AC/DC fans have had a rough go of things as of late, as the band has lost a handful of their core members over the last few years.First it was founding member, rhythm guitarist Malcolm Young, who was unfortunately diagnosed with dementia back in 2014. Then it was drummer Phil Rudd, who was arrested in New Zealand over murder threats. Most recently it was lead singer Brian Johnson, who’s hearing issues had progressed to the point where touring was impossible for him. Now, it seems that bassist Cliff Williams is the next to leave the group. Unlike the afore mentioned trio of musicians, Williams came to the decision on his own free will, saying, “It’s been what I’ve known for the past 40 years, but after this tour I’m backing off of touring and recording… Losing Malcolm [Young], the thing with Phil [Rudd] and now with Brian [Johnson], it’s a changed animal. I feel in my gut it’s the right thing.”The quote comes in an interview with Gulfshore Life, where Williams says, “When you start out, you kind of hope for success… That’s what you are working for. But you never really know. It’s been surreal, really.” The bassist has been with AC/DC since 1978, recording a total of 11 consecutive albums with them. With his departure, only Angus Young remains at the band’s core.With this news, it seems that AC/DC’s Rock or Bust tour may be their last ever. We salute you.
“Anthony and Jesse have done very well for us, they’re vital in the attacking part with their attributes with their pace but then again with Rom and Alexis, they’ve got different skillsets so they will be able to show what they can do.”Meanwhile, Gianfranco Zola admits Chelsea are facing a crucial period in their stuttering season, after winning two and losing two of their last four games in all competitions by largely contrasting scorelines.Assistant coach Zola said: “We know that it’s a crucial moment. It’s very challenging, I think the key will be to face each task by only thinking about that task.“The first one is going to be United and we come into this game after a good performance in the Europa League. It’s a good challenge, it’s actually what we need to do right now.“We know that we have to be consistent. We all know this. It’s important everyone knows the situation and is working on it, players, coaches and club.”Along with Lingard and Martial – who were injured in Tuesday’s 2-0 loss to PSG in the Champions League – Antonio Valencia and Matteo Darmian are also absentees because of minor injuries.Chelsea have no fresh injury concerns ahead and will give a late fitness test to Ruben Loftus-Cheek after the recurrence of his persistent back problem.Left-back Marcos Alonso could return after being omitted from Maurizio Sarri’s squad for the trip to Sweden in midweek.This will be the 14th FA Cup tie between Chelsea and Manchester United – the Blues have triumphed in each of the last four, including the final last season.Manchester United have lost three of their five FA Cup matches against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, winning 5-3 in 1997-98 and 2-0 in 1998-99.Chelsea could become the first team to eliminate Manchester United in five consecutive FA Cup meetings.In all competitions, Manchester United have won just two of their last 22 away games against Chelsea (D7 L13), failing to win any of their last nine.United have eliminated the FA Cup holders 10 times, more than any other side in the competition’s history. They last did so in 2011-12 against Manchester City.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram Fresh off being taught a football lesson at Old Trafford by PSG in the Champions League, Manchester United have the opportunity to qualify for the quarter finals of the FA Cup as they visit an out-of-sorts Chelsea.Injuries to Jesse Lingard and Anthony Martial means there is an opportunity for the likes of Alexis Sanchez and Romelu Lukaku to feature, both of whom have been largely restricted to bench duty under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.The caretaker manager said: “It’s a chance for anyone who plays, if it’s Alexis or Romelu or who starts or Tahith Chong or Angel Gomes.
The “tree of life” is the central icon of Darwinism. Charles Darwin’s only illustration in the Origin of Species was a drawing of organisms descending from a common ancestor in a branching tree pattern. It has been reproduced, expanded, embellished and decorated into a primal symbol of what science believes about biology. Why, then, are The Telegraph and New Scientist cutting it down? “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” is the title of the latter, and the former says, “Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists.” These articles are notable not just for their timing (just three weeks before the international celebrations of Darwin’s 200th birthday), but for undermining three claims about evolutionary biology: one, that Darwin is just a small part of an evolutionary theory that has progressed far beyond Darwin’s own beliefs, and two, that evolutionary theory has no weaknesses that deserve to be taught to students. Right now in Texas, evolutionists are seeking to strike down the “strengths and weaknesses” line in the state’s science framework on the basis that evolution is a fact (see Texans for Better Science Education and “All Eyes on Texas” in Evolution News). A third idea undermined by these articles is that only creationists think there are weaknesses with Darwin’s theory. The scientists complaining about the tree of life are not