitted;
Projected budget total (total of all collaborative pieces): This should be a good ballpark estimate rather than a formal budget; and
Three keyword descriptors for the research focus that the requested infrastructure will enable.
The Project Description should then have the following clearly labeled sections:
A concise description of the infrastructure to be developed, enhanced, or sustained. This includes a description of major equipment needs for the project as well as other significant costs. Projects that involve enhancements to, or sustainment of, existing infrastructures should include information about the existing resources.
The CISE Research Focus. This section describes the research focus that is enabled by the infrastructure, the importance of the research problems to advancing CISE research frontiers, and the expertise of the research team relative to the focused research thrust. The description should identify the project team and detail each member's contributions to the project as well as specific expertise relative to the proposed focused research agenda. Note that Big Data and computational science across a variety of disciplines need more specific research focus descriptions including the specific data that are involved and available and the specific research goals that advance computational science, respectively, as opposed to simply employing Big Data and computational science techniques in a broad range of applications.
Sample research project. A short (2-3 sentences) summary of one potential research project should be included.
The nature of the community involvement (required for CI-P, CI-New, CI-EN, or CI-SUSTAIN projects). This section demonstrates the community involvement in the creation, enhancement, evaluation, and use of the resource. Describe the research community involved in the project. CI-New projects should show the community involvement and demand for the project as well as indicate the community commitment to establishing and using the infrastructure. CI-EN and CI-SUSTAIN projects should describe community usage of the infrastructure as well as community involvement in enhancement and sustainment efforts.
The relevance to CISE. This section should include:
A list of specific CISE researchers who are involved in the leadership of the project and in the development, enhancement, or sustainment of the infrastructure;
A list of the CISE researchers communities that will benefit from the infrastructure; and
A list of any prior CISE funding the infrastructure has received. Enhancement projects should also include the approximate date when the infrastructure involved was established.
Biographical Sketch (2-page limit). A biographical sketch is required for the PI on the proposal or on the lead proposal for collaborative projects. The biographical sketch for the PI on the lead proposal is the only biographical sketch that should be included in the preliminary proposal.
Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. PAPPG Chapter II.D.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.
The following supplements guidance found in the PAPPG and/or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.
Full proposals are extensions of the associated preliminary proposals. A given project's focus and overall scope cannot change substantially from the corresponding preliminary proposal. The title of the full proposal should be the same as the title of the preliminary proposal, except without the "Preliminary" component (see below).
The associated preliminary proposal number must be included on the cover sheet of the full proposal in the box "Show Related Preliminary Proposal No. If Applicable." Only the Lead Proposal of a set of collaborative proposals needs to include the preliminary proposal number on the cover sheet of the full proposal.
Proposal Titles: Proposal titles must begin with CRI followed by a colon, followed by an acronym that indicates the type of CRI proposal being submitted. Select an acronym from the following list:
II-NEW: Institutional Infrastructure proposals requesting support for new CISE research infrastructure;
II-EN: Institutional Infrastructure proposals requesting support to enhance existing CISE research infrastructure;
CI-P: Community Infrastructure Planning proposals requesting support to prepare for future Community Infrastructure NEW (CI-NEW) or Community Infrastructure Enhancement (CI-EN) proposals;
CI-NEW: Community Infrastructure proposals requesting support to create new CISE research infrastructure;
CI-EN: Community Infrastructure Enhancement proposals requesting support to enhance existing CISE research infrastructure; or
CI-SUSTAIN: Community Infrastructure Sustainment projects requesting support for continued operations while a significant plan for achieving community sustainability is implemented.
The acronym should be followed by a colon, then the title of the CRI project. For example, if you are submitting a proposal to enhance existing institutional infrastructure, then the title would be CRI: II-EN: Title.
Collaborative proposals should start with the CRI project type and then include the required words "Collaborative Research," for example, CRI: II-EN: Collaborative Research: Project Title.
Project Summary: The Project Summary consists of an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.
Provide 3-5 high-level keyword descriptors for the project at the end of the overview in the Project Summary. Include descriptors of the CISE core discipline(s) that is (are) most closely related to the intellectual focus of the research that the infrastructure will enable. You may also include a basic descriptor of the type of infrastructure. CISE personnel will use this information in implementing the merit review process. Keywords should be prefaced with "Keywords" followed by a colon and should be separated by semi-colons.
