Story of Near East relief (1915-1930)

Mode of access: Internet.

Textile world.

Special number, 1953, Buyers'guide and reference data issue; 1954-1960, Buyers guide/Fact file; 1965-1970 is incorporated and numbered as the July monthly issue and called Fact file; 1971-1972, Fact file/Buyer's guide; 1973-1978, Buyer's guide/fact file; 1979-2001/02, Buyer's guide; 2002/03- , International buyers' guide.

1915 University of Michigan Football Team

University of Michigan Football Team, 1915

Back Row: Fred Hendershot, Hepburn Ingham, Walter Nieman, Fred Rehor, James Whalen, Egmont Hildner, Cecil "Pat" Smith, Alan Boyd, James Catlett, Jarold Zeiger, James Sharpe, George Washington Bixler, Otto Pobanz,

Middle Row (seated on wall): Otto Eberwein, ? Johnson, Maurice Dunne, Harry Calvin (on steps), Karl Staatz, Hoyne Howe, Clyde Bastian

Front Row: Alvin Loucks (standing), Robert Watson (on rail), John Norton, Leland Benton, captain William Cochran, Lawrence Roehm, John Maulbetsch, ? Warner (standing)

University of Michigan Football Team, 1915 (postcard)

Back Row: Fred Hendershot, Hepburn Ingham, Walter Nieman, Fred Rehor, James Whalen, Egmont Hildner, Cecil "Pat" Smith, Alan Boyd, James Catlett, Harold Zeiger, James Sharpe, George Washington Bixler, Otto Pobanz,

Middle Row (seated on wall): Otto Eberwein, ? Johnson, Maurice Dunne, Harry Calvin (on steps), Karl Staatz, Hoyne Howe, Clyde Bastian

Front Row: Alvin Loucks (standing), Robert Watson (on rail), John Norton, Leland Benton, captain William Cochran, Lawrence Roehm, John Maulbetsch, ? Warner (standing)

Hearings before Committee on Naval Affairs of the House of Representatives, on estimates submitted by the Secretary of the Navy, 1915.

Naval appropriation bill. March 2 (calendar day, March 3) 1915 ... Conference report --63d Cong., 3d sess. Senate. Doc. no. 966. Naval appropriation bill. Feb. 19 (calendar day, March 2) 1915 ... Conference report on the bill (H.R. 209759)-- Public no. 271, 63d Congress An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June [30, 1916] and for other purposes.

Operationalizing the resource based view for nascent and young firms : developing scales for resource advantages and disadvantages

