How to snowboard Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

How to snowboard - Essay Example Apart from this, the needed accessories include a pair of gloves, a helmet, goggles, wrist guards and a hat. Next is to get into the bindings so that a snowboarder comes at level with the snow. For this, he needs to place his front foot in the flat area of the snow. The straps should be closed for both the toe and the ankle. For step-in bindings, there is a need to step in and roll the foot in a circular position so that it is deemed as safe. Bouncing a few steps in this position would give a general feel as to how it looks. Next is to take the first few baby steps. These steps should have the front foot in the snowboard binding and the back foot out towards the outside. One should start by placing the shoulders and toes in direct linkage with the incline and the snowboard should go in a perpendicular fashion with this incline. After the baby steps, a snowboarder must sit down and strap his feet into the snowboard. Standing up after this and looking towards the snowboard helps at understanding the process faster. At this time, weight must be laid on the heels. Repetition of this step back and forth helps at understanding the snowboarding process. Skating is another step which helps to give an idea about the movement through the flat areas and the snowboarded must know how to skate beforehand. Next step is to think of him as getting out off a chair where he needs to go in an area of inclination and thus secure the front foot towards the binding. Thus the snowboard must be pointed downwards during this activity as it will put the weight on the front foot and glide automatically towards the flat area. After these steps, when the snowboarded starts getting comfortable with the whole process, he must practice until he reaches for the chairlift which will escort him towards the top. At this moment, he needs to observe how the other snowboarders are carrying out their snowboarding activities. After this, the snowboarder is required to slide

Inventory Stratification Essay Example for Free

Inventory Stratification Essay Creating shareholder value is the ultimate goal of all businesses, so all processes should be directly tied to it.(1) The wholesale distributor’s core business process framework is a collection of process groups called 7S source, stock, sell, ship, supply chain planning, and support services. Linking these process groups to shareholder value are the process metrics – percentage of slow moving inventory; and the financial framework. This framework consists of the financial elements – inventory; the financial key performance indicators – GMROII; and the financial drivers – profitability. Inventory stratification is a specific business process under the inventory management subgroup in the stock process of 7S. Like most processes there is a common, good, and best practice for inventory stratification. Inventory stratification which includes the GMROII (gross margin return on inventory investment) method of A, B, C, D, X and Y items is considered best practice. A, B, C, and D represent items in inventory ranked by percentage of profitability from higher profitability down to zero profitability respectively. X and Y represent items with zero inventories, X represents items with gross margin dollars and Y represents items without any gross margin dollars. GMROII focuses on the items profitability making it a financial driver and is considered best practice. However, for optimal inventory stratification solutions, the final rank should include a combination method of the GMROII method; sales volume method – representative of customer-centric data; and the hits method – representative of logistics based data. Once the weighted combination data is compiled, best practices can be implemented throughout all the 7S process  groups and in every section of the financial framework linking inventory stratification (process) directly to four financial drivers: asset efficiency, profitability, cash flow, and growth. These four financial drivers increase ROI (shareholder value). With inventory stratification complete sourcing has integral data to complete best practice process metrics for supplier management. Supplier stratification can help a firm modify their supplier base into one that is profitable and efficient for all channels within the supply chain. Supplier scorecards can be created which leads to numerous financial elements being increased. Inventory stratification is key for best practice levels in determining the right number of suppliers as inventory stratification status of the product in terms of movement and profitability. This indirectly defines the required customer service level as well. With supplier performance improvement, higher satisfaction rates evolve both with the distributor and further more with the customer.. If the distributor is tracking the supplier’s performance and is able to having periodic meetings with their supplier’s based on the results of the scorecards this will drive efficiency and supplier performance improvement. Also, higher supply chain reliability occurs since the supplier knows where the distributors need increased satisfaction levels to be able to continue servicing their customer at high standards. If the scorecard says the supplier is lacking in the area of competitive pricing the distributor then has the data to begin price negotiations. This knowledge allows sourcing through the subgroup supplier management to eliminate suppliers who only provide C and D items finding the right number of suppliers for the organization. Eliminating C and D items reduces inventory and increases GMROII. You now have the option of reinvesting the resulting capital into A and B items, paying back loans, or other business opportunities. In the debt reduction case, the impact can be readily seen on the balance sheet. The investment in A items leads to further sales opportunities. The reinvestments and its associated expected inventory turns will help in calculating additional revenue and resulting improvement in EBITDA. Reinvestments can also be for capital purchases to position the business for future growth. Inventory stratification also affects the ship and store segments of the 7S process group. With the knowledge that can be obtained from the data slow moving items can be  removed from branch inventory and a Regional Distribution Center (RDC) may be implemented. This allows the branches to carry more A or B items, or simply to reduce their inventory cost. RDC’s are usually able to operate with less inventory by sales volume. Labor expense is also reduced driving profitability to the shareholders. Inventory stratification is the primary driver for sales forecast and helps populate fill rates by rank. Forecasted demand combined with lead time and safety stock is the primary component to reorder point. Inventory stratification minimizes the normally time consuming forecast process both with information systems resources and with human resources. The best practice forecasting model is driven off the inventory stratification and is therefore driven by the sell segment, this numerically factual forecast will be void of the emotional forecasting of the sales force. Marketing can use the inventory stratification to process what customers’ needs are or what customers are interested in. Inventory stratification is integral in both customer stratification which once completed and redeployment of the sales force has occurred additional revenues are recognized and cost to serve are reduced again driving profit to shareholders. Customer service often drives large, inefficient inventories in an attempt to be all things to all people. Shareholder value seeks to carry only profitable products, at reasonable levels, producing maximum sales, while also increasing market share. Inventory stratification is an integral part of this process. (1) Optimizing Distributor Profitability: Best Practices to a Stronger Bottom Line, by Senthil Gunasekaran, Pradip Krishnadevarajan, F. Barry Lawrence, NAW Institute for Distribution Excellence 2009.