creationists. We’ve heard from them before: Bapteste and Doolittle wrote two years ago in PNAS that the tree of life is a myth (02/01/2007). In addition, The Telegraph quoted Dr. John Dupre, philosopher of biology at Exeter University, saying “If there is a tree of life it’s a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life.” The article claims that other scientists have axe in hand: “Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.” Bapteste acknowledges it sounds scary at first, but sees the conceptual revolution as a chance for biologists to free their minds. Doolittle downplayed the revolution a little: “We should relax a bit on this,” he said. “We understand evolution pretty well it’s just it is more complex than Darwin imagined. The tree isn’t the only pattern.” Maybe he is not wanting to play the role of revolutionary. Dupre, however, is wielding his axe with gusto: “It’s part of a revolutionary change in biology. Our standard model of evolution is under enormous pressure.” He envisions an evolutionary model full of mergers and collaborations, not a branching tree. The article then quotes Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at UC Irvine, saying, “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that.” The public apparently doesn’t know that. He went on with a more dramatic statement: “What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.” Like bombshells increasing in intensity, the article went on to admit that Darwin’s theory has been “no stranger to controversy.” Pro-Darwin scientists must gag on this last line: “It has played a key role in the much larger debate with creationists who are convinced life on Earth is so complex it could only have come about from intelligent design – in other words, the hand of God.” This after Bapteste said, “The tree of life was useful. It helped us to understand evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution it’s time to move on.” This implies that useful things can be false. One must also ask, “useful to whom” and “to what extent are conclusions drawn from false premises reliable?” The New Scientist piece is lengthier. The cover shouts, “Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting Down the Tree of Life” displayed against a picture of a tree. This is quite a turnabout for this usually staunchly pro-Darwin magazine, which had just published last month a list of the best evidences for evolution from 2008. To be sure, it does not question the idea of evolution or common ancestry, but it did give Bapteste and Doolittle favorable coverage. Quoting Bapteste that “We have no evidence that the tree of life is a reality,” Graham Lawton (features editor of New Scientist) agreed this is revolutionary stuff: “That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.” The article discussed the history of this major controversy. It came to a head in 2006, Lawton reported, with the discovery of pervasive horizontal gene transfer (HGT) between organisms – “everything from E. coli to elephants.” Not all scientists agree: “The debate remains polarised today.” Some scientists believe a tree signal can still be discerned in the genes. But the fact that there is a controversy supports the claim of Texans for Better Science Education that there are strengths and weaknesses in evolutionary theory that should not be shielded from students. “Meanwhile, those who would chop down the tree of life continue to make progress,” Lawton continued. Would he end with a victory for the traditional Darwinian consensus? Not by page 2 of 4: “Surprisingly, HGT also turns out to be the rule rather than the exception in the third great domain of life, the eukaryotes.” He investigated the tree-scrambling theory of endosymbiosis – the engulfing of one organism by another, a kind of Hegelian dialectic in biology. By page 3, Lawton was offering rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. At the end of the page it appeared to be a standoff with Darwin still the winner by the slightest of half-time leads:Nobody is arguing – yet – that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another – a tree of 51 per cent, maybe. In that respect, Darwin’s vision has triumphed: he knew nothing of micro-organisms and built his theory on the plants and animals he could see around him. Even so, it is clear that the Darwinian tree is no longer an adequate description of how evolution in general works. “If you don’t have a tree of life, what does it mean for evolutionary biology?” asks Bapteste.It means evolution is still true but the tree metaphor has problems – that’s all, Lawton intimated. Relax; “Both he [Bapteste] and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution is wrong – just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not.” But that was just the lull before the next battering ram. Page 4 ends on the side of the revolution. He quotes Dupre and Rose arguing that our fundamental view of biology needs to change. If this is a bad time to demote Darwin, so be it: “Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he [Rose] says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. If he is right, the tree concept could become biology’s equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world.” Two sidebars illustrate empirical problems with the tree. Hybridization and “natural chimeras” found in living examples show that genetic information can cross lineages. This scrambles any attempt to find a common ancestry. The last word goes to a Graham Syvanen, whose