No offense, but your mistake is not understanding the segmentation. Look at all the restaurant chains/franchises owned by Yum to get an idea of how crazy it all is. You're correct that not all markets are dualities, but it's a very common theme particularly when you understand how companies place their brands.
I would particularly recommend the chapters around it which explain that you can create a new segment very easily.
Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science
OR
and don't steer them in that direction.
Which is it? I get the feeling it's that girls just aren't that interested. People like to point out that more girls were interested in the 80s but that was a very different era. Few people actually knew what was involved with "programming computers".
All of this effort reminds me of a similar misunderstanding that I came across years ago. In the 50s Lionel decided that girls didn't play with trains because they weren't "girly" enough. They were black and steel and perhaps too boyish. So the genius marketers came up with this:
Should you wish to see one in person go to Holiday World and check out the old toy museum.
It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.
Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.
Ultimately, the SJW crowd needs to understand that men and women - and boys and girls - are very different creatures who aren't interested in the same sorts of things. The roots of this are genetic and stem from the social order tens of thousands of years ago. Nothing's going to "fix" it, but, then again, there's nothing to fix.
Law 8 is "the law of duality" - every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc. The horses here are "iPhone" and "Android". The best Mozilla can hope for at this point is to become Royal Crown Cola.
Yes, that's what I came to say. I have many firearms, most of them far more powerful than a 9mm pistol. There are more guns than people, and that's just civilian arms.
Isn't this the thing the Second amendment was supposed to prevent?
As I understand it, the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure against invasion from the British Empire by keeping the population armed, so any attempt at invasion would allow the armed population to spark a popular insurrection.
The explicit purpose is to make sure the government doesn't have a monopoly on power:
While it seems like the federal government is out of line taking the right to govern away from the states, in reality it is the states that are taking away the right to govern from local governments that ACTUALLY WANT municipal broadband.
Ensuring that municipalities maintain their rights to roll out local broadband isn't a perversion of states rights, its preventing states rights from perverting local rights.
There is no such thing as "local rights". The federal government has 8 areas where it can legally legislate based on Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Everything else is within the purview of state governments. This is where the concept of "states rights" comes from.
Your confusion stems from seeing the relationship between the federal government and the various states as being similar to the relationship between a state and its local municipalities. These relationships are - in a legal sense - totally different. A state can dictate anything to local municipalities. In TN, for example, the state just proclaimed that the cities can no longer ban guns in city parks. They can do that.
The federal government, on the other hand, has no such authority. Typically, they then wield power through funding. As one example all states have a minimum age for alcohol consumption set at 21 because the federal government will withhold highway funds otherwise.
This is just one more data point to show that Osama and the terrorists won. Despite all the "rah rahing" and boasting about being #1, Americans piss their pants due to a toy helicopter flying near a building.
FTFY. People are right to piss their pants if a legitimate military drone - such as the famed Predator series - is flying near your building. But those aren't sold at toy shops around the country. Toy helicopters, on the other hand, are.
In my first year of college I had one math professor who was a former pro football player and another who was a former pro hockey player. Both were excellent professors.
You steal $1000 dollars and the police look for you. You steal $100,000 and the FBI looks for you. You steal $10,000,000 and the banks hire you. You steal $1,000,000,000 and the lawyers get you off on a technicality.
Yep, the socialists are totally into the idea of taking money from a bunch of poor people and giving it to one rich guy. You have their philosophy all figured out.
That may not be the sheep's philosophy but that's how it tends to turn out.
Some of the old dudes also lift heavier tasks that might be to abstract for the kid.
But there is balance between flexibility of younger employees and the greater salary of seasoned employees.
It depends a lot on what your company does.
Well, dammit, I clicked the wrong one again. Can one of you kids get over here and show me how to delete this post and put it on the right thread showing that old people know how to use computers as well as young ones?
The funny thing about this is that Apple realized early on that people didn't want a crappy PC in their pocket - they wanted an awesome phone. Say what you want, but Apple and Google have done a great job of making a computer work well with the smaller screen and all that.