Right Buy Tenants

Right Buy Tenants Right to buy, the dominant form of housing tenure in the Britain for council tenants, competes against private and mixed economy ownership housing- provided by private initiatives and private rented accommodation. Right to Buy was famously encouraged by Margaret Thatcher (Prime Minister from 1979-1990) through the 1980 Housing Act and the notion of a property-owning democracy. Whilst it brings many advantages, Right to Buy is not without its disadvantages. This essay seeks to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of a system where right to buy as the dominant form of tenure. First, the background of Right to Buy will be explored, with arguments in favour and against how the sale of council houses became a major element in local housing policies in the UK. The Background of Right to Buy. The Conservative Party Manifesto of 1979 reads â€Å"Many families who live on council estates and in new towns would like to buy their own homes but either cannot afford to or are prevented by the local authority or the Labour government. The time has come to end these restrictions. In the first session of the next Parliament we shall therefore give council and new town tenants the legal right to buy their homes, while recognising the special circumstances of rural areas and sheltered housing for the elderly. Subject to safeguards over resale, the terms we propose would allow a discount on market values reflecting the fact that council tenants effectively have security of tenure. Our discounts will range from 33 per cent after three years, rising with length of tenancy to a maximum of 50 per cent after twenty years. We shall also ensure that 100 per cent mortgages are available for the purchase of council and new town houses. We shall introduce a right for these tenants to obtain limited term options on their homes so that they know in advance the price at which they can buy, while they save the money to do so. As far as possible, we will extend these rights to housing association tenants. At the very least, we shall give these associations the power to sell to their tenants. Those council house tenants who do not wish to buy their homes will be given new rights and responsibilities under our Tenants Charter†1 The Right to Buy which was introduced by the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher provided a new framework for the sale of public sector housing in Britain. The statutory Right to Buy replaced local discretion and applied to the bulk of secure tenants with three years tenancy. The new policy applied to flats as well as houses. It involved much higher discounts and few exemptions. It was highly publicised and made more attractive by the expectation that rents would continue to rise. (Jones Murie, 2006) There were attempts by various Conservative local authorities since the end of the Second World War to sell council houses. In 1967 Francis Frederick Griffin- a leader of the Tory council in Birmingham wrote that the Partys policy was based upon the belief that government, both local and national, should have as little to do with peoples lives as possible. Griffin (1967) explains: â€Å"We (the Tory council) determined that it was the function of the local authority to serve the people, not master them†¦ We decided that the vital principle of local government was to interfere as little as possible rather than as much as would be tolerated.† After seven months in power they had sold 2,101 homes, which included a reduction of up to 10 percent for long-term residents.2 Many council tenants exercised their right-to-buy. By November 1982 the government said more than 400,000 people had bought their council homes. The right-to-buy scheme was subsequently extended to tenants in leasehold properties. During this period the conservative housing policy proved extremely popular and was seen as a major vote winner for Mrs Thatcher in 1979 and again in 1983.3 Looking at today, with approximately 70% of public sector households in England being under owner occupation, it is easily the assumption that home ownership is the obvious and rational form of housing tenure, and always has been. However, in 1914 home ownership in England stood at only 10%, rising to around 49% in 1971 and 69% in 2002 4 Murie (1998) explains: The nineteenth century man of property did not own his own home Britain, at the turn of the century, was a nation of tenants and this applied to rural and urban areas and to the rich and the poor. Home ownership should not therefore be viewed as the natural tenure mass home ownership is a product of post-war history. (Murie in Marsh Mullins ed., 1998: 80) Farther, whilst home ownership may be the most favourite form of housing tenure in Britain today, other countries see varying forms of housing tenure. Ireland and Spain from statistics in carried out in 1991 showed over 80% home ownership, the UK with 67%, the US at 59%, Germany on 40% and Switzerland with only 29% home ownership. 