experiments showed that sea squirts appear to have unrelated branches of ancestral genes. “We’ve just annihilated the tree of life,” he exclaimed. “It’s not a tree any more, it’s a different topology entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?”Insult to Injury: In an unrelated piece in Newsweek, Sharon Begley attempted a “renaissance of heresy” – supplying evidence that Lamarckism might be right after all. What would Darwin have made of that? “Alas, poor Darwin,” her article began. The birthday party is not going well. Whether or not Lamarckism is justifiable to explain the evidence she presented, “the last word on inheritance and evolution has not been written,” she concluded.Talk about a gift in time. Texans for Better Science Education should mass-produce reprints of these articles and give them to everyone on the school board, everyone in the audience, and put posters with quotes on the wall. No weakness in Darwin’s theory? No debate over evolution? No controversy? Just a bunch of disguised creationists with religious motivations trying to throw rotten tomatoes at our beloved statue of Darwin? Don’t underestimate the significance of this revolution. Without a tree of life, Darwin’s central doctrine is undermined. The tree of life metaphor represented Darwin’s attempt to unify all of biology into an explanatory framework. If we don’t know who is related to whom, and what came from what, all hope of unifying biology in a law-driven, naturalistic framework is called into doubt. Doolittle and Bapteste talk about a web of life, but that’s creationism. A web has no root. The information is all there; it is just shared. Where did the information come from? Darwin said it all had a common origin in a warm little pond, took root, and branched progressively outward into a glorious tree. If that metaphor is being replaced by a web, where is the designing spider? There are other problems. They pulled a coup but provided no new administration. They cut down the tree but still want to use the lumber. Sorry; it’s too rotten for anything but firewood. There is no Einstein on the horizon to rescue biology from its empirical catastrophe. The comparison to physics in the early 20th century is apt, but analogies are always imperfect. It is doubtful Darwin could retain the honor of a Newton if his core belief has been falsified. No fig Newtons on this tree. Notice also that neither Darwin nor the revolutionary brigade of evolutionary biologists has a clue where complexity comes from (re-read the 10/29/2004 entry). Phillip Johnson hammered the Darwinists for years for failing to provide evidence that natural selection had the creative power to build eyes, wings, and complex organs. An explanation for that is just as lacking in the words of these revolutionaries. Where are they going to get the genetic information to build eyes and wings? From horizontal gene transfer? From hybridization? From symbiosis? Come on; you cannot get blood out of a turnip. Information can only be shared and modified if it is already present. Intelligent causation still stands as the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity in nature. Meanwhile, the tree goes on among those who don’t know a revolution has occurred. Origins Blog, Science Magazine’s running tribute to Darwin, reported how Cambridge University projected Darwinian images on the facade of the building. Amid church bells and lights, did anyone catch the irony of their caption: ‘Above, a graying Darwin ponders the tree of life….” He looked very sad. It’s amusing to read the comments to the New Scientist article. One reader worried that the article would invite creationists to lampoon evolution said, “You know that wall of Science articles (mostly NS) at the Creationist Museum NewScientist published an article about? This cover [with “Darwin Was Wrong” over a tree] will probably be the A1 sized, gilt and framed centerpiece before the week is out.” And your point is? Why not? Gnashing of teeth does not change the facts. We think it would look especially nice to the right of an A1-size poster of National Geographic’s Nov 2004 cover, “Was Darwin Wrong?”Update 01/23/2009: The vote on the Texas proposal to retain the “strengths and weaknesses” provision in the state science standards was a tie (7-7) yesterday. This means it was defeated. This vote therefore falls within a trend of many votes and court decisions about academic freedom on the teaching of origins that were defeated by the narrowest of margins, like 4-3 in the Louisiana balanced-treatment case, or by one lone judge (as with Judge Jones in Dover, Pennsylvania). Reporters ran to their offices declaring this a “big victory” for evolution and a defeat for “creationists” (actually, a motley group of Darwin doubters and supporters of academic freedom). Robert Roy Britt in Live Science, for instance, announced that “A decision Thursday by the Texas State Board of Education is a big defeat for proponents of creationism and others who would like to see evolution presented in school as a weak theory that has viable competing alternatives.” He continued, “The tie means the measure was defeated, so evolution can continue to be taught as the very strong scientific theory that it is.” He crowed that “evolution is about as solid a theory as there is. The idea that all creatures have evolved, and that humans are descended from other primates, is supported by evidence from various fields.” Advocates of the “strengths and weakness” language, he said, “are people with religious and political agendas” (implying no such motivations or agendas on the other side, a common way the pro-evolutionists spin the issue as science vs. religion, though very involved politically themselves). It would seem that scientific evidence of weaknesses in evolution, even from secular sources as presented by Bapteste and Doolittle, will henceforth be disallowed in Texas schools after two decades of the successful “strengths and weaknesses” policy. However, after most of the reporters left the room, the board continued to discuss policies related to the teaching of evolution. Two other votes by the school board, passed by large margins, affirmed that students should learn to analyze and evaluate scientific evidence for evolution (see Evolution News #1, #2, and #3). Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute called this “one step back, two steps forward” for those wanting to keep the controversies over evolution open to scrutiny. “The new evolution standards are a huge advance over the previous language, and are a great victory for parents, teachers, and students who want good science education in the state of Texas,” he said, chiding the reporters who rushed to judgment.Look how close these votes can get: seven to seven! If you don’t get involved, and speak out, the liars in the Darwin Party, with the power of the media and their political action committees, will continue to spin this issue their way and push their agenda. Read the commentary from 12/16/2008 again to realize again just how lopsided the reporting is, and how intolerant the Darwinists are. It is literally shocking. It is past time for righteous indignation. Take that indignation to the point of driving the lying rascals out of the castle they usurped from the citizens (02/01/2007 commentary). The Darwiniacs worship their idol but don’t listen to him. He said, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question”—Charles Darwin. Who are the real followers of that intuitively-obvious, scientifically-sound principle? You would think the scientific institutions would immortalize those words in stone and embed them in their P&P Manuals, but no! It takes morally upright citizens to hold their feet to the fire of what should be their own core values. Incredible.Exercise: Which logical fallacy is committed in the following statement: “You oppose the scientific institutions on this issue. You are obviously anti-science.”(Visited 54 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Copying someone else’s invention is a crime, but researchers in biomimetics are doing it with impunity and getting away with it.Leaf power: “Why come up with new ways to generate clean energy, when we can copy what plants have been doing for millennia?” That’s what led Daniel Nocera and colleagues at MIT to develop artificial leaves that try to mimic photosynthesis. According to New Scientist, “His company, Sun Catalytix, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is attempting to commercialise the artificial photosynthesis technology.” But what if a student said, “Why come up with a new term paper, when I can copy what graduate students already have published online?” Science Daily quoted Nocera saying “A practical artificial leaf has been one of the Holy Grails of science for decades.” His artificial leaf is “made of inexpensive materials that are widely available, works under simple conditions and is highly stable,” the article said. Sounds like natural leaves have those benefits nailed already. “In laboratory studies, he showed that an artificial leaf prototype could operate continuously for at least 45 hours without a drop in activity.” Natural leaves last much longer than that. Nocera hopes his plagiarism might power poor third-world homes far from electrical power grids. “Our goal is to make each home its own power station,” he said. Unlike plant leaves, though, the invention only splits water into hydrogen and oxygen; it does not make sugar and food.Bird mimic: If you see SmartBird flying around, “it’s actually an energy-efficient robot, weighing just 500 grams, that captures the elegance of a bird in flight,” reported New Scientist. The article includes a video clip of the robot that looks remarkably lifelike, shape, wings and all, though it does not lay eggs, snatch fish out of the sea, or sing; it also needs ground controllers to guide it. It was made by Festo, a company also guilty of plagiarizing penguins and elephants.Bee strategy: Bees and ants survey their surroundings with a search strategy called quorum sensing. According to PhysOrg, Aron Kisdi, a University of Southampton engineer, proposed using a swarm of 40 to 60 robots on Mars to search like honeybees. “Bees will leave the nest, gather information, and determine the best new location” by working in swarms. Kisdi thinks this is a good strategy for robots on Mars. They would explore caves and other things, then return by the shortest route, like bees do. Unlike current all-in-one rovers, the robot swarm could survive the loss of individual robots. The article includes a video clip of Kisdi’s rolling, jumping robot called the Jollbot.DNA bot: At the University of Oxford, they’re plagiarizing DNA to build tiny robots. Live Science caught the plagiarists in action: “The thinking behind scientists’ interest in super-small DNA bots is that in order to replicate some amazing abilities in nature, one must go very small.” Even more shocking, they are using intelligent design: “‘Information is programmed into