Project Description: The preparation instructions for Institutional Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure proposals are different. PIs are encouraged to read the following instructions carefully when preparing their proposals.
Institutional Infrastructure (II) Proposals:
Within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:
Proposed CISE research infrastructure and its estimated lifetime, noting whether it is new infrastructure to be created or existing infrastructure to be enhanced;
Compelling new CISE research opportunities that will result from the availability of the proposed infrastructure;
Researchers, educators, and students (including affiliated institutions) who will benefit from the proposed infrastructure creation or enhancement, including the synergies in their interests;
CISE disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups within the participating institutions that will use the infrastructure;
Existing related resources along with a justification that the proposed research cannot be accomplished with these resources at the institution or elsewhere;
Samples of focused research projects or agendas that the infrastructure will enable (note that the novelty and innovative aspects must be evident along with clear evidence that the proposed infrastructure is essential to moving CISE research frontiers forward);
Awardee institution(s) commitment to operating and maintaining the infrastructure for its estimated useful life; and
Detailed project management plan, with timeline, to create and deploy the new or enhance the existing research infrastructure; this plan should include a workplan that shows roles and responsibilities of each PI and Co-PI in establishing or enhancing the infrastructure associated with the CRI proposal.
If the proposed activity is for the enhancement of existing infrastructure (II-EN), in addition to describing the new research and education opportunities afforded by the proposed enhancement, also provide evidence of:
Prior research and education contributions the infrastructure enabled and the researchers, educators and students it served [evidence of prior contributions may include innovative research results, refereed publications and theses that used the infrastructure, use by courses, courseware developed, software tool development, dissemination and use statistics (e.g., numbers of users, citations, etc.), technology transfer, and other government or industry support, etc.];
Outreach to a diverse population of researchers;
Community satisfaction with the resource and community support for the proposed enhancement;
Detailed project management plan, with timeline, to create and deploy the new or enhance the existing research infrastructure; this plan should include a workplan that shows roles and responsibilities of each PI and Co-PI in establishing or enhancing the infrastructure associated with the CRI proposal; and
Institutional plans to provide long-term sustainability of the infrastructure.
Community Infrastructure (CI) Proposals:
For CI Planning (CI-P) proposals, within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:
Research infrastructure envisioned, whether it is new infrastructure to be created or existing infrastructure to be enhanced along with the rationale and need for the infrastructure;
Communities that will use the proposed NEW infrastructure or that have used the existing infrastructure;
Compelling new CISE research opportunities enabled by the infrastructure;
CISE sub-disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups that will use the infrastructure;
Planning activities and timeline, including ways in which the related CISE research community will be involved in the design and creation of the infrastructure;
Clear identification of individuals involved in the planning process and associated community interactions;
Evidence that the new or enhanced infrastructure has community support and that any planned extensions meet the needs of the community (note that planning proposals for future CI-EN projects should include evidence that the current infrastructure that is to be enhanced has been used by CISE research communities and that these communities now desire the extensions envisioned); and
Indications of plans for a future CI-NEW or CI-EN proposal (the timeline and activities should be clearly arranged to align with future CRI submission dates and criteria).
For CI-NEW or CI-EN proposals, within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:
Proposed CISE research infrastructure and its estimated lifetime, noting whether it is new infrastructure to be created and operated or existing infrastructure to be enhanced and operated;
Compelling new CISE research opportunities enabled by the proposed infrastructure (including a description of the steps taken to identify the research opportunities enabled by the infrastructure as well as evidence that a diverse community of users plan to use the capabilities provided);
CISE sub-disciplines that will benefit from the infrastructure and CISE-centric research groups within the participating institutions that will use the infrastructure;
Samples of focused research projects or agendas that the infrastructure will enable (note that the novelty and innovative aspects of the research must be evident along with clear evidence that the proposed infrastructure is essential to moving CISE research frontiers forward);
Quality of service commitment to the relevant CISE research community;
Means by which user satisfaction will be evaluated and used to refine and improve subsequent infrastructure operations;
Plans for outreach to ensure that a broad community of users is engaged;
Community plans to provide long-term sustainability of the infrastructure;
Qualifications of the PIs and the project team to manage the creation or enhancement and operations of the research infrastructure in support of its users; and
Detailed project management plan, including a timeline, that outlines all steps to be undertaken to acquire, develop, and/or operate the research infrastructure, and identify the parties responsible for each major task; this plan should include a workplan that shows roles and responsibilities of each PI and Co-PI in establishing or enhancing the infrastructure associated with the CRI proposal.