5 The variation is clearly huge, and by exploring the differences between countries with high and low home occupation some advantages and disadvantages can partly be illustrated. The Right to Buy brought a fundamental change to local society, not least in fracturing the community. Previously, every tenant had one enemy the council. Now peoples problems were more personalised everybody was seemingly fighting their own battles rather than the one big collective threat. Council Tenants who cannot afford homes and flats of theirs due to the expensive cost of ownership can get 33% discount on the market value of their home, increasing in stages up to 50% for a tenancy of 20 years. Mrs Thatchers government of 1979 and again in 1983 believes the bill will transform the social structure of Britain for good. Michael Heseltine, secretary of state for the environment during the conservative government, said: This bill lays the foundations for one of the most important social revolutions of this century. 3 But Shelter, the organisation for homeless people, has said the move will increase the number of homeless people and decrease the number of homes available to accommodate them. And critics have accused the Thatchers government of being too generous to council house tenants while Labour Party believe the cost to the public purse from the implementation of the Right to Buy Policy will be at least  £5,000 per sale but the Conservatives maintain that central and local government will save millions through the reduction of subsidy to council house tenants.3 Homes are expensive hence home ownership is out of the reach of most council tenants earning an average of  £7,500 in 1982. Most home owners take out a loan a mortgage to buy their home. Few people have huge sums of money readily available without borrowing. Usually, a mortgage isnt required only if the purchaser has another house to sell for example, if theyre trading down. Before the Right to Buy Policy, it was extremely hard for a council tenant to borrow enough necessary to buy a home. Conservative government policy has been seen to strongly influence the increase in property ownership for renting council accommodation. Thatchers government of 1979-1990 is most notorious for pushing the notion of a property-owning democracy and actively encouraged this through the right-to-buy policy. But whilst perhaps the most well known and crucial, Thatchers government is by no means the only to advocate home ownership. Blairs New Labour government commenced the Starter Home Initiative in 2001 to help key workers, primarily teachers, health workers and the police, to buy a home in areas where high house prices are undermining recruitment and retention 6 Interestingly, in April 2004 this scheme was succeeded by the Key Worker Living scheme to help key workers in London, the South East and East of England to buy a home, upgrade to a family home or rent a home at an affordable price7 (italics mine). The Nature of Right to Buy Murie (2006) writes that the nature of the Right to Buy has contributed to the process of social change associated with council housing. It has also been reported that more affluent tenants have bought homes and left the sector, so the sector which remains has a narrower social base with a higher proportion of low-income households and those dependent on welfare benefits. It has become more strikingly a tenure of younger households and older people. The conventional role of council housing in housing families with children has become less evident. The social rented sector as a whole is now smaller and has a different demography than in the past. Regionally and locally, social rented housing is most rampant in areas where there has been a loss of employment and where demand for labour is very low. The Impacts: Since the tenure of Thatchers government, there can be no doubting the impact of the Right to Buy. Some 30 per cent of tenants have exercised the Right to Buy. The majority of these have benefited considerably from the process. The volume of sales and capital receipts has far surpassed expectations. By 2003 it was estimated some 1.5 million council homes had been sold. Very substantial rates of sale have changed council housing. Where they have been the highest, the council sector has been transformed. It is a much smaller sector with a different stock than in the past. The sale of council houses has also transformed the owner-occupied sector. In some areas, the owner-occupied sector is essentially a product of public sector activity. In those districts which had the largest council housing stock, former council houses now comprise a major part of the private sector. (Jones Murie, 2006) General Advantages