the design of the base sequences of the DNA strands,’ [Andrew] Turberfield said.”In Science March 18, Marc Lavine reviewed a recent book on biomimetics edited by Robert Allen with the amusing title Bulletproof Feathers: How Science Uses Nature’s Secrets to Design Cutting-Edge Technology (University of Chicago Press, 2010). He began,Where does the inspiration for something new originate? For scientists and engineers, sometimes it appears in the cross-fertilization of known concepts from diverse fields or the rare flash of a new idea, but more often it comes from leveraging what is already known by building on things that work well. Increasingly, researchers are turning to nature for inspiration, by looking to organisms that do things we are unable to do on our own or do them better than we can—often functioning with an economical use of limited resources and energy. Animals that fly, explore deep under water, can see without light, or even stick to glass walls are all being studied with the hope of developing new materials, structures, or devices that may enhance our everyday lives.He spoke of bioinspiration and biomimicry as hot areas of research – using nature as a starting point for solving problems of interest to technology. The book includes six illustrated chapters by leaders in biomimetic research, who talk about marine organisms that inform sonar and underwater sensing technologies, glass sponges that use fiber optics, and deep-sea fish that guide submarine builders with ways to overcome pressure and darkness. Even humans provide inspiration for inventors. Should robots look human? Industrial robots, or those that enter hazardous environments, need not resemble us, but there is a growing market for robots that can empathize with the disabled, the elderly, and children. Achieving realistic robotic servants will require work in compact energy sources, artificial muscles and lifelike materials.Biomimetic engineers have already learned a lot from nature, and no doubt the further study of organisms and their often surprising capabilities will suggest, for example, new ways to design materials, to create imaging and communication techniques, and to build stronger or more aerodynamic structures. The inspiration comes from observing what is normal for the organisms and wondering how they function and how we might mimic key features or superior properties.Lavine ended with praise for the book’s photographs: “Browsing through it, readers will encounter natural mechanisms that have stimulated researchers looking for new ideas,” he said; and with an appeal to young investigators, added, “That may be as good a way as any to find your own inspirations and scientific connections.”1. Marc Lavine, “Engineering: Living Inspired,” Science, 18 March 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6023 p. 1389, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192323.The nerve of these people. The Inventor should sue! Stealing intellectual property and making money off it – how dare they? A judge should throw the book at them – oh, wait – the Judge of all the universe is already seated. Actually, He delights in the beings He created, and into whom He placed his image, exercising their creativity. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is said. What is missing, though, is proper referencing of the source. It would be like visitors to Kitty Hawk admiring the plane in detail and trying to copy it without ever mentioning the Wright Brothers. As Paul explained in Romans 1, the evidence for design is clear, but without excuse, men do not glorify God as God, neither are thankful (Romans 1:18-22). It’s understandable that the wrath of God is against those who plagiarize his work, using their own intelligent design, but suppress the truth by claiming the superior designs in nature just happened by evolution. For those who are thankful and acknowledge God as Creator, this is a wonderful time to get into science. Home school parents and Christian school parents should get their precocious youngsters who like science on a fast track into biomimetics research. Young scientists can do it without any Darwin worship, and if they succeed, they will not only show the value of design-based science, but make the world a better place. That’s not plagiarism; that is wagering to be a major player in 21st-century science.(Visited 29 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 50:13 — 40.3MB)Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Google Podcasts | RSSSeth Godin’s latest book “This is Marketing” is filled with industry truths that you simply can’t afford to miss hearing. On this episode of In The Arena, Anthony and Seth dig into the book’s brand-new insights and talk about the differences between being market-driven and being driven by marketing. You’ll hear how you can make a bigger difference in the world while changing the lives of those around you, and why truly ethical marketing encompasses layers of empathy and compassion. It’s a stellar episode not to be missed – listen now!The latest book from @ThisIsSethsBlog, #ThisIsMarketing is filled with #marketing and #sales truths that you simply can’t afford to miss. Get an insider’s look into the book on this episode of #InTheArena. @iannarinoClick To TweetMarketing shouldn’t be about one to MANY, but it can be about one to manyYears ago, marketers could succeed if they simply got their message in front of as many people as possible. However, that’s not the case in today’s world. Seth explains that “Marketing shouldn’t be about one to MANY, but it can be about one to many.” By pursuing your smallest viable audience and adding value to their lives, you can avoid hiding behind the masses and actually make a difference in your organization and the world.Marketing should be done WITH people, not TO them. Seth exclaims, “Modern marketing is the generous act of helping others become who they seek to become,” and that cannot happen if you’re simply sharing a message with millions of people.