If the proposed activity is for the enhancement of existing infrastructure (CI-EN), in addition to describing the new research and education opportunities afforded by the proposed enhancement also provide evidence of:
A workplan that shows roles and responsibilities of each PI and Co-PI in establishing or enhancing the infrastructure associated with the CRI proposal; and
Community plans to provide long-term sustainability of the infrastructure.
For CI-SUSTAIN proposals, within the 15 pages allocated for the Project Description, describe the:
Basic infrastructure with its development history;
CISE sub-disciplines that have benefited from the infrastructure and CISE researchers involved in the development and leadership roles;
Community satisfaction with the existing resource and community support for any proposed enhancements as well as sustained operation;
Coherent and detailed plan for achieving community sustainability of the infrastructure during the three years of funding of the project. This plan should include concrete steps, communities involved, and steps that will ensure success of the plan. The proposal should also describe any prior steps that have been taken towards community sustainability and their results. It should also describe the rationale for the approach and the factors that indicate that the plan can be successful.
If the proposed infrastructure is related to previously NSF-funded infrastructure, describe the extent to which the previously funded infrastructure will be integrated with the new infrastructure. Describe how funds remaining from earlier NSF grants for related infrastructure will be integrated with the requested award.
CI proposals should also include a well-reasoned budget justification that clearly distinguishes the costs to (1) acquire, develop and deploy the new or enhanced infrastructure; and (2) operate the proposed infrastructure. (Note that NSF will support operations at levels not to exceed $250,000 each year.)
Proposers are reminded that, as specified in PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d:
The Project Description must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a section labeled "Broader Impacts." This section should provide a discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities.
Results from Prior NSF Support: If any PI or co-PI identified on the proposal has received NSF funding with a start date in the past five years (including any current funding and no-cost extensions), information on the award is required for each PI and co-PI, regardless of whether the support was directly related to the proposal. In cases where the PI or co-PI has received more than one award (excluding amendments), they need only report on the one award most closely related to the proposal. Funding includes not just salary support, but any funding awarded by NSF. Please refer to the PAPPG for details about the information that must be provided. Further requirements for this section of the proposal are in the PAPPG. Note that these results from prior NSF support must be separately described under two distinct headings, "Intellectual Merit" and "Broader Impacts."
Proposals without these two distinct sections within the Project Description may be returned without review.
Supplementary Documents: In the Supplementary Documents Section, upload the following information where relevant:
List of Project Personnel and Partner Institutions (Note: In collaborative proposals, the lead institution should provide this information for all participants):
Provide current, accurate information for all personnel and institutions involved in the project. NSF staff will use this information in the merit review process to manage conflicts of interest. The list must include all PIs, Co-PIs, Senior Personnel, paid/unpaid Consultants or Collaborators, Subawardees, Postdocs, and project-level advisory committee members. This list should be numbered and include (in this order) Full name; Organization(s); and Role in the project, with each item separated by a semi-colon. Each person listed should start a new numbered line. For example:
Mary Smith; XYZ University; PI
John Jones; University of PQR; Senior Personnel
Jane Brown; XYZ University; Postdoc
Bob Adams; ABC Community College; Paid Consultant
Susan White; DEF Corporation; Unpaid Collaborator
Tim Green; ZZZ University; Subawardee
Data Management Plan (required):
Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "Data Management Plan." This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results.
See Chapter II.C.2.j of the PAPPG for full policy.
For additional information see: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp.
For specific guidance for proposals submitted to the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) see: https://www.nsf.gov/cise/cise_dmp.jsp.
Proposals that include Data Management Plans exceeding two pages in length will not be accepted or will be returned without review.