There's a market for this concept, I'm sure, but I don't think it's anywhere near the size of the smartphone market.
They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night. If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.
They're required by law to show you what the bill is for or quit calling you. You actually can shut them down, but get a lawyer in that case.
I guess being a type A I see this differently
on
The Medical Bill Mystery
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Test codes: 105, 127, 164, to name a few. CPT codes: 87481, 87491, 87798 and others" and she really doesn't want to pay it until she understands what it's for.
1. It's trivial to look up those codes online, right? Putting "cpt code 87491" into Google shows that's a STD test.
2. I wouldn't pay it if the lab didn't explain it. Period. "She really doesn't want to pay it..." then don't. Call them up and tell them that they either explain it or you're not paying. Make them take it to court. That shit wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a judge. Note that it wouldn't get that far - their attorney wouldn't let it.
I thought the Teamsters were more into the loading and unloading, and the drivers were often owner/operators.
Never heard of more than one person operating a truck at a time.
Laws define how long a driver can drive between mandatory breaks - basically making sure they get their sleep. Truckers keep log books that are legally required to be accurate and will be inspected if they get stopped by police. Falsifying logs is a criminal offense.
Some folks do what's called "team driving" where two people in one truck take "shifts" and drive non-stop (this with a sleeper in the cab). Often it's husband/wife teams. I've honestly considered doing it with my wife after the kids are out of the house and everything's paid off. Get paid to see the country with my wife - pretty cool, actually. Hemorrhoids, not so much.
So in short, this whole thing is bullshit. The current administration has already fucked up the ability of the US to leverage its most powerful peacetime strength - its market - to advance serious geopolitical goals around the Pacific Rim.
You know, I keep telling people that if they had only elected that "hope and change" fellow for President we wouldn't have shit like this to deal with.
*Altho many Canadians argue the Queen isn't their Head of State, her representative in Canada is (the Governor-General). The fact no Court's ruled on this definitively shows how important the title "Head of State" is in a Parliamentary system. Most legal scholars seem to think that the Queen is Head of State, but there is a minority that disagrees and their Constitution is not helpful on this question. But mostly nobody cares.
Given that she owns the entire country it's kind of a moot point. If they piss her off she'll just kick them out.
"In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty)."
Yes, but there's no enforcement mechanism and no penalties - criminal or civil - for breaking this "law". It's a literal farce.
Imagine we had speed limits with no penalties. An officer pulls you over, says "you're going over the speed limit". You say "Yeah, so what?" His response: "you're not supposed to go over the speed limit. Other than that, have a nice day."
While the end result is that the average citizen gets fucked in the end (and not the way that makes you feel good and sleepy), how can you say that the US only has a 1 party system? Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
Right, except for stuff that actually matters. All of them voted for the Patriot Act, bailing out billionaires on Wall Street, etc. The stuff that they supposedly fight over (abortion, whatever) doesn't affect the day to day lives of most people.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are the technical failsafes to limit the train's speed? Guess true security updates have been eaten by their desire for profit ...
Or, you could ask Congressional Republicans, who -- even as recently as 5 days ago -- cut/limit/deny funding for Amtrak.
More funding doesn't help Amtrak. Ever. They had the hardware to limit the speed, they just hadn't bothered to turn it on.
Why does the left think the answer to every problem is "more of other people's money"?
No offense, but your mistake is not understanding the segmentation. Look at all the restaurant chains/franchises owned by Yum to get an idea of how crazy it all is. You're correct that not all markets are dualities, but it's a very common theme particularly when you understand how companies place their brands.
I would particularly recommend the chapters around it which explain that you can create a new segment very easily.
Parents don't see their young girls as wanting to pursue computer science
OR
and don't steer them in that direction.
Which is it? I get the feeling it's that girls just aren't that interested. People like to point out that more girls were interested in the 80s but that was a very different era. Few people actually knew what was involved with "programming computers".
