o-oum.com |
- Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks – Learn The Best Barn Buddy Tricks for Coins
- Christina Fulton, Mother of Weston Cage, Files HUGE Lawsuit Against Nicolas Cage
- Soft Drinks
- New tools information from facebook privacy settings
- New tools information from facebook privacy settings
- Brangelina Donates $500,000 to Joplin, Missouri
| Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks – Learn The Best Barn Buddy Tricks for Coins Posted: 10 Jun 2011 09:17 PM PDT Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks – Learn The Best Barn Buddy Tricks for Coins Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks Barn Buddy is one of many free Facebook based sociable games that permit you to interact with your Facebook friends in a playful and fun way. The game is a so called Verified Application, which means Facebook has tested it and proven it to be safe for use and installation. Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks The game was published in the latter half of 2009, and has went extremely popular in a very brief time. The role of the game is to spring up crops on your farm and then trade them in order to take money for additional items for the farm or more seeds. The more you manage for your plants, the more you will get when you deal them, and caring for the plants is better if your friends help you with it, so many another people actively encourage their friends to take part in their farming. You can also tease your friends by stealing their crops or putting bugs or weeds on their farms, or send them special Barn Buddy gifts in order to help them. Of course you might also encounter some of the troubles a true life farmer might run into, such as weeds showing up about your carefully planted plants or bugs trying to fill their stomachs by munching on things that are really not intended for them. In these events, you have to puzzle out the problems by using different farming tools. The game is broken into various levels, and as you get more experienced in planting and harvesting, you will be fit to come up to the next level. Higher levels also open up new selections. When you move up, you will be able to plant other plants which were not available before, which will make you more money. You will also be able to place better and rarer gifts to your friends, and when you reach particular levels you will also be able to expand your farm. You start out with 6 patches of land, and the first enlargement takes place when you make level 5. Making level 5 will add another plot to your farm. The more friends you have, the quicker you will be able to gain experience points and boost in the game. Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks Barn Buddy Facebook Tricks – Learn The Best Barn Buddy Tricks for Coins is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| Christina Fulton, Mother of Weston Cage, Files HUGE Lawsuit Against Nicolas Cage Posted: 10 Jun 2011 09:06 PM PDT It turns out that Weston Cage’s hospitalization following a brawl on an L.A. street this week was just the latest chapter in his parents’ ugly legal battle. Weston, 20, is the son of Nicolas Cage and Christina Fulton, who demanded last week that Cage cough up more information about Weston’s condition. Fulton filed a motion June 3 in L.A. Superior Court as part of a $ 13 million lawsuit alleging he mentally and emotionally abused her, then evicted her. Christina claims he took Weston out from under her care at that time. Christina Fulton and Weston Cage, her son with Nic. Fulton states that she cared for “medically challenged” Weston until he was 18 and that he “suffered from a number of mental, psychological, and physical ailments” that “required ’round the clock supervision and parental care.” Fulton also explained that she quit her acting career to care for her son before he was ultimately taken away from her by Nicolas Cage. It gets worse. A hearing has been set for July 14 on whether the actor will be required to disclose to her more information about Weston’s current mental state. Nicolas Cage is also being asked to fork over his tax returns. Perhaps this squabbling had been weighing on Weston’s mind earlier this week? In any case, a few weeks before the now-infamous fight, his father ended up being deposed by Fulton’s camp regarding his own anger issues. Specifically, Nicolas Cage’s insane arrest in New Orleans on suspicion of domestic abuse, disturbing the peace and public intoxication. Those charges were dropped, but clearly are still in play in Fulton’s legal war with the actor. Hopefully an amicable resolution can be reached. [Photo: WENN.com] Christina Fulton, Mother of Weston Cage, Files HUGE Lawsuit Against Nicolas Cage is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| Posted: 10 Jun 2011 07:32 PM PDT Soft Drinks Soft Drinks *Dr.P.Shanmukha Rao **Dr.N.V.S.Suryanarayana
Introduction: Soft drink market size for FY00 was around 270mn cases (6480mn bottles). The market witnessed 5- 6% growth in the early'90s. Presently the market growth has growth rate of 7- 8% per annum compared to 22% growth rate in the previous year. The market size for FY01 is expected to be 7000mn bottles. Soft Drink Production area The market preference is highly regional based. While cola drinks have main markets in metro cities and northern states of UP, Punjab, Haryana etc. Orange flavored drinks are popular in southern states. Sodas too are sold largely in southern states besides sale through bars. Western markets have preference towards mango flavored drinks. Diet coke presently constitutes just 0.7% of the total carbonated beverage market. Growth promotional activities The government has adopted liberalized policies for the soft drink trade to give the industry a boast and promote the Indian brands internationally. Although the import and manufacture of international brands like Pepsi and Coke is enhanced in India the local brands are being stabilized by advertisements, good quality and low cost. The soft drinks market till early 1990s was in hands of domestic players like Campa, Thumps up, Limca etc but with opening up of economy and coming of MNC players Pepsi and Coke the market has come totally under their control. The distribution network of Coca cola had 6.5lakh outlets across the country in FY00, which the company is planning to increase to 8 lakhs by FY01. On the other hand Pepsi Co’s distribution network had 6 lakh outlets across the country during FY00 which it is planning to increase to 7.5Lakh by FY01.