Documentation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal through Letters of Collaboration:
There are two types of collaboration, one involving individuals/organizations that are included in the budget, and the other involving individuals/organizations that are not included in the budget. Collaborations that are included in the budget should be described in the Project Description. Any substantial collaboration with individuals/organizations not included in the budget should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal (see PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.i). In either case, whether or not the collaborator is included in the budget, a letter of collaboration from each named participating organization must be provided at the time of submission of the proposal. Such letters must explicitly state the nature of the collaboration, appear on the organization's letterhead and be signed by the appropriate organizational representative.
Please note that letters of support may not be submitted. Such letters do not document collaborative arrangements of significance to the project, but primarily convey a sense of enthusiasm for the project and/or highlight the qualifications of the PI or Co-PI. Reviewers will be instructed not to consider these letters of support in reviewing the merits of the proposal.
Other specialized information:
RUI Proposals: PIs from predominantly undergraduate institutions should include a Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Impact Statement and Certification of RUI Eligibility in this Section.
GOALI proposals: PIs submitting GOALI proposals should include industry-university agreement letters on intellectual property in this section.
No other supplementary documents, except as permitted by the NSF PAPPG, are allowed.
Single Copy Documents
Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information: In lieu of the instructions specified in the PAPPG, Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information should be submitted as follows:
For this solicitation, the Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) information specified in the PAPPG should be submitted using the spreadsheet template found at https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/coa.jsp. For each proposal, a completed spreadsheet for each PI, co-PI, and Senior Personnel should be uploaded directly into Fastlane in .xls or .xlsx format as a "Collaborator and Other Affiliations" Single Copy Document. NSF staff use this information in the merit review process to help manage reviewer selection; the spreadsheet will ensure the COA information has a common, searchable format. Submitters using grants.gov may upload this document as a PDF.
The following table is a synopsis of the above:
CRI Project Type
Maximum Funding
Operation Max
Institutional Infrastructure - New (II-NEW)
Document the need for the new infrastructure in light of existing infrastructure available within and outside the participating institution (s).
Demonstrate CISE research community support within the participating institutions.
Show how the infrastructure will enable innovative CISE disciplinary research.
Infrastructure primarily benefits research communities at the institutions of the PI or collaborative PIs.
Infrastructure enables compelling research for CISE researchers that may extend the frontiers of the core CISE disciplines.
Institutional Infrastructure - Enhancement (II-EN)
Document the need and support for the enhancement within the institution's communities.
Demonstrate the success of the initial implementation.
Community Infrastructure - Planning
(CI-P)
Specify a concrete planning strategy, timeline, and set of activities for developing a future full CRI proposal.
Describe a vision for the infrastructure, including possible new research opportunities that could be realized.
Justify the need for the infrastructure as well as CISE community support for the infrastructure.
Show how CISE researchers will be involved in the planning as well as future development activities.
Infrastructure benefits a broad-based community of CISE researchers that extends well beyond awardee institutions.
Proposal includes outreach to communities and commitment to high-quality service.
Community Infrastructure - New (CI-NEW)
Document the need for the new infrastructure in light of existing infrastructure available to the relevant CISE research communities.
Community Infrastructure - Enhancement (CI-EN)
Document the need, and support for, the enhancement within the relevant communities.
Document support from, and use by, the CISE research community beyond participating institutions.
Community Infrastructure - Sustainment (CI-SUSTAIN)
Demonstrate the success of the resource and use by the community.
Justify the value of continuing operations without enhancement or with the proposed enhancements.
Provide a credible plan for moving to long-term community sustainability.
Ensure that funds to engage the community to implement this plan are reflected in the project budget.
Sustained operations of existing CISE infrastructure of proven value to the research community.
Credible plan during the three years of funding to move to long-term community sustainability for the resource.
Resources that have had a prior CI-EN award must use this route for continued funding.
Cost Sharing:
Budget Preparation Instructions:
The CRI program funds the development and implementation of CISE-centric research infrastructure. CRI does not fund the associated research that is subsequently enabled by the infrastructure. Typically CRI provides at most modest funds for faculty directly related to faculty involvement in the development and implementation of the infrastructure. Likewise CRI only supports funds for graduate students and other technical support essential to the development of the infrastructure. Projects requesting graduate student support should request limited, if any, faculty support as needed to establish the infrastructure. Any proposal requesting direct student support in operations and maintenance or development efforts must justify that involvement in terms of both project needs and the training of the next generation of instrumentalists (reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement). Modest operational funds may be included for community infrastructure. Universities must assume operational costs for institutional infrastructure and demonstrate a clear commitment and plan to maintain and operate the infrastructure after the end of the CRI funding.