Disadvantages of Right to Buy One arguments for Right to Buy is that it provides protection for purchasers in the initial five-year period and in addition, the lack of capital investment by local councils has tended to reduce the potential for conflict between leaseholders and the council. The levels of discount associated with the Right to Buy mean that households do not over-extend themselves in buying properties. Council house purchasers are not more likely to experience arrears and repossession problems than other purchasers. However, Ball (1986) voiced a strong counter argument, writes that successive property condition surveys show a rapid escalation of dilapidation in Britains housing stock. Some of the greatest increases are in the owner-occupied stock. (1986: 44). So what reason can there be for this? It is important to understand the just because someone owns a property, does not mean that they have disposable income to hand. Ball also writes that recent house condition surveys have shown alarming increases in the extent of disrepair in owner-occupied dwellings because owners cannot afford to repair them. (1986: 3). Rather than viewing a home as an asset, it is more sensible to view its mortgage payments as a liability, presuming a mortgage must be paid. Another argument against Right to Buy by Jones Murie (2006) is that it has resulted in the best council properties being sold to the most affluent tenants in the middle stages of the family cycle. Neither the youngest nor the oldest tenants have bought, leaving fewer tenants in their forties, fifties and sixties. But there is a general consensus that the majority of those who have purchased a house under the Right to Buy have experienced a relatively trouble-free episode. Depending on when people bought, most have experienced a major increase in property values. Whilst the property may be increasing in market value, that is largely irrelevant if the property is not sold. The home only becomes an asset when, and if, it is sold. Conclusion The Right to Buy legislation which came into effect 1980 presented a straightforward set of choices for tenants and a way of extending the existing level of owner-occupation. In the late 1990s the situation is very different. The Right to Buy continues to operate and has become successively more generous. The levels of discount which have applied, especially for flats, are difficult to justify and themselves may unduly influence tenants decisions. The Right to Buy has also operated in a more complex policy environment with a considerable number of exceptions and exclusions within the social rented sector. Tenants in different parts of the social rented sector have a different range of choices. There is a case for rationalisation and for developing more comparable rights and opportunities for all tenants. Endnotes 1. Source: Richard Kimbers Political Science Resources (Mar 2008) Conservative Party Manifesto 1979, online:http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/con79.htm 2. Source: Harold Hill Estate Webpage, The Conservative Start Selling Council Houses http://www.haroldhill.org/chapter-three/page-five-conservatives-start-selling-council-houses.htm 3. BBC News Online (20 Dec 1979) Council tenants will have right to buy, online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/20/newsid_4017000/4017019.stm 4. Data for 1971-2002 from National Statistics Online (20 April 2004) A summary of changes over time Housing tenure , online: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=821 5. Source: Steve Kangas Web Page, data reproduced with permission from Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992) Where We Stand, online: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm 6. Communities and Local Government, New Starter Home Initiative to help key workers, online: http://www.communities.gov.uk/citiesandregions/publicationscities/urbanwhitepaper/urbanwhitepaper/implementationplanmain/sectiondproviding/221045/newstarter/ 7. Communities and Local Government, Key Worker Living, online: http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/buyingselling/ownershipschemes/homebuy/keyworkerliving/ 8. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Dec 1998) Reviewing the Right to Buy , online: http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/hrd28.asp Bibliography References Ball, Michael (1986) Home ownership: a suitable case for reform, London: Shelter Jones, Colins Murie, A (2006) Right to Buy Analysis and Evolution of a Housing Policy , Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Malpass, P Murie, A (1982) Housing Policy Practice, London: Macmillan Marsh, A Mullins, D ed. (1998) Housing Public Policy, Buckingham: OUP Merrett, Stepehn (1982) Owner-occupation in Britain, London: Routledge Pawley, Martin (1978) Home ownership, London: Architectural Press

