Home' Technology Review : March April 2010 Contents The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is seeking an energetic and entrepreneurially oriented
professional who will lead business development efforts for a number of innovative programs
the Foundation seeks to scale to their full potential.
The Director of Business Development will be instrumental in the development, negotiation
and cultivation of new and existing community and business partnerships, both locally and
nationally. Working closely with both the President of the Kauffman Foundation and its Vice
President of Communications, the Director will develop fundraising and marketing strategies, as
well as create an approach for building relationships designed to expand the reach and impact
of a number of Kauffman programs.
We seek a candidate with a proven track record of identifying, engaging, and developing strong
partnerships, collaborating with others in the development and implementation of fundraising
and marketing strategies, seeking out prospective partnerships through networking, and
creating strategies that utilize emerging technologies for future business development.
A minimum of seven years experience is required, along with a bachelor's degree in marketing
or business. A background of working with both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations is
Located in Kansas City, Missouri, the Kauffman Foundation is globally recognized as the center
of thought in advancing entrepreneurship. It also develops innovative education programs
focused on preparing America's next generation of entrepreneurs and knowledge workers.
Qualified candidates may submit a cover letter and resume to firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
expansion into space. That goal must not
be put in question. Ever.
CATCH ME A CATCH
Emily Gould's article review of Match.com
("True Match," January/February 2010)
prompted one online-dating veteran to write.
As a 52-year-old widower who has used
the likes of Match.com, eHarmony.com,
and Chemistry.com for the better part of
eight years, I found the article very unbal-
anced. Ironically, Match.com promotes
itself as much more of a simple "clearing-
house" than the other two---an online version
of the print media's personals section, but
with photos and long self-written narra-
tives. It is no more Match.com's fault that it
didn't find the author (or her friend) a decent
date than it is an online brokerage firm's
fault that there aren't any A+ funds yielding
more than 1 percent APR. And I must ask
how the author can lament that her friend's
date didn't ask her a single question at their
first lunch---didn't she have a phone conver-
sation with him ahead of time that would
probably have highlighted this habit, or did
she just assume that any guy the computer
found would be "Mr. Wonderful"?
CLARIFICATION: "The Geoengineering
Gambit" (January/February 2010) says that
Himalayan glaciers could disappear within
25 years, a claim based on information pub-
lished in the most recent report from the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Since the report was published, it's
become clear that the glaciers won't melt by
then. The estimate could be o by 300 years or
more, according to some glaciologists.
The IPCC, which is known for its use of peer-
reviewed literature and multiple layers of expert
review, in this case cited not scholarly work but,
instead, a magazine article. After our article was
published, it issued a statement declaring that
the claim was based on "poorly substantiated
evidence" and that "the clear and well-estab-
lished standards of evidence, required by the
IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
A letter written to the journal Science by
noted glaciologists, published after our article,
says: "The claim that Himalayan glaciers may
disappear by 2035 requires a 25-fold greater
loss rate from 1999 to 2035 than that estimated
for 1960 to 1999. It conflicts with knowledge
of glacier-climate relationships and is wrong.
Nevertheless, it has captured the global imag-
ination and has been repeated in good faith."
We regret that we published what now
appears to be incorrect information about
the Himalayan glaciers.
The main point of the feature, however, isn't
a ected by this mistake. Scientists remain con-
cerned enough about rapid climate change to
recommend studying geoengineering methods
for rapidly cooling the earth. The disappear-
ance of the Himalayan glaciers was only one
reason, and indeed not even the main reason,
cited by these scientists.
Links Archive January February 2010 May June 2010 Navigation Previous Page Next Page