Types of soft drinks Soft drinks are available in glass bottles, aluminum cans and PET bottles for home consumption. Fountains also dispense them in disposable containers Non-alcoholic soft drink beverage market can be divided into fruit drinks and soft drinks. Soft drinks can be further divided into carbonated and non-carbonated drinks. Cola, lemon and oranges are carbonated drinks while mango drinks come under non carbonated category. The market can also be segmented on the basis of types of products into cola products and non-cola products. Cola products account for nearly 61-62% of the total soft drinks market. The brands that fall in this category are Pepsi, Coca- Cola, Thumps Up, diet coke, Diet Pepsi etc. Non-cola segment which constitutes 36% can be divided into 4 categories based on the types of flavors available, namely: Orange, Cloudy Lime, Clear Lime and Mango.
The soft drink industry is so profitable An industry analysis through Porter’s Five Forces reveals that market forces are favorable for profitability. Defining theindustry Both concentrate producers (CP) and bottlers are profitable. Thesetwo parts of the Industries are extremely interdependent, sharing costs in procurement, production, marketing and distribution. Many of their functions overlap; for instance, CPs do some bottling, andbottlers conduct many promotional activities. The industry is already vertically integrated to some extent. They also deal with similar suppliers and buyers. Entry into the industry would involve developing operations in either or both disciplines. Beverage substitutes would threaten both CPs and their associated bottlers. Because of operational overlap and similarities in their market environment, we can include both CPs and bottlers in our definition of the soft drink industry. In 1993, CPs earned 29% pretax profits on their sales, while bottlers earned 9% profits on their sales, for a total industry profitability of 14% (Exhibit 1). This industry as a whole generates positive economic profits Rivalry: Revenues are extremely concentrated in this industry, with Coke and Pepsi, together with their associated bottlers, commanding 73% of the case market in 1994. Adding in the next tier of soft drink companies, the top six controlled 89% of the market. In fact, one could characterize the soft drink market as an oligopoly, or even a duopoly between Coke and Pepsi, resulting in positive economic profits. To be sure, there was tough competition between Coke and Pepsi for market share, and this occasionally hampered profitability. For example, price wars resulted in weak brand loyalty and eroded margins for both companies in the 1980s. The Pepsi Challenge, meanwhile, affected market share without hampering per case profitability, as Pepsi was able to compete on attributes other than price. Substitutes: Through the early 1960s, soft drinks were synonymous with “colas” in the mind of consumers. Over time, however, other beverages, from bottled water to teas, became more popular, especially in the 1980s and 1990s. Coke and Pepsi responded by expanding their offerings, through alliances (e.g. Coke and Nestea), acquisitions (e.g. Coke and Minute Maid), and internal product innovation (e.g. Pepsi creating Orange Slice), capturing the value of increasingly popular substitutes internally. Proliferation in the number of brands did threaten the profitability of bottlers through 1986, as they more frequent line set-ups, increased capital investment, and development of special management skills for more complex manufacturing operations and distribution. Bottlers were able to overcome these operational challenges through consolidation to achieve economies of scale. Overall, because of the CPs efforts in diversification, however, substitutes became less of a threat. Power of Suppliers: The inputs for Coke and Pepsi’s products were primarily sugar and packaging. Sugar could be purchased from many sources on the open market, and if sugar became too expensive, the firms could easily switch to corn syrup, as they did in the early 1980s. So the suppliers of nutritive sweeteners did not have much bargaining power against Coke, Pepsi, and their bottlers. NutraSweet, meanwhile, had recently come off patent in 1992, and the soft drink industry gained another supplier, Holland Sweetener, which reduced Searle’s bargaining power and lowering the price of aspartame. With an abundant supply of inexpensive aluminum in the early 1990s and several can companies competing for contracts with bottlers, can suppliers had very little supplier power. Furthermore, Coke and Pepsi effectively further reduced the supplier of can makers by negotiating on behalf of their bottlers, thereby reducing the number of major contracts available to two. With more than two companies vying for these contracts, Coke and Pepsi were able to negotiate extremely favorable agreements. In the plastic bottle business, again there were more suppliers than major contracts, so direct negotiation by the CPs was again