Monster Hunters :: Essays Papers

Monster Hunters Monsters are hunted. The lore of their destruction is excessive, glowing, and dispersed. It is a crucial component of their mythology. There is no eluding the hunter, armed with the vampire stake and crosses and the werewolf’s silver bullet. But then it is the hunter whose tale it is to begin with. Beowulf cannot stay hidden forever, or he would not be Beowulf. Monstrosity relies, in this sense, on its exposition for its production, and it is in this superficial sense of vitality by revelation that two theorists of monstrosity concoct a fantastic world of ‘society’ to keep themselves at bay. Michael Uebel’s â€Å"Unthinking the Monster† and Mark Dorrian’s â€Å"On the Monstrous and Grotesque† represent similar though distinct theorizations of monstrosity in terms of otherness, difference, relation to self, and production in/by rhetoric. The articles consider the relation between monstrosity and the terms against which it is defi ned. Yet the pieces are also monsters, and the worlds they sing of are the ones they behold with rapt attention. It is their theorization of monstrosity that allows for the continuation of both insides and outsides in a way more immediate than their encapsulation of such a movement considers. Dorrian takes Uebel’s general form of abjection seriously as a description of aberrations of the body, the human body it even seems. â€Å"As a starting point we will assume the conventional understanding of the monster as a being whose existence runs against, or is contrary to, nature - with the proviso that for ‘nature’ we understand as ‘what has been naturalized’† (Dorrian 310). The article’s understanding of monsters departs little from the starting point, for the terms outlined here. What of the understanding itself? It seems accurate to require that monsters enact renditions of living bodies. However, this assumes monstrosity not only contrasts some pre-selected canon of bodies, but also is to correspond to a set body of monsters, which is of course never set, and thus monstrosity is to predict what might be called monstrous. But the term is not only part of an effort to describe some referent. Monstrosity is also to think t hrough or around the functioning of monster as agency - how does the idea of a monster matter. Or, how does the monstrous feeling fragment representations? In any case, it is to be a study of monstrosity, for both Dorrian and Uebel, that is aware of the impossibility of identifying a definition or set of definitions of monstrosity.

Compare and contrast Marxist and Functionalist accounts of religion

Both functionalists and Marxists share the common view that religion serves to legitimise the morals and laws within society. Many functionalists as well as Marxists do agree that society creates religion as a visual symbol of itself. Followers are ultimately not worshipping their religion, their worshipping society and everything it stands for. However, this is where the split in views begins. Functionalists see Religion as serving towards the 4 pre-requisites of society. (Namely: Social integration, shared values, social solidarity, and social harmony). By ensuring these needs are met, religion reinforces collective values and promotes solidarity. Functionalism is not over concerned about the ‘why' religion is allowed to assume this falsified symbolism, but instead recognises it's use in keeping harmony and faith in society. Durkheim demonstrates this in admitting that religion does not have to be ‘super natural'. It's important to note that mortal people and objects can gain a sacred status in society similar to that of the idols of religion. For instance: Princess Diana – a national symbol of charity and possibly the last real ‘princess' of the British Nation in the people's hearts. She has become sacred because she represents a good quality of society. From this, Durkheim believes â€Å"Understand what sacred things represent and you understand the values of a society†. Here we come into the first major difference between functionalism and Marxism. The former believes that there is a positive relationship between society and the individual. Worship society; believe in society. Marxists, however, inherently are discontent and have an ill view of society as it is. It is understandable how they are opposed to religion indoctrinating the people into a value set, pulling them into the collective conscience that ultimately supports capitalism and the idea that people deserve to â€Å"have their place†. Religion has allows supported class systems and promoted inequality. In gender. In work. In authority. Everything that Marxism is opposed to. â€Å"The rich man placed in his castle – The poor man placed at his gate† Malinowski, famed for his research at the Trabaind islands, did not see religion as a celebration of society, despite the same functionalist perspective as Durkheim. He did, however, agree that religion promotes solidarity. It does so by dealing with emotional stress / life crisis (disruptive events). Religion goes as far as to introduce ceremonies for dealing with various life crisis. Death is given a funeral. Love is given marriage. In all cases then hope is given through the expressed belief in immortality and fellow mourners serve to comfort and support the bereaved, so they can become functional members of society once again. Dangerous and unpredictable events are also surrounded in religious ceremony. Prayer is common before a possibly hazardous experience. These rituals reduce anxiety and increase confidence, strengthening unity in shared situations. Talcott Parsons shares this view and goes onto show how religious devices, such as the 10 commandments, provide the basis for many social norms and morals. Religion guides behaviour and helps in the formulation of decision through this. Finally, Religion is looked to answer the â€Å"ultimate questions† and give meaning to our existence. Humanity needs to feel as though there is meaning in all significant things; meaning to death and suffering, and justification of existence in itself. Religion works to show sense in contradictory scenarios that threaten the balance of ultimate beliefs. For instance, a man who is profiting through the doing of evil will be punished in the after life for his wrongful gain in life. Religion is a warning, a giver of justice, a provider of guidance and ultimate supernatural fear if one goes astray. Marx himself rejects any idea of supernatural aspect of religion. He describes religion as the â€Å"Heart of a heartless world†; The heartless world being the society moulded by capitalism. Religion is born out of a need for comfort, it does just this by cushioning the effect of worker oppression. Marxists have placed religion as part of the super structure, it helps justify the capitalist base as well as the whole super structure. (See rich man quote page 1). Religion as a tool of the bourgeoisie plays an important roll in justifying worker oppression, by showing that all will gain equal reward in heaven for doing the ‘right thing'. Religion has varying levels of strictness according to socio-economic class placement, especially in India where the cast system places strict restrictions and categorisations on a persons place in society. The idea of equal opportunity is ultimately crushed by harsh teachings and acceptance that a lower class worker is having a bad life because super natural forces placed them in that situation as punishment for wrongfulness in previous life. In conclusion, Marxist and functionalist similarities on the subject start and end with the acceptance of religion as a conservative force in society. Neo Marxism does accept the idea (like functionalism) that religion can sometimes be useful to society in bringing about change for the better. For instance the radical role of Liberation Theology. (Madura). Traditional Marxism is totally opposed to the oppressive role of religion and would be surprised to see that radical forces have emerged with some minority religious groups. Functionalists such as Durkheim and Parsons see religion as being a positive and perhaps essential part of the harmonious workings of society but have been criticised for ignoring the dysfunctional, disruptive, and divisive aspects of religion. They fail to consider hostility between religious groups within the same society. â€Å"It would seem that religion threatens social integration as readily as it contributes to it† (Stark & Glock).