“This is Marketing” teaches you to approach marketing as a teacher seeking enrollmentIn “This is Marketing,” Seth uses the analogy of teachers and students to explain how modern marketers should operate. It’s 100x easier to teach a person if they come to the teacher already interested in the subject. Ethical marketing should be about pursuing new enrollment audiences for your company, not just securing new sales leads. By approaching an interested person as a teaching opportunity and not just a sales statistic, you’ll be able to add value to their life while preserving their dignity.“#Marketing shouldn’t be about one to MANY, but it can be about one to many.” What does @ThisIsSethsBlog mean by this? Find out the answer – and so much more – on this episode of #InTheArena hosted by @iannarino. #marketing #sales #ThisIsMarketingClick To TweetThere’s a difference between being market-driven and being marketing-drivenSeth tells Anthony about one of the greatest pieces of advice he had ever received. As a young professional, Seth exclaimed to a mentor that he was “marketing driven.” His mentor thoughtfully explained that unless Seth was driven by departmental deadlines and to-do lists, Seth was actually “market-driven.” When a marketer is market-driven, their main focus becomes answering the question, “How can I serve my audience better?”Seth believes, “Our contributions are the only things we leave behind. And if you focus on leaving a better contribution, you earn trust and attention, which gives you the platform to make more change happen.” His insights are best heard straight from the source, so be sure to give this episode your full attention.Truly great marketing cannot be about differentiation – it must be about positioningFar too many marketers become caught up in the differentiation game – eliminating competition simply because they’re afraid of losing business. However, Seth and Anthony discuss why truly great marketing is actually focused on honest positioning. If a marketer can outline the key differences between their company and the competition, as well as make the decision easier for the buyer by eliminating confusion, they’ve positioned their company well. Then, they can seek out “enrollment” students that are interested in the company’s culture and products.Seth’s book “This is Marketing,” is a must-read for all marketers. Not only will you get the full story behind this interview, you’ll also read about how you can actually change your company’s culture and why compassion and marketing go hand-in-hand. You can find it on Amazon and wherever you buy books.“Our contributions are the only things we leave behind.” – @ThisIsSethsBlog. Hear more great insights on life, #marketing, and #sales on this episode of #InTheArena hosted by @iannarino. #ThisIsMarketingClick To TweetOutline of this great episode The key difference between sales and knowledge that Seth explains in “This is Marketing.” Marketing shouldn’t be about one to MANY, but it can be about one to many Here’s why Seth’s latest book is different from all of his other works The concept of enrollment in marketing, and why you shouldn’t operate without it Organizational culture is simply defined as: People like us do things like this Empathy and compassion go hand in hand in ethical marketing The difference between market-driven and marketing-driven Two teachers don’t compete, they’re just on the same board Information on Seth’s upcoming marketing seminar The story behind the name of “This is Marketing”Resources & Links mentioned in this episodeSeth’s websiteFollow Seth on FacebookFollow Seth on TwitterConnect with Seth on LinkedInSeth’s January 2019 marketing seminarSeth’s altMBA programSeth’s newest BOOK: “This Is Marketing: You Can’t Be Seen Until You Learn to See”BOOK: “What to Do When it’s Your Turn (and it’s Always Your Turn)”BOOK: “Tribes: We Need You to Lead Us”BOOK: “Let’s Get Real or Let’s Not Play: Transforming the Buyer/Seller Relationship”BOOK: “Eat Their Lunch: Winning Customers Away from Your Competition”Get 15% off your first month of podcast audio and show notes service with Podcast Fast Track by mentioning In The ArenaRESOURCE: 800-CEO-READSPONSOR: MailTag.IOThe theme song “Into the Arena” is written and produced by Chris Sernel. You can find it on SoundcloudConnect with AnthonyWebsite: www.TheSalesBlog.comYoutube: www.Youtube.com/IannarinoFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/iannarinoTwitter: https://twitter.com/iannarinoGoogle Plus: https://plus.google.com/+SAnthonyIannarinoLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/iannarinoAudio Production and Show Notes byPODCAST FAST TRACKhttps://www.podcastfasttrack.comTweets you can use to share this episodeIn the latest book from @ThisIsSethsBlog, you’ll learn how to approach #marketing as a teacher seeking students, not just someone seeking more #leads. Get an insider’s look into #ThisIsMarketing on this exciting episode of #InTheArena hosted by @iannarino.Click To TweetWhen a #marketing professional is market-driven, their main focus becomes answering the question, “How can I serve my #audience better?” Hear more on this episode of #InTheArena feat. @ThisIsSethsBlog hosted by @iannarino. Listen now!Click To TweetSubscribe toIn the ArenaApple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsAndroidby EmailRSSOr subscribe with your favorite app by using the address below
Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong protesters Rey Nambatac has keyed the Knights’ resurgence and Letran hopes to extend its streak against the San Sebastian Stags at 4 p.m. Tuesday at Filoil Flying V Centre.But Napa said his Knights should brace for a tough duel against the Stags, who also posted back-to-back triumphs to grab a share of fourth.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool stars“San Sebastian is a physical team and really likes to run so it’s going to be tough,” said Napa.Emilio Aguinaldo College, tied with San Sebastian at 3-3, tangles with Jose Rizal U at 2 p.m., while struggling Arellano and Perpetual Help clash at 12 noon. Coach Jeff Napa thinks Letran finally found its right rhythm after stringing three wins in the NCAA Season 93 men’s basketball tournament.“We’re starting to pick up right now,” Napa said of his Knights, who climbed to solo third at 4-3 after a woeful 1-3 start.ADVERTISEMENT The Generals had a shot at reclaiming the third spot against the Knights last week even minus injured Cameroonian Hamadou Laminou, who sustained a season-ending ACL injury .But end-game miscues doomed the Generals for a 97-93 setback against the Knights.Bong Quinto has also stepped up for the Knights, the last during their 63-61 escape over the Altas where the veteran forward nailed the go-ahead basket.The thrilling win pushed the Knights behind league leaders Lyceum (7-0) and San Beda (6-1).“The players didn’t give up,” said Napa. “That’s where you really see the character of the players.” —JASMINE W. PAYOADVERTISEMENT Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Celebrity chef Gary Rhodes dies at 59 with wife by his side Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games LATEST STORIES Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ NATO’s aging eye in the sky to get a last overhaul For the complete collegiate sports coverage including scores, schedules and stories, visit Inquirer Varsity. View comments Anton youngest to top slalom race at 12 NGCP on security risk: Chinese just technical advisers MOST READ Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo DILG, PNP back suspension of classes during SEA Games Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Robredo should’ve resigned as drug czar after lack of trust issue – Panelo
Photo caption: Minister of State for Grand Bahama in the Office of The Prime Minister, Senator Kwasi Thompson said the business and investment trip to Texas led by Prime Minister, Dr. the Hon. Hubert Minnis was primarily to promote Grand Bahama as a great place in which to invest.(BIS Photo/Lisa Davis) Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp#Bahamas, January 29, 2018 – Grand Bahama – Minister of State for Grand Bahama, Senator Kwasi Thompson says that the recent investment and business opportunity trip to Texas, led by Prime Minister Dr. the Hon. Hubert Minnis, speaks to the fact that the Prime Minister of The Bahamas is committed to reviving Grand Bahama.Senator Thompson noted the purpose of the trip was to principally market Grand Bahama. This, according to Minister Thompson, proves that the country’s leader is still focused on promoting Grand Bahama and helping to revive its economy.“The Prime Minister has always been focused on Grand Bahama and on promoting the island of Grand Bahama,” noted Senator Thompson.During the trip Minister Thompson noted that the delegation met with the Governor of Texas, the Texas Chamber of Commerce, with investors, business executives, as well as with a group of Bahamian diaspora. One of the features of the trip was a meeting the delegation held with a number of executives from tech companies, including Google, Del, HP, Gearbox and a number of other companies, including reps from Silicon Valley.“We were able to give them a good, detailed presentation about the benefits of doing business in Grand Bahama,” said Minister Thompson. “I believe that we accomplished that purpose, which was to begin to strengthen relationships with those tech companies.“It was important for us to get the message out that Grand Bahama was opened for business. It is important to get the message out that we want to invite these companies to come to the Bahamas, but more importantly, we’re doing this because we want to be able to create more opportunities for Bahamians. “That has to be the key focus, which is to create the environment that provides an opportunity for Bahamians.”The meeting with Tech executives falls in line with Minister Thompson’s push to make Grand Bahama the Tech Hub for The Bahamas. Minister Thompson said that many of the Tech Executives in Texas said that they had heard of Grand Bahama’s first technology Summit, and they spoke highly of the reports they had received. Minister Thompson says this bodes well for the second Tech Summit set for Grand Bahama this year.Minister Thompson said that another major meeting in Texas, which can have direct investment opportunity for Grand Bahama, was the meeting they had with executives of the Port of Houston.