effective at reducing supplier power. Power of buyers: The soft drink industry sold to consumers through five principal channels food stores, convenience and gas, fountain, vending, and mass merchandisers (primary part of “Other” in “Cola Wars…” case). Supermarkets, the principal customer for soft drink makers, were a highly fragmented industry. The stores counted on soft drinks to generate consumer traffic, so they needed Coke and Pepsi products. But due to their tremendous degree of fragmentation (the biggest chain made up 6% of food retail sales, and the largest chains controlled up to 25% of a region), these stores did not have much bargaining power. Their only power was control over premium shelf space, which could be allocated to Coke or Pepsi products. This power did give them some control over soft drink profitability. Furthermore, consumers expected to pay less through this channel, so prices were lower, resulting in somewhat lower profitability. National mass merchandising chains such as Wal-Mart, on the other hand, had much more bargaining power. While these stores did carry both Coke and Pepsi products, they could negotiate more effectively due to their scale and the magnitude of their contracts. For this reason, the mass merchandiser channel was relatively less profitable for soft drink makers. The least profitable channel for soft drinks, however, was fountain sales. Profitability at these locations was so abysmal for Coke and Pepsi that they considered this channel “paid sampling.” This was because buyers at major fast food chains only needed to stock the products of one manufacturer, so they could negotiate for optimal pricing. Coke and Pepsi found these channels important, however, as an avenue to build brand recognition and loyalty, so they invested in the fountain equipment and cups that were used to serve their products at these outlets. As a result, while Coke and Pepsi gained only 5% margins, fast food chains made 75% gross margin on fountain drinks. Vending, meanwhile, was the most profitable channel for the soft drink industry. Essentially there were no buyers to bargain with at these locations, where Coke and Pepsi bottlers could sell directly to consumers through machines owned by bottlers. Property owners were paid a sales commission on Coke and Pepsi products sold through machines on their property, so their incentives were properly aligned with those of the soft drink makers, and prices remained high. The customer in this case was the consumer, who was generally limited on thirst quenching alternatives. The final channel to consider is convenience stores and gas stations. If Mobil or Seven-Eleven were to negotiate on behalf of its stations, it would be able to exert significant buyer power in transactions with Coke and Pepsi. Apparently, though, this was not the nature of the relationship between soft drink producers and this channel, where bottlers’ profits were relatively high, at .40 per case, in 1993. With this high profitability, it seems likely that Coke and Pepsi bottlers negotiated directly with convenience store and gas station owners. So the only buyers with dominant power were fast food outlets. Although these outlets captured most of the soft drink profitability in their channel, they accounted for less than 20% of total soft drink sales. Barriers to Entry: It would be nearly impossible for either a new CP or a new bottler to enter the industry. New CPs would need to overcome the tremendous marketing muscle and market presence of Coke, Pepsi, and a few others, who had established brand names that were as much as a century old. Through their DSD practices, these companies had intimate relationships with their retail channels and would be able to defend their positions effectively through discounting or other tactics. So, although the CP industry is not very capital intensive, other barriers would prevent entry. Entering bottling, meanwhile, would require substantial capital investment, which would deter entry. Further complicating entry into this market, existing bottlers had exclusive territories in which to distribute their products. Regulatory approval of intra brand exclusive territories, via the Soft Drink Inter brand Competition Act of 1980, ratified this strategy, making it impossible for new bottlers to get started in any region where an existing bottler operated, which included every significant market in the US. In conclusion, an industry analysis by Porter’s Five Forces reveals that the soft drink industry in 1994 was favorable for positive economic profitability, as evidenced in companies’ financial outcomes. Compare the economics of the concentrate business to the bottling business In some ways, the economics of the concentrate business and the bottling business should be inextricably linked. The CPs negotiate on behalf of their suppliers, and they are ultimately dependent on the same customers. Even in the case of materials, such as aspartame, that are incorporated directly into concentrates, CPs