For II and CI projects, the CRI program supports:
The acquisition and/or development of new software tools, equipment, testbeds, resources, platforms, etc.;
The enhancement (through acquisition and/or development) of existing software tools, equipment, testbeds, resources, platforms, etc.;
Travel expenses necessary for coordination of multi-institutional projects;
Technical personnel essential to the successful design, acquisition, development, and deployment of the proposed research infrastructure; and
Postdocs, graduate and/or undergraduate students to participate in the design, acquisition and/or development of the proposed research infrastructure.
For CI projects ONLY, CRI supports:
Professional staff critical to the operation of the infrastructure, including providing effective user support;
Postdocs, graduate and/or undergraduate students to participate in the operation and assessment of the infrastructure as long as these activities do not constitute research;
Outreach and participation activities like workshops or training activities that broaden participation and prepare researchers, educators and students to use the proposed infrastructure effectively;
Assessment activities that evaluate project outcomes; and
Attendance by the PI (and Co-PIs as desired by the project team) at an annual CRI community infrastructure PI meeting (at least $1,500 per year must be included in the project budget for this purpose).
The CRI program will not provide support for the following items:
General-purpose personal computing equipment, office equipment, software, databases, etc.;
Individual research enabled by the infrastructure; or
Travel to present research results.
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.
Within the context of the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria, reviewers will be asked to consider the following issues when preparing their reviews:
For Institutional Infrastructure (II) proposals:
Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the proposed infrastructure will result in compelling new CISE research and education opportunities?
How well does the proposed research focus fit with CISE core disciplines? Are CISE researchers involved in an integral way, particularly in leadership positions?
Does the proposal provide plans for use by a diverse group of researchers?
Does the proposing institution(s) make a convincing case for their commitment to maintain and operate the infrastructure for its useful life?
Is the project management plan, including timeline, costs, and personnel, realistic?
For Community Infrastructure Planning (CI-P) proposals:
How well does the research focus that the proposed infrastructure enables fit with CISE core disciplines? Are CISE researchers involved in an integral way in the CRI project, particularly in leadership positions?
Does the proposal provide evidence of community need for the infrastructure as well as community involvement in the design and implementation of the infrastructure?
Is there clear evidence that the new infrastructure or the enhanced infrastructure meets the needs of the community that is involved and that the community supports the development of the infrastructure? Has any existing infrastructure been used successfully by the community, particularly CISE researchers?
Is there a sound project management plan, including timeline and personnel?
Is the planning focused around preparation for a full infrastructure implementation and submission of a future CI-New or CI-EN proposal?
For Community Infrastructure NEW (CI-New) and Community Infrastructure Enhancement (CI-EN) proposals:
Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the research infrastructure will result in compelling new research and education opportunities?
Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that a diverse community of users plans to use the capabilities provided?
Is existing similar infrastructure available to the community? How is this infrastructure different, and is development of the new infrastructure or enhancement of the existing infrastructure justified with respect to other existing infrastructure available to the community?
Have the PIs convincingly demonstrated that the project team has the skills necessary to acquire, develop, and/or operate community research infrastructure so as to provide a high level of service and support for a broadly-based community of users?
To what extent does the proposal convincingly describe the means by which user satisfaction will be evaluated and used to refine and improve subsequent infrastructure services and operations?
If the proposal is for new community infrastructure, has the team demonstrated community support for the infrastructure and plans for community involvement in the development and future use of the infrastructure?
If the proposal describes plans to enhance existing infrastructure, determine the extent to which:
The proposal builds a convincing case that the existing infrastructure has enabled compelling research and education opportunities. Evidence of this may include innovative research results, refereed publications and theses that used the infrastructure, use by courses, courseware developed, software tool development, dissemination and use, technology transfer, and other government or industry support, etc.;
The PIs convincingly demonstrated that they have provided a high level of user support for a broad-based research and education community.
For Community Infrastructure Sustainment (CI-SUSTAIN) proposals:
Does the proposal provide convincing evidence that the research infrastructure has resulted in compelling new research and education opportunities?