Principal Topic: It is well known that most new ventures suffer from a significant lack of resources, which increases the risk of failure (Shepherd, Douglas and Shanley, 2000) and makes it difficult to attract stakeholders and financing for the venture (Bhide & Stevenson, 1999). The Resource-Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) is a dominant theoretical base increasingly drawn on within Strategic Management. While theoretical contributions applying RBV in the domain of entrepreneurship can arguably be traced back to Penrose (1959), there has been renewed attention recently (e.g. Alvarez & Busenitz, 2001; Alvarez & Barney, 2004). This said, empirical work is in its infancy. In part, this may be due to a lack of well developed measuring instruments for testing ideas derived from RBV. The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement scales that can serve to assist such empirical investigations. In so doing we will try to overcome three deficiencies in current empirical measures used for the application of RBV to the entrepreneurship arena. First, measures for resource characteristics and configurations associated with typical competitive advantages found in entrepreneurial firms need to be developed. These include such things as alertness and industry knowledge (Kirzner, 1973), flexibility (Ebben & Johnson, 2005), strong networks (Lee et al., 2001) and within knowledge intensive contexts, unique technical expertise (Wiklund and Shepard, 2003). Second, the RBV has the important limitations of being relatively static and modelled on large, established firms. In that context, traditional RBV focuses on competitive advantages. However, newly established firms often face disadvantages, especially those associated with the liabilities of newness (Aldrich & Auster, 1986). It is therefore important in entrepreneurial contexts to expand to an investigation of responses to competitive disadvantage through an RBV lens. Conversely, recent research has suggested that resource constraints actually have a positive effect on firm growth and performance under some circumstances (e.g., George, 2005; Katila & Shane, 2005; Mishina et al., 2004; Mosakowski, 2002; cf. also Baker & Nelson, 2005). Third, current empirical applications of RBV measured levels or amounts of particular resources available to a firm. They infer that these resources deliver firms competitive advantage by establishing a relationship between these resource levels and performance (e.g. via regression on profitability). However, there is the opportunity to directly measure the characteristics of resource configurations that deliver competitive advantage, such as Barney´s well known VRIO (Valuable, Rare, Inimitable and Organized) framework (Barney, 1997). Key Propositions and Methods: The aim of our study is to develop and test scales for measuring resource advantages (and disadvantages) and inimitability for entrepreneurial firms. The study proceeds in three stages. The first stage developed our initial scales based on earlier literature. Where possible, we adapt scales based on previous work. The first block of the scales related to the level of resource advantages and disadvantages. Respondents were asked the degree to which each resource category represented an advantage or disadvantage relative to other businesses in their industry on a 5 point response scale: Major Disadvantage, Slight Disadvantage, No Advantage or Disadvantage, Slight Advantage and Major Advantage. Items were developed as follows. Network capabilities (3 items) were adapted from (Madsen, Alsos, Borch, Ljunggren & Brastad, 2006). Knowledge resources marketing expertise / customer service (3 items) and technical expertise (3 items) were adapted from Wiklund and Shepard (2003). flexibility (2 items), costs (4 items) were adapted from JIBS B97. New scales were developed for industry knowledge / alertness (3 items) and product / service advantages. The second block asked the respondent to nominate the most important resource advantage (and disadvantage) of the firm. For the advantage, they were then asked four questions to determine how easy it would be for other firms to imitate and/or substitute this resource on a 5 point likert scale. For the disadvantage, they were asked corresponding questions related to overcoming this disadvantage. The second stage involved two pre-tests of the instrument to refine the scales. The first was an on-line convenience sample of 38 respondents. The second pre-test was a telephone interview with a random sample of 31 Nascent firms and 47 Young firms (< 3 years in operation) generated using a PSED method of randomly calling households (Gartner et al. 2004). Several items were dropped or reworded based on the pre-tests. The third stage (currently in progress) is part of Wave 1 of CAUSEE (Nascent Firms) and FEDP (Young Firms), a PSED type study being conducted in Australia. The scales will be tested and analysed with a random sample of approximately 700 Nascent and Young firms respectively. In addition, a judgement sample of approximately 100 high potential businesses in each category will be included. Findings and Implications: The paper will report the results of the main study (stage 3 – currently data collection is in progress) will allow comparison of the level of resource advantage / disadvantage across various sub-groups of the population. Of particular interest will be a comparison of the high potential firms with the random sample. Based on the smaller pre-tests (N=38 and N=78) the factor structure of the items confirmed the distinctiveness of the constructs. The reliabilities are within an acceptable range: Cronbach alpha ranged from 0.701 to 0.927. The study will provide an opportunity for researchers to better operationalize RBV theory in studies within the domain of entrepreneurship. This is a fundamental requirement for the ability to test hypotheses derived from RBV in systematic, large scale research studies.

Douglas Shire Water Quality Monitoring Strategy: Final Report: a Report to Douglas Shire Council and the Department of the Environment and Heritage

This report describes results and conclusions from the monitoring component of the Douglas Shire Council (DSC) water quality project. The components of this project that this report addresses are: • Site selection and installation of in-stream and off-paddock automatic water quality monitoring equipment in the Douglas Shire. • Design of appropriate sampling strategies for automatic stations. • Estimation of loads of suspended sediment, total nitrogen and total phosphorus in rivers and also estimation of the changes in nutrient loads from sugar cane under different fertilizer application rates. • Development of a community-based water quality sampling program to complement the automatic sampling efforts. • Design of an optimised, long-term water quality monitoring strategy.

A Classification of Homogeneous Operators in the Cowen-Douglas Class

A complete list of homogeneous operators in the Cowen-Douglas class B-n(D) is given. This classification is obtained from an explicit realization of all the homogeneous Hermitian holomorphic vector bundles on the unit disc under the action of the universal covering group of the bi-holomorphic automorphism group of the unit disc.

On the implication of the recently discovered 5 millisecond binary pulsar PSR 1855+09

e argue that the extraordinary fact that all three known millisecond pulsars are very close to the galactic plane implies that there must be ~100 potentially observable millisecond pulsars within ~4 kpc from the Sun. Our other main conclusion is that the dipole magnetic fields or old neutron stars probably saturate around 5 x 108 gauss.

Studio portrait of infant twins Beatrice and Fred Herz (l-r).

The Herz twins were born 4 February 1913