All of this effort reminds me of a similar misunderstanding that I came across years ago. In the 50s Lionel decided that girls didn't play with trains because they weren't "girly" enough. They were black and steel and perhaps too boyish. So the genius marketers came up with this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadsh...
http://www.lionel.com/Products...
Should you wish to see one in person go to Holiday World and check out the old toy museum.
It flopped badly. The reason was simple: girls generally don't like trains, but those who do want an authentic train. Black, steel, menacing - a real train.
Every time I see people trying hard to make computer science appeal to girls I see the same thing. It simply doesn't appeal to most girls, and to those to whom it does appeal it will have that appeal without any sugar coating.
Ultimately, the SJW crowd needs to understand that men and women - and boys and girls - are very different creatures who aren't interested in the same sorts of things. The roots of this are genetic and stem from the social order tens of thousands of years ago. Nothing's going to "fix" it, but, then again, there's nothing to fix.
Law 8 is "the law of duality" - every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc. The horses here are "iPhone" and "Android". The best Mozilla can hope for at this point is to become Royal Crown Cola.
Yes, that's what I came to say. I have many firearms, most of them far more powerful than a 9mm pistol. There are more guns than people, and that's just civilian arms.
Isn't this the thing the Second amendment was supposed to prevent?
As I understand it, the 2nd Amendment was supposed to ensure against invasion from the British Empire by keeping the population armed, so any attempt at invasion would allow the armed population to spark a popular insurrection.
The explicit purpose is to make sure the government doesn't have a monopoly on power:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org...
That our country is basically uninvadeable is a decent side benefit.
I live in NC, citation please?
Oh, man.... whoosh!
Maybe I should start submitting articles to the Onion.
Nah - should've given him the citation :)
The state government is saying that the federal government has no right to interfere with the state's right to interfere with local government.
Which is true. See my post above for a full explanation.
While it seems like the federal government is out of line taking the right to govern away from the states, in reality it is the states that are taking away the right to govern from local governments that ACTUALLY WANT municipal broadband.
Ensuring that municipalities maintain their rights to roll out local broadband isn't a perversion of states rights, its preventing states rights from perverting local rights.
There is no such thing as "local rights". The federal government has 8 areas where it can legally legislate based on Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Everything else is within the purview of state governments. This is where the concept of "states rights" comes from.
Your confusion stems from seeing the relationship between the federal government and the various states as being similar to the relationship between a state and its local municipalities. These relationships are - in a legal sense - totally different. A state can dictate anything to local municipalities. In TN, for example, the state just proclaimed that the cities can no longer ban guns in city parks. They can do that.
The federal government, on the other hand, has no such authority. Typically, they then wield power through funding. As one example all states have a minimum age for alcohol consumption set at 21 because the federal government will withhold highway funds otherwise.
This is just one more data point to show that Osama and the terrorists won. Despite all the "rah rahing" and boasting about being #1, Americans piss their pants due to a toy helicopter flying near a building.
FTFY. People are right to piss their pants if a legitimate military drone - such as the famed Predator series - is flying near your building. But those aren't sold at toy shops around the country. Toy helicopters, on the other hand, are.
Well, it's widely known that Shearer knows how to spell "grateful", so that's probably giving him a leg up.
Whaddya bet it's actually a toy helicopter?
In my first year of college I had one math professor who was a former pro football player and another who was a former pro hockey player. Both were excellent professors.
You steal $1000 dollars and the police look for you.
You steal $100,000 and the FBI looks for you.
You steal $10,000,000 and the banks hire you.
You steal $1,000,000,000 and the lawyers get you off on a technicality.
Ask Bernie Madoff how that's working out.
Yep, the socialists are totally into the idea of taking money from a bunch of poor people and giving it to one rich guy. You have their philosophy all figured out.
That may not be the sheep's philosophy but that's how it tends to turn out.
Not only experience.