Determine the extent to which:
The PIs convincingly demonstrate that they have provided a high level of user support for a broad-based research and education community.
Is there a credible plan for achieving long-term community sustainability at the end of the CRI funding? Are the steps in the plan realistic and appropriate? Is the community involved in an integral way in the implementation of the plan?
Is there evidence that the resource is of value to the community through simply funding continued operations while moving toward long-term community sustainment?
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.
Related Programs:
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314
National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (703) 292-5090 or (800) 281-8749

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This page shows you the waiting times at about 40 Kela offices. The information is updated on a nearly real-time basis between 9 am and 4 pm, Monday to Friday.
The status is updated each time a new customer is served.
For the addresses and opening hours of Kela's entire network of 182 offices, see the customer service locator.


...albums feel a little intimidating. During those first years, selling anything (even the wedding coverage!) felt slimy and awkward to me. I felt like I'd totally rock a meeting with a potential couple, but then at the end, I'd clam up. I didn't know how to mention money or how to ask if they'd like to book. Even mentioning them booking me felt like I was pressuring them! Ughhhh!
So when it came to adding albums to my packages, I worried endlessly about selling such an expensive item. It totally felt like I was trying to sell my clients on something even pricier, and I thought "who would want that?" (this whole subject around becoming a confident sales person rooted in service, upping your sales before even saying a word, etc is something we get into at my workshops, so make sure you ).
So it totally shocked me when, soon after adding albums as an option, the majority of my clients were excited to get one (and often mentioned it as one of their priorities!).
Fast forward a bit, and now the overwhelming majority of my couples either purchase a package with an album or add one on after the wedding. It's completely changed my business and the way I serve my couples.
So if you're on the fence about including albums in your packages, here's a little round-up of some of the biggest reasons why you should just go ahead and do it!
When people first start selling albums, the expense of albums often leads them to feel like they're selling, rather than serving. It honestly couldn't be further from the truth.
A physical album distills brings the story of the wedding day to life using the couples' very favorite photos. It's something tangible that can be looked through often, it's resilient enough for kids to look through, it's beautifully designed, and it's something that can be passed down and appreciated for generations.
Even though there are options for printing on their own, the album design process can be really overwhelming! Most couples won't actually end up ordering an album on their own - regular life and overwhelm get in the way. Though there are some companies couples can use to print an album, they offer limited quality and design options - cue the frustration and overwhelm! Using your expertise to lead couples through the design process is an incredibly helpful. You have the ability to provide them with a beautifully designed album with minimum stress or effort on their part. Pretty sweet, right?
Not long after adding albums to my packages, they began bringing in additional $20-30k per year including album upgrades.
$20-30k! Can you imagine all you could do for your business and in your life with that added revenue?
Plus, plenty of couples already know that an album is important to them, so you're likely losing them if you don't offer albums. Offering albums can also help you attract a higher end clientele with higher budgets and give you some extra legitimacy when you're in the beginning years of your business!
This last one is a little more abstract, but it's really important. Albums are a great way to get more comfortable with sales in general. They offer plenty of options for up sells - extra spreads, larger sizes, premium album cover materials, etc. As you become comfortable with up selling these things with the intention of serving your couples, you'll find yourself becoming a stronger, more confident salesperson as well! That's essential for growing your business down the road, so it's great that albums offer such a great way to improve the way you serve and sell to your clients.
I've got you, friend! Click here to snag my free guide to buying, pricing, designing, and proofing beautiful albums efficiently!
I'm even sharing my exact album design/design approval workflow with you. This one is SUPER jam-packed with really awesome info. Can't wait to share it with you guys!
Take me to the Album Quickstart Guide!
After you read through the guide, send me an email or a DM to let me know how the album process is going for you! I LOVE hearing all about your wins!
As always, if you have any other questions you'd like me to answer, just send me an email or a DM, and you might just see it end up on the blog!
Beautiful album images courtesy of my girl Jules at Julianna J Photography!


Group crab feast menu and pricing is available for groups of 40 or more.
Trays of Hot Steamed Crabs are served by our staff at each table. The feast includes steamed shrimp, bbq or fried chicken, corn on the cob, cole slaw, potato salad, and corn bread. Beverage choice of coffee, soda, and iced tea are also included.