“They made a very detailed presentation to us and we began the dialogue of how we here in Freeport, with our Container Port and the GB Shipyard, could partner with them to have mutual exchange, which we hope would lead to more opportunities here in Grand Bahama,” said Minister Thompson.While in Houston, the Bahamian delegation was able to meet with Bahamians living in Texas, and were pleased to find out that there were a number of Bahamians living in the Houston area who were interested in doing projects in Grand Bahama.“The trip overall, we believe was a success. But the real success will come in the results. We are hopeful that we will see some positive results from this trip.”Minister Thompson noted that followup with the companies and individuals whom they met in Texas, has already begun. Although he says, it’s still at the early stages.”By: Andrew Coakley (BIS) Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp Related Items:
Harman [pictured], the 91-year-old founder and chairman emeritus of Harman International, was said last week to be the frontrunner among the bidders. One of the reasons he was the favorite was because he reportedly plans to keep 250 of Newsweek’s current staff of 325. The Washington Post Co. says it will retain the pension assets and liabilities and certain employee obligations arising prior to the sale.Financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. “The resulting gain or loss at closing is not expected to be material to the financial position of The Washington Post Company,” the announcement says.One source pegged the deal as similar to the terms of the BusinessWeek acquisition by Bloomberg, only with “about $20 million more in liabilities.” Losses at Newsweek could approach $70 million this year, reports say.Newsweek.com reports that the magazine’s editor, Jon Meacham, will be leaving the magazine after the sale process is complete. CEO Tom Ascheim is expected to remain in his role under Harman’s ownership.The Washington Post Co. was advised in the deal by Allen & Co. Guggenheim Securities LLC represented Harman.The Washington Post Co. put the Newsweek up for sale in May. Bids were due at 5 p.m. on July 1. At the time, conservative-leaning political magazine brand Newsmax Media and a group backed by private equity manager Thane Ritchie said they weren’t proceeding with the auction process.Last week, it was reported that the Washington Post Co. wasn’t interested in selling to bidder Avenue Capital Group over concerns with the hedge fund’s proposal to partner with National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc. to handle some of the behind-the-scenes operations at Newsweek. It is not immediately clear if investment firm OpenGate Capital, which was rumored to be among those interested in acquiring Newsweek, ever placed a bid.Fred Drasner , a former partner of Mort Zuckerman who helped negotiate his deals for the Daily News, Atlantic Monthly and Fast Company, also placed a bid for Newsweek. He did not immediately return a FOLIO: e-mail seeking comment. UPDATE: Click here for Drasner’s response. SEE ALSO: Maintaining Status Quo Will Spell DisasterThe deal is done and the announcement has been made: The Washington Post Co. has wrapped up its auction of Newsweek, selling the ailing newsweekly to audio magnate Sidney Harman. The deal was announced this afternoon.In announcing the sale, Washington Post Co. chairman Donald E. Graham says: “In seeking a buyer for Newsweek, we wanted someone who feels as strongly as we do about the importance of quality journalism. We found that person in Sidney Harman. He has pledged not only to continue to produce a lively, compelling and first-rate news magazine, but also an equally dynamic Newsweek.com—and he intends to keep a majority of Newsweek’s very talented staff.”
The Secondary School Certificate (SSC) and its equivalent examinations of 2018 will begin across the country on Thursday, reports UNB.This year, 2031,899 students, including 1023,212 boys and 1008,687 girls, are expected to sit for the examinations from 8,551 institutions under 3,412 centres, said, said education minister Nurul Islam Nahid at a press briefing at the Secretariat on Tuesday.Of them, 1603,078 students will sit for the SSC examination under eight general education boards, while 289,772 for Dakhil exam under the Madrasah Education Board and 114,779 for vocational exam under the Bangladesh Technical Education Board.The number of total examinees has risen to 245,286 from previous year’s 1782,613.A total of 458 students will sit for the examinations from eight overseas centres as well.The written examinations will continue until 25 February while the practical examinations will be held from 26 February to 4 March.The minister said teachers and others will be barred from carrying smartphones inside the exam centres. Only exam centre secretary would be allowed to carry a feature mobile phone.The restriction has been imposed as there were instances of taking pictures of question papers by some unscrupulous teacher and sending those to others through smartphones for unfair gains.The government also stopped the activities of the coaching centres ahead of the beginning of the examinations and will keep those closed until the exams end. Actions will be taken if any coaching centre is found open.Steps have been taken to prevent question paper leak, spreading rumour over question paper leak and circulating questions through Facebook, said the minister.The examinees have to enter their respective exam halls at least 30 minutes before the exams begin, no excuse will be accepted in this regard, said the minister.