pass along any negotiated savings directly to their bottlers. Yet the industries are quite different in terms of profitability. The fundamental difference between CPs and bottlers is added value. The biggest source of added value for CPs is their proprietary, branded products. Coke has protected its recipe for over a hundred years as a trade secret, and has gone to great lengths to prevent others from learning its cola formula. The company even left a billion-person market (India) to avoid revealing this information. As a result of extended histories and successful advertising efforts, Coke and Pepsi are respected household names, giving their products an aura of value that cannot be easily replicated. Also hard to replicate are Coke and Pepsi’s sophisticated strategic and operational management practices, another source of added value. Bottlers have significantly less added value. Unlike their CP counterparts, they do not have branded products or unique formulas. Their added value stems from their relationships with CPs and with their customers. They have repeatedly negotiated contracts with their customers, with whom they work on an ongoing basis, and whose idiosyncratic needs are familiar to them. Through long-term, in depth relationships with their customers, they are able to serve customers effectively. Through DSD programs, they lower their customers’ costs, making it possible for their customers to purchase and sell more product. In this way, bottlers are able to grow the pie of the soft drink market. Their other source of profitability is their contract relationships with CPs, which grant them exclusive territories and share some cost savings. Exclusive territories prevent intrabrand competition, creating oligopolies at the bottler level, which reduce rivalry and allow profits. To further build “glass houses,” as described by Nalebuff and Brand enterer (Co-petition, p. 88), for their bottlers, CPs pass along some of their negotiated supply savings to their bottlers. Coke gives 2/3 of negotiated aspartame savings to its bottlers by contract, and Pepsi does this in practice. This practice keeps bottlers comfortable enough, so that they are unlikely to challenge their contracts. Bottlers’ principal ability is to use their capital resources effectively. Suchoperational effectiveness is not a driver of added value, however, as operational effectiveness is easily replicated. Between 1986 and 1993, the differences in added value between CPs and bottlers resulted in a major shift in profitability within the industry. Exhibit 1 demonstrates these dramatic changes. While industry profitability increased by 11%, CP profits rose by 130% on a per case basis, from .10 to .23. During this period, bottler profits actually dropped on a per case basis by 23%, from .35 to 0.27. One possibility is that product line expansion in defense against new age beverages helped CPs but hurt bottlers. This would be expected if bottler’s per case costs increased due to the operational challenges and capital costs of producing and distributing broader product lines. This, however, was not the case; cost of sales per case decreased for both CPs and bottlers by 27% during this period, mostly due to economies of scale developed through consolidation. The real difference between the fortunes of CPs and bottlers through this period, then, is in top line revenues. While CPs were able to charge more for their products, bottlers faced price pressure, resulting in lower revenues per case. These per case revenue changes occurred during a period of slowing growth in the industry, as shown in Exhibit 2. Growth in per capita consumption of soft drinks slowed to a 1.2% CAGR in the period 1989 to 1993, while case volume growth tapered to 2.3%. In an struggle to secure limited shelf space with more products and slower overall growth, bottlers were probably forced to give up more margin on their products. CPs, meanwhile, could continue increasing the prices for their concentrates with the consumer price index. Coke had negotiated this flexibility into its Master Bottling Contact in 1986, and Pepsi had worked price increases based on the CPI into its bottling contracts. So, while the bottlers faced increasing price pressure in a slowing market, CPs could continue raising their prices. Despite improvements in per case costs, bottlers could not improve their profitability as a percent of total sales. As a result, through the period of 1986 to 1993, bottlers did not gain any of the profitability gains enjoyed by CPs. Contracts between CPs and bottlers taken the form they have in the soft drink industry: Contracts between CPs and bottlers were strategically constructed by the CPs. Although beneficial to bottlers on the surface, the contracts favored the CPs’ long-term strategies in important ways. First, territorial exclusivity is beneficial to bottlers, as it prevents intrabrand competition, ensures bargaining power over buyers and establishes barriers to entry. But it is also beneficial to