Last Name Meaning and Origin of Moore

Last Name Meaning and Origin of Moore Moore is a common surname in many countries, with several possible origins: One who lived at or near a moor or marshy bog, from the Middle English more (Old English mor), meaning moor, marsh, or fenFrom the Old French more, derived from the Latin maurus, a term that originally denoted a native of northwestern Africa but came to be used informally as a nickname for someone who was dark-complexioned or swarthy.From the Gaelic OMordha, with O meaning descendant of and  Mordha derived from Mor  meaning great, chief, mighty, or proud.In Wales and Scotland, the name Moore was often bestowed as a nickname for a big or large man, from the Gaelic mor or the Welsh mowr, both meaning great. Moore is the 16th most common surname in America, the 33rd most common last name in England, and the 87th most common surname in Scotland. Surname Origin:  English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish Alternate Surname Spellings:  MORES, MORE, MOARS, MOOR, MOAR, MOORER, MUIR Famous People With the Surname Demi Moore - American actressClement C. Moore - author of A Visit from St. NicholasAnn Moore - Inventor of the Snugli baby carrierMandy Moore - pop singer and actressGordon Moore - co-founder of Intel which introduced the worlds first single-chip microprocessor Where Is the Surname Most Commonly Found? The Moore surname is most commonly found today in Northern Ireland, according to WorldNames PublicProfiler, followed closely by the United States, Australia, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Within Northern Ireland, the Moore surname is found in greatest numbers in Londonderry. Within the United States, Moore is found most frequently in the southern states, including Mississippi, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Kentucky. Forebears rank Moore as the 455th most common surname in the world and includes historical data from 1901 when Moore was more frequent in the Northern Ireland counties of Antrim (7th most popular surname), although followed fairly closely by Down (ranked 14th) and Londonderry (ranked 11th). During the period 1881–1901, Moore also ranked highly in Isle of Man  (4th), Norfolk (6th), Leicestershire (8th), Queens County (11th), and Kildare (11th). Genealogy Resources for the Surname Moore Genealogy - Western NC, SC, and North GAA site documenting Moores living in Western North Carolina, Upper West South Carolina, and North Georgia through ca 1850. Moore Family Genealogy ForumSearch this popular genealogy forum for the Moore surname to find others who might be researching your ancestors, or post your own Moore query. Source: Cottle, Basil. Penguin Dictionary of Surnames. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1967. Menk, Lars. A Dictionary of German Jewish Surnames. Avotaynu, 2005. Beider, Alexander. A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from Galicia. Avotaynu, 2004. Hanks, Patrick, and Flavia Hodges. A Dictionary of Surnames. Oxford University Press, 1989. Hanks, Patrick. Dictionary of American Family Names. Oxford University Press, 2003. Smith, Elsdon C. American Surnames. Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997.