All food is to be eaten on the premises and we do not allow for any food to be taken home.
There is a two hour time limit for the crab feast. Not available holidays or holiday weekends.
$ 62.00 per person, all inclusive., $ 56.00 on weekdays, all inclusive.
** Crab feast pricing is subject to market price changes prior to having a signed contract.


IronFX IronFx pride themselves on their transparency.
They offer three account types: This broker offers a very wide array of reports for clients to track their accounts. IronFX offers fixed forex broker requirements variable spreads to suit different trading styles and volumes.
forex broker requirements Clients can use Gold as collateral to open trading positions. So for traders keen to own gold over the medium to long term, FXTM is a compelling option.
FXTM also offers forex cs pattern wide range of educational material for novice traders. They offer trading via the full range of MetaTrader forex broker requirements as well as their in-house platform. From time to time FXTM offer generous sign up bonuses, so check their website for the latest offers.
FxPro offers a wide range of pricing plans to suit clients requiremnts varying account sizes and trade volumes. Premium accounts give clients access to a dedicated account manager, and access to faster servers if you trade with MT4 or MT5.
Premium accounts give clients access to broker requirements forex wide forex broker requirements of expert advisors and other algos formation forex en ligne trade automatically.
They offer forex trading as well as trading in equities, commodities and indices.
Clients can trade using the slick website, mobile apps and MT4. They are also listed on the LSE.
They also offer options on Forex, something few brokers are able to do. Saxo Capital Markets is owned by Saxo Bank who act as a market maker and forex broker requirements ensure liquidity and better prices. Saxo offer lower leverage than most brokers, and also increase margin requirements with larger trades.
Saxo also offers trading in CFDs, equities, commodities and other instruments. The parent company, Saxo Bank, is based in Denmark. The forex broker requirements three account types: The larger accounts have lower spreads, but higher minimum commissions, so the pricing works out well for larger accounts.
They are actually one of the few FX brokers to provide access to the hugely popular Ninja Trader. Next comes pricing, the responsiveness of customer support and the trading platforms offered.
The leverage a broker offers should forex broker requirements the last factor considered. Trading with leverage of to 1 is very risky, so anything more than that is unnecessary.
Decide which currency pairs you will trade, the position size you will trade and how many forex broker requirements you will execute each month.
Then look at the pricing to work out which pricing plan is right for your trading.
Some brokers will advertise very small spreads — but these only come when you pay commission. These commission structures will often forex broker requirements you to trade too often, and too big.
There are thousands of brokers around and numerous scams. One of the biggest forex broker requirements flags is when clients struggle to withdraw cash from their trading account.
South Africa has a strong banking system, but it is rumored to be also corrupted. This is also forex broker requirements of the reasons why only a modest number of international Forex brokers can be found in South Africa. Still, interested South African traders are glad that they can broker requirements forex within the country, given that they face certain problems with offshore investments.
Often, traders do not ever get their profits on offshore investments. This clearly indicates a problem with business flow and international affairs of the country, but yet some of the biggest Forex companies managed to master forex broker requirements hindrances and meanwhile offer their services in South Africa.
South Africa requiremejts made a significant step by giving authority to the FSB to regulate the Forex market. They introduced some structure and abiding rules in the poorly regulated country.
Still, traders need to be aware that Forex is highly decentralized and many fraudsters will try to abuse the situation, either forex broker requirements Western Europe or South Africa. You can contact the relevant authorities for information on brokers.
The golden rule in the Forex industry is brlker select the right broker regardless of where you trade.
It is more important who your broker is than their forex broker requirements. South African traders seem to be grateful for the development of the Forex market.
Many of them hope to secure main profits from the industry. FSB registered brokers have to comply with the laws and regulations of the country.
The FSB maintains a detailed website on their activities and scope of duties. Many international broker companies registered with FSB to expand their services to South Forex broker requirements and to gain the trust of locals.
For more info about bringing money into the country, you can check with the SARB. However, while there are Forex trading brokers that are licensed by the FSB to be found, they are still very rare. Thus, most trading is done via off-shore forex broker requirements, simply because they offer better conditions, broier tighter spreads, more payment options, and even account bonuses.
