Search Documents

By G. F. Loughlin

Nearly 55 years have elapsed since the U. S. Geological Survey was organized. During this period the mineral industries have grown from infancy or early childhood to well developed maturity, and some mining industries appear to be declining. Decline in mining is even more conspicuous in certain districts, or even states, than in any mining industry as a whole, and discoveries or developments of important new districts have been very few in recent years. Our reserves of most metals and nonmetals are adequate for many years of normal production, subject to changes in rate of exploitation that may be caused by foreign competition and by changes in technology and market conditions; but the declining production of many districts and the scarcity of important new discoveries to compensate for them is cause for some apprehension. It is likely that future production will depend to a considerable extent on deep exploration and on the thorough examination of places in and adjoining existing districts where significant outcrops are lacking and only apparently insignificant geologic features offer encouraging clues—more so than on the discovery of entirely new districts. Even the possible discovery of new districts, which have escaped the intensive search by the nontechnical prospector, must be dependent on geologic information. There is therefore no need for argument as to the value of geology to the mining industry; and the need of continuing to advance the science. The U. S. Geological Survey's past contributions to mining geology, as expressed in its official reports and other publications, are recognized by Ransome in his historical review of mining geology in the Lindgren volume.' These contributions have helped to form the basis of modern mining geology, which has grown rapidly in the last 25 years. This growth has witnessed the organization and maintenance of geologic staffs by mining companies in several districts, and their detailed work, together with the fact that nearly all of the larger mining districts have

Jan 1, 1935

By Betty L. Gibbs

A company must have an organized approach to effectively sort through the profusion of available software and hardware and find the programs and equipment which fit defined needs. The selection process must build a complete compatible system which includes hardware and software. The methodology presented in this paper helps identify some of the more important considerations. The steps needed for an organized approach to software/hardware selection are: •All involved staff should contribute to an assessment of current computer capabilities and projection of future needs. •Alternatives are analyzed to determine what software and hardware is available and how selections may possibly be merged into the existing computer system. The evaluation process focuses on details of program capability and hardware compatibility. Analysis must be done to determine how closely individual programs fit the established requirements. The final decision is often a balance of needs between program capabilities and hardware availability. Any programs selected must be able to run on existing and newly purchased hardware. Any additional hardware selected must be capable of meshing with the available computer system.

Jan 1, 1983

Jan 1, 1938

Jan 1, 1908

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1935

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1947

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1941

Jan 1, 1934