Some of the old dudes also lift heavier tasks that might be to abstract for the kid.
But there is balance between flexibility of younger employees and the greater salary of seasoned employees.
It depends a lot on what your company does.
Well, dammit, I clicked the wrong one again. Can one of you kids get over here and show me how to delete this post and put it on the right thread showing that old people know how to use computers as well as young ones?
Considering it is a breach of contract suit, I'd be interested to see what the actual contract looks like.
Dude, the contract is a sacred secret that's never written down and you can't know it.
The funny thing about this is that Apple realized early on that people didn't want a crappy PC in their pocket - they wanted an awesome phone. Say what you want, but Apple and Google have done a great job of making a computer work well with the smaller screen and all that.
There's a market for this concept, I'm sure, but I don't think it's anywhere near the size of the smartphone market.
Naive.
They don't have to take it to court. They'll just ruin your credit score by reporting it and sell the debt to a collector who will hound you day and night.
If you want a judge to ever see it you're the one ponying up the cash to take it there.
They're required by law to show you what the bill is for or quit calling you. You actually can shut them down, but get a lawyer in that case.
Test codes: 105, 127, 164, to name a few. CPT codes: 87481, 87491, 87798 and others" and she really doesn't want to pay it until she understands what it's for.
1. It's trivial to look up those codes online, right? Putting "cpt code 87491" into Google shows that's a STD test.
2. I wouldn't pay it if the lab didn't explain it. Period. "She really doesn't want to pay it..." then don't. Call them up and tell them that they either explain it or you're not paying. Make them take it to court. That shit wouldn't last 5 seconds in front of a judge. Note that it wouldn't get that far - their attorney wouldn't let it.
People just need to learn how to play hardball.
I thought the Teamsters were more into the loading and unloading, and the drivers were often owner/operators.
Never heard of more than one person operating a truck at a time.
Laws define how long a driver can drive between mandatory breaks - basically making sure they get their sleep. Truckers keep log books that are legally required to be accurate and will be inspected if they get stopped by police. Falsifying logs is a criminal offense.
Some folks do what's called "team driving" where two people in one truck take "shifts" and drive non-stop (this with a sleeper in the cab). Often it's husband/wife teams. I've honestly considered doing it with my wife after the kids are out of the house and everything's paid off. Get paid to see the country with my wife - pretty cool, actually. Hemorrhoids, not so much.
So in short, this whole thing is bullshit. The current administration has already fucked up the ability of the US to leverage its most powerful peacetime strength - its market - to advance serious geopolitical goals around the Pacific Rim.
You know, I keep telling people that if they had only elected that "hope and change" fellow for President we wouldn't have shit like this to deal with.
*Altho many Canadians argue the Queen isn't their Head of State, her representative in Canada is (the Governor-General). The fact no Court's ruled on this definitively shows how important the title "Head of State" is in a Parliamentary system. Most legal scholars seem to think that the Queen is Head of State, but there is a minority that disagrees and their Constitution is not helpful on this question. But mostly nobody cares.
Given that she owns the entire country it's kind of a moot point. If they piss her off she'll just kick them out.
Totally.
Does the prosecution not have a legal duty to turn over potentially excuplatory evidence??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
"In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty)."
Yes, but there's no enforcement mechanism and no penalties - criminal or civil - for breaking this "law". It's a literal farce.
Imagine we had speed limits with no penalties. An officer pulls you over, says "you're going over the speed limit". You say "Yeah, so what?" His response: "you're not supposed to go over the speed limit. Other than that, have a nice day."
While the end result is that the average citizen gets fucked in the end (and not the way that makes you feel good and sleepy), how can you say that the US only has a 1 party system? Pick almost ANY topic and the parties are going to take polar opposite views of it.
Right, except for stuff that actually matters. All of them voted for the Patriot Act, bailing out billionaires on Wall Street, etc. The stuff that they supposedly fight over (abortion, whatever) doesn't affect the day to day lives of most people.