CPs, who are also not subject to price wars within their own brand. The contracts also excluded bottlers from producing the flagship products of competitors. This created monopoly status for the CPs, from the bottler perspective. Each bottler could only negotiate with one supplier for its premium product. Violation of this stipulation would result in termination of the contract, which would leave the bottler in a difficult position. Historically, contracts were designed hold syrup prices constant into perpetuity, only influenced by rising prices of sugar. This changed in 1978 and 1986, as contracts were renegotiated, first to accommodate for rises in the CPI, and then to give general flexibility to the CP (Coke) in setting prices. Coke could negotiate this more flexible pricing because its bottlers were dependent on it for business. It further ensured that its bottlers would be captive to its monopoly status by buying major bottlers and then selling them into the CCE holding company, which would only produce Coke products. Coke would capture 49% of the dividends from CCE, without the complications of vertical integration. Should concentrate producers vertically integrate into bottling Given the data in Exhibit 1, indicating the CP business has grown more profitable over the last seven years, while the bottling industry has struggled to retain any profitability, it would not be advisable to vertically integrate. Stuckey and White indicate that a firm should “Integrate into those stages of the industry chain where the most economic surplus is available, irrespective of closeness to the customer or the absolute size of the value added.” In the soft drink industry, CPs generally miss out on the profits earned through fountain sales. Pepsi, realizing that fast food chains were capturing most of the value of fountain sales, entered the fast food business by purchasing Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC. These mergers allowed the firm to capture more value from its soft drink sales, but these mergers could also be problematic. For example, PepsiCo might not have a core competency in food sales or a strong position in the industry. Because it might not be able to effectively transfer skills or share activities with its fast food businesses, the mergers might not be successful in the long run. Stuckey and White also point out that “high-surplus stages must, by definition, be protected by barriers to entry.” So it could be difficult for Coke to enter the fast food business. It could be prohibitively expensive to purchase McDonalds or Burger King, and developing a chain of its own against such formidable competition would be extremely risky. So integration into this phase of the value chain would be difficult or impossible for Coke. As Stuckey and White say, “don’t vertically integrate unless it is absolutely necessary to create or protect value.” We shall address each of these individually to formally refute the plausibility of vertical integration of CPs into bottling. (1) “The market is too risky and unreliable.” On the contrary, the concentrate Market is highly stable and will be for a long time to come. “Companies in adjacent stages of the induct chain have more market power than companies in your stage.” The opposite is true, CPs already have more market power than bottlers, so they should not vertically integrate. “Integration would create or exploit market power by raising barriers to entry or allowing price discrimination across customer segments.” In fact, CPs already have market power through efficient barriers to entry, and effectively price discriminate through various retail channels. (4) “The market is young and the company must forward integrate to develop a market, or the market is declining and independents are pulling out of adjacent stages.” The market is neither young nor declining. Having determined that a vertical integration strategy fails all four of Stuckey and White’s tests, CPs should not pursue vertical integration into bottling. NEW DELHI — One of India’s leading voluntary agencies, the center for Science and Environment (CSE) said Tuesday that soft drinks manufactured in India, including those carrying the Pepsi and Coca-Cola brand names, contain unacceptably high levels of pesticide residues. The CSE analyzed samples from 12 major soft drink manufacturers that are sold in and around the capital at its laboratories and found that all of them contained residues of four extremely toxic pesticides and insecticides–lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos. ”In all the samples tested, the levels of pesticide residue far exceeded the maximum permissible total pesticide limit of 0.0005 mg per liter in water used as food, set down by the European Economic Commission (EEC),” said Sunita Narain, director of the CSE at a press conference convened to announce the findings. The level of chlorpyrifos was 42 times higher than EEC norms, their study showed. Malathion residues were 87 times higher and lindane–recently