Most South African traders go for trading platforms licensed by forex broker requirements licensing authorities, the most prominent of which are the European regulatory agencies. The most trusted, and thus popular, agencies, are as follows:.
Broker requirements forex also enjoy a great forex broker requirements, since Cyprus, as a member of the EU, has to adhere to EU financial regulation policies. The agency is the successor to the FSA and its licenses are a likewise solid proof of trustworthiness. Licenses from the ASIC are not as common, though they requirrments just as in/out binary options.
List forex broker requirements Forex Brokers accepting traders from South Africa: Rank Broker Offer Trade Now 1. You should consider whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. What currency pairs is the Rand part of?
The Rand is a very popular currency among Forex exchanges requirejents can be found as part of many currency pairs. This is why most South African traders are interested in Forex trading, as they have plenty of resources regarding the USD and Forex broker requirements, but also know more about their local economy than traders outside South Africa. Why is the Rand popular among Forex traders?
Description:Sep 8, - These are the best Forex brokers available to South African traders that request brokers that we do feature to become members of the FSCA.South Africa Regulated Forex · MT4 Forex Brokers · Managed Forex Accounts.


text:
Album of the Week: Ginuwine… the Bachelor (1996)
September 21, 2020 — Leave a comment
How does one describe the sound of the beat on "Pony"? Belching synthesizer? Squelching vocoder? Hungry jury? I like to think of it more as a croaking toad, but whatever the case may be, the timeless classic vaulted both Ginuwine and Timbaland into stardom for good reason.
There's a lot more to Ginuwine's debut album, however. Timbaland and Ginuwine's Virginia-based crew (including Missy Elliott, among others) came up under the tutelage of Jodeci's DeVante Swing. Transplanted to New York, where Jodeci was working with the late Andre Harrell's Uptown label, Ginuwine and the 23-year-old Timbaland recorded in Rochester (where Jodeci made their third album) and Ithaca. The late, great Static Major wrote the hook for Pony, and the rest of the music was Timbaland's creation.
Timbo's value and influence here cannot be understated. The use of space, bass, stuttering drums and unconventional (often squeaky or "squiggly") sounds created something darker and cooler than the majority of 90s R&B, and it still knocks to this day. What makes both Ginuwine and Aaliyah's voices so perfect for Timbaland's production in this time is their sense of restraint and minimalism. Instead of belting and warbling like R. Kelly and Mariah Carey, Timbaland's singers brought something slick and chill to fit snugly into the folds of Timbo's futuristic grooves. Nothing is rushed on Ginuwine… The Bachelor: no song runs under 4 minutes in length, and most are over 5. Maybe it's the lack of immediacy (outside of "Pony", the album's first proper track) that has kept this album from being canonized alongside other R&B classics.
The Bachelor does have the songs, though. "Lonely Daze" flips the guitar from "You Are Everything" with a sublime performance from Ginuwine. "Only When ur Lonely" is perhaps the most emotionally charged track here, building to a superb climax (sampled well by the Ginuwine-worshipping PARTYNEXTDOOR on "Muse"). Throw in a great cover of "When Doves Cry", complete with Timbo's deep background vocals (10 years before Futuresex/LoveSounds!) and you already have a few standouts. Also, Missy Elliott raps over Portishead's "Numb" on "G Thang".
"World is So Cold" is my favorite track here. Any R&B song that can make me wistfully stare out of a window (other examples include Aaron Hall's "I Miss You" and Tweet's "Smoking Cigarettes") is an instant classic in my eyes. This one also has one of those amazing moments where everything goes up an octave, adding significantly to the impact of the ballad. After some unnecessary 3-second interludes (remember when silent interludes were included at the end of CDs?), The Bachelor concludes with a banger in "550 What?". The drums and group vocals will have you wanting to party at Ginuwine's address, even when you have no idea where the hell they are talking about.
Ginuwine's follow-up 100% Ginuwine rules too, that one being his final album-length collab with Timbaland. "Pony" and other hits have stayed in the collective conscious, thanks in part I guess to Magic Mike and Parks & Rec. But Ginuwine's debut should be taken seriously as an R&B classic, and a wonderful document of the blossoming of Timbaland's fruitful career.
Listen to Ginuwine… The Bachelor on Spotify.
This entry was tagged aotw, r&b. Bookmark the permalink.