banned in the United States–21 times higher, CSE scientists said. They added that each sample was toxic enough to cause long-term cancer, damage to the nervous and reproductive systems, birth defects, and severe disruption of the immune system. Samples from brand leaders Coca-Cola and Pepsi had almost similar concentrations of pesticide residues in the CSE findings. Contaminants in Pepsi samples were 37 times higher than the EEC limit while its rival Coca-Cola exceeded the norms by 45 times, the same findings showed. The chiefs of the Indian subsidiaries of Coca-Cola and Pepsi were quick to refute the charges made at the press conference. Sanjeev Gupta, president of Coca-Cola India, called the revelations made by CSE ”unfair” and said his company was being subjected to a ”trial by media”. ”All Coca -Cola products are repeatedly tested for safety norms. This is unacceptable,” he said over the telephone. Gupta and the chief of the Pepsi India, Rajiv Baksh, have called for an independent inquiry led by India’s top scientists to settle the issue. Coca-Cola, the world’s ”most valuable brand” at billion, is already defending charges made by British Broadcasting Corp Radio 4 last month that waste sludge distributed to farmers from its plant at Plachimada in southern Kerala state has high concentrations of the toxic metal cadmium. In a joint press conference by Pepsi and Coke here Tuesday evening, Bakshi and Gupta said they were contemplating legal action against the CSE because the revelations had harmed the industry. ”We expect a temporary setback for about a week or so and then we are sure the consumers will have the same confidence in us they have always shown,” said Bakshi. But Narain said the CSE stood by its findings. Six months ago, CSE announced findings that nearly all bottled mineral water manufactured in India, including brands owned by Pepsi and Coca-Cola had large amounts of pesticides. This led to a massive government crackdown. At the time, Delhi state health minister A K Walia, a qualified physician himself, upheld the CSE findings and its laboratory. ”They (CSE) are using sensitive, internationally accepted methods,” he said. CSE scientists H. B. Mathur and Sapna Johnson, who were present at the press conference, said their basic inference was that, as with the bottled mineral water, the soft drink manufacturers were drawing their water supplies from groundwater that is heavily contaminated by years of indiscriminate pesticide use. High pesticide residues were reported in groundwater around Delhi two years ago, when the government’s Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) carried out a study which also reported excessive salinity, nitrate and fluoride content besides traces of lead, cadmium and chromium. Independent surveys have shown that tap water in the capital drawn from the Yamuna river and treated by Delhi Jal Board, the state-owned water utility, was loaded with bacteria that can cause cholera, typhoid and hepatitis. It also contained unacceptable amounts of solids and dissolved matter. Narain said it was not easy to take the companies to court because they hide behind a ”meaningless maze” of government regulations concerning the manufacture of soft drinks, which are completely ineffective and designed to help the soft drink industry rather than consumers. The Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act of 1954 and the Fruit Products Order (FPO) of 1955–both aimed at regulating the quality of contents in beverages – do not even provide scope for regulating pesticides in soft drinks Lax standards on food products are cited as one reason why India has not been able to make a dent in the international market. Last week, a European agency ordered alerts on chili powder imported from India because samples were found to be adulterated with banned carcinogenic dyes. Significantly, the CSE laboratories tested samples of soft drink brands popularly sold in the United States as control–and found that they did not contain any pesticide residue. In 2001, Indians consumed over 6.5 billion bottles of soft drinks Their growing popularity means that children and teenagers, who glug these bottles, are drinking a toxic potion, activists say. CSE found that the regulations for the powerful and massive soft drinks industry are much weaker, indeed non-existent, as compared to those for the bottled water industry. The norms that exist to regulate the quality of cold drinks are inadequate, leaving this “food” sector virtually unregulated. So pampered is the lucrative soft drink sector that it is exempted from the provisions of industrial licensing under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. A one-time licence from the ministry of food processing industries includes a no-objection certificate from the local government as well as the state pollution control board, and a water analysis report. There are no environmental impact assessments or sitting regulations, so the industry’s use of water is not regulated.
Party like a Rockstar! With double the size, this energy drink is double the strength. Scientifically formulated to provide an energy boost for those who lead active lifestyles, Rockstar Energy Drink is enhanced with potent herbal blends of guarana, ginkgo, ginseng and milk thistle. This energy drink is refreshing, lightly carbonated, and low in carbohydrates. Soft Drinks is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| New tools information from facebook privacy settings Posted: 10 Jun 2011 07:16 PM PDT New tools information from facebook privacy settings At the RSA Security Europe Conference, facebook privacy settings was at the forefront of people’s consciences. It was argued that communication has changed forever and this will have a negative impact on people’s levels of privacy. In times past, conversations were typically carried out over the phone or face to face. Now, most correspondence is carried out via email and/or online. This creates a copy of all facebook privacy settings.
Deleting an email does not necessarily bin it. The facebook privacy settings will still have a copy on their account. Not surprisingly, huge data centres have made it easier than ever to save online conversation. It was argued that facebook privacy settings and ever increasing memory capacities mean that storing and collecting data is now far more possible than it was some years ago.
You may be asking why it would matter, but facebook privacy settings means money. Having access to a lot of facebook private personal data will often mean companies can make more profit from advertising. On an everyday level, this is routinely seen while registering for anything new, with those ‘tick here if you do not want to have any correspondence from our company’; this occurs offline as well. Furthermore Is Your Facebook privacy settingsat Risk of Cyber Crime? , how many users read the terms of agreement facebook privacy settings policies for the programs we download or the sites which we use? It might end up being surprising to examine a few of them and understand precisely what the website can do with your collected data.
facebook privacy settings has routinely been derided for the complicated facebook privacy settingsand not being transparent. It is totally feasible for people to read almost all the info on somebody’s profile if they have not enabled specific privacy options. While the safety conscience amongst us will be sure to set our facebook privacy settings yappropriately, many people don’t realize they are even exposing themselves to potential identity theft and Internet crime. It is not merely enough to argue that it is their own problem if you have facebook privacy settings becomes compromised. Additionally, organizations shouldn’t desire to deceive consumers on purpose so as to facilitate simpler data collection.
Google was also under lots of political and social criticism with regard to its unauthorized gathering of facebook privacy settings when collecting data as part of facebook privacy settings service. Google essentially listened in on people’s wi-fi connections and saved personal and facebook privacy settings Google’s blasé response upset loads of users and several national governments were drawn into the debate challenging the legality of Google’s actions.
The more facebook privacy settings information an organization has on you, that more they can charge marketers in order to target users. If an organization knows you are female, aged between 30-40 and have five kids, well then advertisers will pay more since they can target their advertisements more efficiently. facebook privacy settings gets targeted at the proper demographic then the advertisers will get more results. Marketers are willing to pay a premium because then they would be able to target you with toy, home improvements and kitchen advertisements, compared to advertisements for weight lifting or extreme sports (although these are big generalizations).
Thus, it is important to always facebook privacy settings ensure that you read terms of agreement thoroughly. Whenever you register for anything you are signing a contract. It would be horrible to think of facebook privacy settings is one speedy registration for a website could result in anything bad some years down the line. Always read the small print well, it may sound clichéd but it just might save your facebook privacy settings. Furthermore, you should also always have safe online safety practices. Having a safe password is a great step but you could also try a password keeper which would enhance your safety! You can save your passwords online to a site and keep them safe and secure of the search share has been facing continuous criticism and concern. Recently, Google’s CEO, Mr. Schmidt said that if user has something that he does not want anyone to know, maybe he should not be doing it facebook privacy settings in the first place. And it is reality that search engines have to retain the information for some time, for example, government authorities can demand the information. e Facebook and other Facebook marketing tips and tricks. To accommodate the facebook privacy settings needs of its users, facebook privacy settings had released open draft and seek people’s intention last year. In December 2009, the company had announced various changes in the privacy policy, which gives power to its users by changing default settings to be more permissive, like making all status updates public by facebook privacy settings as 80 percent of its users stick with those settings. But, Google approach towards facebook is lenient, which concerns many. New tools information from facebook privacy settings is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| New tools information from facebook privacy settings Posted: 10 Jun 2011 07:16 PM PDT New tools information from facebook privacy settings At the RSA Security Europe Conference, facebook privacy settings was at the forefront of people’s consciences. It was argued that communication has changed forever and this will have a negative impact on people’s levels of privacy. In times past, conversations were typically carried out over the phone or face to face. Now, most correspondence is carried out via email and/or online. This creates a copy of all facebook privacy settings.
Deleting an email does not necessarily bin it. The facebook privacy settings will still have a copy on their account. Not surprisingly, huge data centres have made it easier than ever to save online conversation. It was argued that facebook privacy settings and ever increasing memory capacities mean that storing and collecting data is now far more possible than it was some years ago.
You may be asking why it would matter, but facebook privacy settings means money. Having access to a lot of facebook private personal data will often mean companies can make more profit from advertising. On an everyday level, this is routinely seen while registering for anything new, with those ‘tick here if you do not want to have any correspondence from our company’; this occurs offline as well. Furthermore Is Your Facebook privacy settingsat Risk of Cyber Crime? , how many users read the terms of agreement facebook privacy settings policies for the programs we download or the sites which we use? It might end up being surprising to examine a few of them and understand precisely what the website can do with your collected data.
facebook privacy settings has routinely been derided for the complicated facebook privacy settingsand not being transparent. It is totally feasible for people to read almost all the info on somebody’s profile if they have not enabled specific privacy options. While the safety conscience amongst us will be sure to set our facebook privacy settings yappropriately, many people don’t realize they are even exposing themselves to potential identity theft and Internet crime. It is not merely enough to argue that it is their own problem if you have facebook privacy settings becomes compromised. Additionally, organizations shouldn’t desire to deceive consumers on purpose so as to facilitate simpler data collection.
Google was also under lots of political and social criticism with regard to its unauthorized gathering of facebook privacy settings when collecting data as part of facebook privacy settings service. Google essentially listened in on people’s wi-fi connections and saved personal and facebook privacy settings Google’s blasé response upset loads of users and several national governments were drawn into the debate challenging the legality of Google’s actions.
The more facebook privacy settings information an organization has on you, that more they can charge marketers in order to target users. If an organization knows you are female, aged between 30-40 and have five kids, well then advertisers will pay more since they can target their advertisements more efficiently. facebook privacy settings gets targeted at the proper demographic then the advertisers will get more results. Marketers are willing to pay a premium because then they would be able to target you with toy, home improvements and kitchen advertisements, compared to advertisements for weight lifting or extreme sports (although these are big generalizations).
Thus, it is important to always facebook privacy settings ensure that you read terms of agreement thoroughly. Whenever you register for anything you are signing a contract. It would be horrible to think of facebook privacy settings is one speedy registration for a website could result in anything bad some years down the line. Always read the small print well, it may sound clichéd but it just might save your facebook privacy settings. Furthermore, you should also always have safe online safety practices. Having a safe password is a great step but you could also try a password keeper which would enhance your safety! You can save your passwords online to a site and keep them safe and secure of the search share has been facing continuous criticism and concern. Recently, Google’s CEO, Mr. Schmidt said that if user has something that he does not want anyone to know, maybe he should not be doing it facebook privacy settings in the first place. And it is reality that search engines have to retain the information for some time, for example, government authorities can demand the information. e Facebook and other Facebook marketing tips and tricks. To accommodate the facebook privacy settings needs of its users, facebook privacy settings had released open draft and seek people’s intention last year. In December 2009, the company had announced various changes in the privacy policy, which gives power to its users by changing default settings to be more permissive, like making all status updates public by facebook privacy settings as 80 percent of its users stick with those settings. But, Google approach towards facebook is lenient, which concerns many. New tools information from facebook privacy settings is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| Brangelina Donates $500,000 to Joplin, Missouri Posted: 10 Jun 2011 07:07 PM PDT Once again, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have donated a large chunk of change to a very good cause. In this case, it’s $ 500,000 to the Community Foundation of the Ozarks to assist the residents of Joplin, Missouri, whose town was destroyed by a tornado last month. "With the devastating loss of thirty percent of the city, the Joplin community faces great challenges ahead. Having spent much of my childhood there, I know these people to be hardworking, humble and especially resilient," said Pitt. Added Jolie: "Our hearts go out to the families in Joplin who have lost so much." This isn’t the first time this famous pairing has stepped up in the name of disaster relief. They gave $ 1 million to support rebuilding efforts in Haiti last year. [Photo: WENN.com] Brangelina Donates $500,000 to Joplin, Missouri is a post from: News and Reviews  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from My Review To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment