The University of Wisconsin men’s hockey team will begin what is arguably the most grueling month in college sports this weekend: The college hockey playoffs.The Badgers host a best-of-three series against conference foe Michigan Tech this weekend, which will begin a run that the Badgers hope will end Apr. 8 in the Frozen Four championship game in Milwaukee.From the pros down to high school, hockey playoffs reach another level of intensity. That passion lasts until the final second of the playoffs and will test any player’s mettle, according to Badgers head coach Mike Eaves.”You have to be able to play at a higher level, and I don’t think earplugs are going to do any good,” Eaves said of the metaphorical noise blockers in the playoffs. “I want earplugs out. I want our guys turning the volume up.”The Badgers head into the playoffs hurting both in body and in mind. Wisconsin hit bottom two weekends ago when they were swept at the hands of lowly Minnesota State-Mankato with goaltender Brian Elliott back from injury and looking lost.Elliott apparently found his form this weekend in a sweep of St. Cloud State, but the Badgers head into the playoffs missing forward Andrew Joudrey and defenseman Joe Piskula, two keys to the feisty Badger defense.Eaves believes this weekend’s series against Michigan Tech will not only start their playoff run, but will serve as a point from which to push off.”Using that analogy that we weren’t feeling very well, we’re still getting better, and that’s why I think this weekend is really important for us,” Eaves said. “I think this weekend could be another step in us getting back to playing even closer to where we were before Brian’s injury and having that confidence and that feeling from within.”Deceptively deep defenseWhen Joe Piskula blocked a shot Friday night, it sidelined him for two to four weeks, creating questions about the haughty Badger defense.Eaves thinks depth at defense is really not an issue at all, however. Josh Engel, who played in Piskula’s place Saturday night, played surprisingly well and should be an asset as the team heads into its playoff run.”He hasn’t played in a long time, and he jumped in and did very well,” Eaves said of Engel. “When you can go up to a defenseman after a game and say, ‘You know what, I didn’t notice you, you’ve done your job well,’ and Josh did a lot of good things for not being in the lineup.”Engel, a sophomore out of Rice Lake, Wis., has seen limited playing time this season but should see much more in the absence of Piskula, the team’s No. 2 defender. Eaves paired Engel up with assistant captain Tom Gilbert on defense for Saturday’s game.”We had even toyed about the factor of maybe even getting him in a game this weekend because of a depth factor and keeping him sharp,” Eaves said. “Unfortunately it happened because of an injury to Joe [Piskula].”Eaves also said forward Andy Brandt has been taking some reps as a defenseman in practice just in case he is needed to bolster the defensive corps. He also said Joudrey could fill in should he return before Piskula.If nothing else, Eaves said, a team can survive with fewer than six defensemen.”One of the things you do, I know in the minor leagues when you’re coaching, a lot of times you play with four or five defensemen because that’s all you have healthy,” Eaves said. “If you need to, you can drop to those numbers.”Scoring early a priorityWhen Joe Pavelski scored a goal 51 seconds into the game Saturday night, it was the fifth time this season the Badgers have scored in the first minute of regulation, and the tenth time they have scored in the first four minutes.”We have a sign in our locker room before we go out for games — [it reads] Great Start,” Eaves explained. “It’s part of who we are.”The Badgers are 7-3 when they score within the first four minutes, and they are 4-1 when they score in the first minute. Scoring early and getting off to a good start has been a priority for the Badgers since Eaves’ arrival.”The seniors have heard that since their first year here,” Eaves said. “Not only do they see that, but they know the statistical evidence that proves that teams that score first are perhaps more likely to win games.”The Badgers are also 20-4-1 when they score first, something that will increase in importance as the playoffs heat up.
Daniel Amartey has personally endured a difficult campaign this season, failing to make a single league appearance all term. Leicester City defender, Daniel Amartey, has congratulated teammate Jamie Vardy, after the ex-England international reached the 100-goal mark in the Premier League.Vardy’s brace against Jordan Ayew’s Crystal Palace took the 33 year old top of this season’s Goal King race, with 21 goals.Vardy, now joins an elite group of players, like Thierry Henry and Didier Drogba, who scored over 100 Premier League goals.Ghana international, Amartey, who was not in the team due to injury, posted on his official Twitter page, congratulating the prolific forward on his feat. read more
SANTA FE SPRINGS – Traffic ground to a crawl on a busy stretch of local freeway Wednesday after a flatbed truck carrying a high-pressure chamber slammed into an overpass and got stuck. Officials issued a SigAlert and shut down three lanes of the northbound Santa Ana (5) Freeway for nearly 6 1/2 hours. Officials also closed the Valley View Avenue onramps and offramps. Freeway lanes remained closed at 4:30 p.m. “Horrible – it’s just a parking lot,” California Highway Patrol Officer Patrick Kimball said after viewing the scene via a freeway camera. The incident began at 12:20 p.m., when the truck hit the Alondra Boulevard overpass, knocking off pieces of concrete from the sides of the bridge. The truck driver, who wasn’t injured, was cited for not obeying a permit. Drivers need a permit to carry oversized loads. The permits also contain the route drivers need to take, according to CHP Sgt. Sid Belk. He said the truck was hauling an autoclave chamber, which is used for compressing gases. “For unknown reasons, he thought that was the route he was going to take,” Belk said. “He was not on a permitted route. … He probably traveled 500 feet before he hit the bridge.” The trucker’s load measured 16 feet tall, while the bridge is about 15.5 feet tall, he added. To free the truck, Belk said, officials removed air from its tires, unloaded the autoclave chamber and pulled the vehicle out. Caltrans officials were at the scene inspecting the overpass. email@example.com (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3026 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! read more
Can morality evolve in Darwin’s universe? Steven Pinker, evolutionary psychologist at Harvard, is just the man to ask. He wrote an 8-page article for the New York Times about it, facing the issues with frankness and forthrightness. To Pinker, as with other evolutionary psychologists, the “moral” behind morality is an evolutionary artifact of psychological choices and behaviors that have evolved over millions of years. Populations choose what is right or wrong based on shared and habitual patterns that aid survival. Pinker justified his scientific amorality on the grounds that scientists are just trying to be objective observers:Science amoralizes the world by seeking to understand phenomena rather than pass judgment on them. Secular philosophy is in the business of scrutinizing all beliefs, including those entrenched by authority and tradition. It’s not surprising that these institutions are often seen to be morally corrosive. And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested – to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.So Pinker is certainly aware of the criticisms of the “new science of the moral sense,” but blames them on misunderstanding of the “logic of evolutionary explanations.” Evolutionists don’t believe that “selfish genes” are really selfish, he says; the phrase is merely an anthropomorphism to describe appearances in behavior shaped by the process of natural selection. The first half of Pinker’s article concerned itself with moral dilemmas and taboos, and results of neuropsychological tests on twins and on people forced into difficult choices. On page 6 and following, he got into the meaning of evolutionary explanations when talking about morality itself. Does natural selection necessarily lead to moral relativism?Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?Well-stated questions. What is the Darwinian answer? Religions and Platonic philosophers can point to God or the Logos for a universal morality, he knows, but can evolutionists find a moral pole star in an unguided, essentially amoral process? The crux of his argument is on page 7, where he argues that nonzero-sum games push any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction, and that this direction becomes a natural standard, like a mathematical eigenvalue, by which moral actions can be judged. Two features of reality, he says, might not give us 10 Thou-Shalt-Nots, but provide useful If-Thens:One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things. The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me – to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car – then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.In this way, Pinker has described morality as a “natural” outcome of rational parties having to survive. As support for his thesis, he points to the fact that great minds throughout history – Spinoza, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Kant and Rawls (all noteworthily non-religious in their approach) – have ended up aligning with the same eigenvector we call the Golden Rule. There must be something natural about this outcome. “It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle – the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of sentient beings.” Pinker ended by pointing to cases of opposing groups moralizing against each other. “Our habit of moralizing problems, merging them with intuitions of purity and contamination, and resting content when we feel the right feelings, can get in the way of doing the right thing,” he says. The surprising conclusion? Evolutionary theory does not lead to moral relativism! “Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend.”Did you catch the flaw in Pinker’s reasoning that makes his whole case collapse? For some of you who are getting good at baloney detecting, it was a no-brainer. The core of his argument was that competing (selfish) parties are better off if they cooperate rather than compete, and that this can become a standard for morality. Let’s ask the eminent Hahvahd professor a simple, two-word question: “Define better.” As we explained in our 12/19/2007 commentary, evolutionary “progress” is like erratic motion on a frictionless surface infinite in all directions. There are no guidelines to what constitutes “better” or “worse” in Darwinland. Why? Because the core belief that underlies all Darwinian thinking is that evolution must be unguided. Purpose and aim, therefore, are out, along with any ideas of universal truths. There are neither gridlines nor compass points on the Darwinland surface. They try to hide this fact sometimes using their two-platoon strategy (01/06/2008 commentary), but Phillip Johnson in his books has exposed this essential feature of Darwinian evolution, and you see it in the evolutionary literature all the time. What you don’t find in the evolutionary literature is an acknowledgement of the fact that this leads to a self-refuting belief system. Learn the following principles well, because the Darwinists are ratcheting up the propaganda campaign to sell their pseudo-scientific “evolution of the moral sense” plot in a devious attempt to undermine the claims of Christianity and make Darwinism appear self-sufficient, able to explain the most intractable aspects of human behavior (06/25/2007, 12/01/2007, 05/22/2007, 05/17/2007, 06/14/2007). Their explanations do little more than add to the just-so story database (11/05/2005, 09/09/2007 01/21/2006) and cannot be defended rationally, but they are luring students into the Darwin Party with their seductive tales (12/21/2005). Pinker has no grounds on which to describe his pseudo-morality as “better” than a Hobbes-style “war of all against all.” Remember? Darwinists claim that meteorites have bombarded most of life extinct several times. Can a Darwinist shed a tear about those episodes in his myth? No. He must be consistent and simply take notes when the world kills itself, gets killed by natural causes, or never generates life in the first place. Evolution is what evolution does. There is no goal, no purpose, no destiny. The myth of evolutionary progress went out with Lamarck. This means that Sewall Wright’s model of the “fitness landscape” is a also myth. Since fitness is a vacuous term (fitness, remember, is not “better” than the lack of it; see “Fitness for Dummies” from 10/29/2002), the model collapses into the flat, frictionless surface where there are no measures of good, bad, right, or wrong. Any attempt to extrude the Darwinland flat surface into a third dimension, such as describing a fitness landscape with peaks and valleys, is cheating. Similarly, you cannot add coordinates, pole stars or GPS systems. Where would they come from? What rational being would impose them on the flatland? As surprising as this sounds, one consequence is that fitness is a concept alien to the Darwinian world view. Why? Because it implies fitness is “better” than non-fitness. Says who? I don’t see any impartial judges or scorekeepers around; do you? Where did they come from? Did they evolve? If so, what gives them any right to sit in judgment? Pinker might respond that as a scientific observer, he is not making value judgments at all, but simply attempting to describe objectively what populations tend to do: cooperation among sentient beings, a.k.a. morality, “happens”. But here he has snuck in another alien concept (that is, alien to his world view): sentience. Pinker simply helped himself to the concept of sentience (consciousness), like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Sentience is not composed of particles. You can look inside a brain all you want and you will never discover sentience. You will see neurotransmitters moving from point to point, and electrical impulses traveling. You might even see more activity when a sentient being is having a sensation. You will not, however, “see” sentience, any more than watching the pixels in an LCD with an oscilloscope will reveal the conceptual content of the TV program. Neither will you ever be capable of observing sentience emerging from a Darwinian process. A creationist will come along and say that “God endowed animals and humans with sentience” – on what scientific basis can Pinker show this is not the case? It certainly fits the observations. It fits the logic of causality, because out of nothing, nothing comes. God’s sentience is the foundation for our sentience. Q.E.D. OK, Mr. Darwinist, explain that. Pinker, like so many other Darwinists, has the Yoda Complex (see 04/30/2007 commentary and links). He has conveniently removed himself from Darwinland and is portraying himself as a detached, neutral, unbiased observer. This is cheating. He cannot simply step outside his evolved skin and pretend that there are laws of logic and universal truths that are eternal, necessary and certain, nor can he take with him the Judeo-Christian concept of rationality, or spiritual concepts and values found in the Bible: truth, logic, honesty, right and wrong. The devil didn’t write Scripture, but he quotes it when it suits his purposes. Pinker was aware of the problem of universal truths and thought he could get away with a slick appeal to philosophical dualism (that there is a world of matter and a world of ideas). He dismissed Platonic forms but then turned right around and reintroduced them in a modern Darwinian sense, filching concepts that Darwinism cannot generate on its own. Watch him:This throws us back to wondering where those reasons could come from, if they are more than just figments of our brains. They certainly aren’t in the physical world like wavelength or mass. The only other option is that moral truths exist in some abstract Platonic realm, there for us to discover, perhaps in the same way that mathematical truths (according to most mathematicians) are there for us to discover. On this analogy, we are born with a rudimentary concept of number, but as soon as we build on it with formal mathematical reasoning, the nature of mathematical reality forces us to discover some truths and not others. (No one who understands the concept of two, the concept of four and the concept of addition can come to any conclusion but that 2 + 2 = 4.) Perhaps we are born with a rudimentary moral sense, and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some conclusions but not others. Moral realism, as this idea is called, is too rich for many philosophers’ blood. Yet a diluted version of the idea – if not a list of cosmically inscribed Thou-Shalts, then at least a few If-Thens – is not crazy. Two features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself.Did you catch it? Don’t be fooled by the magician; watch his hands and learn how the trick is done. He just helped himself to ideas. He helped himself to rationality (i.e., his proposed idea is “not crazy”). He helped himself to If-Then statements, which presuppose laws of logic. He helped himself to Universals, a moral sense (no matter how rudimentary), moral reasoning, benchmarks and all kinds of non-Darwinian things. Foul! Don’t let him get away with it. Appealing to “mathematical reality” with an argument from analogy only adds fallacy to trickery. If mathematical truths are abstract concepts, then abstract concepts are true, universal, necessary and certain: they too could not evolve from particles in motion.Plato was a secular idealist: he believed in the existence of a world of ideas, including idealized universal forms of which actual instances are particulars, and of universal values like truth, love and morality. But it is not going to help Pinker to appeal to an updated, Darwinized version of Platonism, because Platonism collapses under its own arbitrary assumptions. Plato had no explanation for how the forms get impressed on the world of reality. He speculated that maybe it’s like an actor playing a role; different particulars are like different actors acting out the universal character. This is another argument from analogy, and it fails to explain how the forms get impressed on the particulars. To account for the connection, he had to resort to a myth about some demiurge he could not justify other than that he believed it. You can prove anything with an arbitrary assumption. Christians have evidence of God, the eternal and universal standard of rationality, virtue and truth, imposing these universals onto the world of particulars at Creation, in the 10 Commandments, and in Christ, among many documented cases of His revelation (including the whole Bible). Christians, therefore, have a “justified true belief” that legitimizes universal truths and explains how they were impressed on the particulars. Evolutionists have no such resources. Interestingly, both Augustine and Justin Martyr believed Plato got his ideas from Moses. This is possible in light of archaeological evidence that there was trade, including trafficking in slaves, from the Middle East into Greece centuries before Greek philosophy reached its zenith. Jewish victims could easily have taught their masters the principles of the Torah (illustration from another context: the servant girl of Naaman the Syrian, II Kings 5). Additionally, Israel was located at the crossroads of empires; undoubtedly there was ample opportunity for trade in ideas as well as goods and services. In this view, Platonism is parasitic on concepts that did not emerge out of the presuppositions of Greek thought. Another view is that Plato, and Pinker, reason about these things based on the innate sense of morality and rationality that is part of the image of God embossed in every human soul. Either way, the world of ideas requires a real soul; it cannot emerge naturally from particles in motion. Pinker can only write an 8-page treatise on morality when he plagiarizes Judeo-Christian concepts. If he were forced to use his own evolutionary presuppositions, he would babble Que sera, sera incoherently and go have more sex any way he can. Morality? What is that? Logic? Rationality? No comprendo. This pernicious habit of the Darwinists will only be eradicated when enough sentient, rational, moral souls on this planet rise up and demand consistency from the thieving Darwinists. For without consistency, you can prove anything – therefore, nothing. Without universal truths, rationality and morality are vacuous concepts. Arrest the thieves. Make them get their own dirt.(Visited 71 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 read more
Excellent, xmas gifts for friends. Grand daughter age 6 loved them esp for party on nyeve . The girls (age 10 and 12) had great fun with these,. Brilliant stocking filler for my grandaughter who has a long. Brilliant stocking filler for my grandaughter who has a long pony tail to make her sparkle at xmas.Brilliant stocking filler for my grandaughter who has a long Love them thank you.2x LED Hair Extensions Girls Gift Party Bag Clip Pony Tail Fiber Optic Light UpImagine having hair that sparkles and twinkles like the night sky. That’s exactly what you will get when you wear these amazing LED hair extensions.The hair strands are approx.35cm (13.8″) in total length , and can be cut to any length.Perfect for Halloween, raves, clubs, fancy dress, concerts, festivals and partiesThe hair extension clips into the hair/Colours:send by randomGreat for parties and other social occasions Hair Strands approximately 14 inches in length Please note colours are sent at random Amazing,when it came it was flat and didn’t look like a parcel but its inside that counts, right?. As this was brought for a one night birthday sleepover we will probably give it to guest as she leaves because it looks like it will last for ages. It flashes red and blue and is really pretty and great value for money. The only bad thing is it doesn’t clip onto hair that well but still five stars. While you are encouraged to hide the mechanism in your hair i think it looks great both ways, great stocking filler. Was not sure how to choose the same colour. read more
Related Posts Tags:#Apple#web Three iPhone application developers are cited in an online petition which asks Apple to approve their apps, all of which have been sitting in limbo for months on end. The developers are awaiting word about their new DJ applications which let users mix loops of their own iTunes tracks stored in their iPhone or iPod Touch’s music library. In this case, it’s speculated that the holdup either has to do with rights issues surrounding the music or possibly the way the apps in question access the music library. But without word from Apple, the developers can’t be sure. The delays have angered fans, too, one of whom created the petition in hopes of forcing Apple’s hand.Update: One of the applications was just approved. Click through for more info. Why the Delay?The three developers mentioned in the fan-posted petition include Amidio, Pajamahouse Studios, and Musicsoft Arts. All three have created DJ applications which tap into a users’ own iTunes library. Unlike the DJ applications already available in the App Store, these new apps let users mix their own tracks while offering features like simultaneous playback of multiple tracks, pitch, fade, tempo, and more. Other DJ applications, on the other hand, only let users mix loops that have no rights associated with them. The rights issue may be one of the problems causing the delays. It’s highly likely that the labels don’t want their artists’ songs to be used in this way without some sort of controls in place – if they deem to allow this type of interaction at all. If that’s the case, though, the developers simply want Apple to tell them so.Another explanation for the delay may have to do with Apple’s current ban on dual access to the iPhone’s music library via third-party applications. In order to work around this ban, the developers came up with an alternative method which involves transferring music over Wi-Fi instead. Of course, Apple may see this “workaround” as just a loophole allowing the developers to break the rules while not technically violating any of Apple’s edicts. But again, without word from the company itself, there’s no way to be sure. The PetitionAlthough the developers themselves aren’t behind the online petition, they’ve been frustrated for some time regarding the delay. For example, a posting on the Sonorasaurus blog reads:“We have been waiting about 3 months now with no word on if we are approved and when we can release. It is nice to see other people taking issue with Apple’s system and their interest in getting DJ apps on the platform. So to whomever thought to include us in their petition: Thank you.”The petition itself isn’t a kindly-worded plea for Apple’s attention either, but an angry letter demanding that attention instead: There are more than 20 million of iPhone and iPod Touch users in the world, but there is no decent DJ MP3 application on iPhone/iPod Touch. Why? Because Apple doesn’t approve any of them! At least two quality DJ MP3 applications – Touch DJ (www.amidio.com) and Sonorasaurus (www.sonorasaurus.com) are held “in review” since the beginning of the September. That’s 8 weeks in limbo which is insane. The developers of the apps are now facing serious troubles because a lot was invested into the production of the apps. Moreover, Apple doesn’t specify any reasons for such delays. There’s simply no information about what is going on. This is all really weird and absolutely unfair.Later, the petition writer adds that they had become aware of a third application, DJ Player, which was also waiting approval.Similar Apps Already ApprovedWhat’s really strange about this current delay, writes a blogger on Sonorasaurus.com (the app from Pajamahouse Studios), is that there are applications which have already been approved by Apple that offer similar features as their new app. For example, the Quixpin DJ uses the same mixing feature, Deadmau5 Mix uses the same packaged songs feature, and Air Sharing uses the same file uploading via HTTP feature. And Musicsoft Arts already has an app called the DJ Spooky The Secret Song which uses the same codebase as the yet-to-be-approved DJ Player application. UPDATE: Oddly enough, of the three apps in question, Amidio’s application was approved first, having just launched today in the App Store. Are the others far behind? Did the petition catch Apple’s eye or is this just a coincidence? We’ll have to stay tuned to the other developers’ websites and Twitter accounts to know for sure.Fans Care, TooRegardless of what happens, though, it’s an interesting development to see fans getting involved in complaining to Apple instead of just the developers themselves. Although we’ve already seen high-profile pull-outs from notable Apple developers like Joe Hewitt who created the iPhone’s Facebook application and Rogue Amoeba’s Paul Kafasis who quit after a three-and-a-half month delay in app approval, we’ve rarely heard complaints from users outside the tech blogosphere demanding the same. Could this mean “regular” folks are now becoming aware of Apple’s issues too? Possibly. The 272 people who have signed the petition aren’t all Apple developers or tech pundits. They’re just people who want these apps approved. Hat tip to iLounge for pointing to this petition. A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market sarah perez read more
Uber vs Lyft: Battling for Supremacy I pressed the CTA button, I entered the website and they got me, as I placed another order.Needless to say that I’m also one of the people in this brand’s target audience. If my mother, for example, received that email, she would definitely flag that email as spam.6. There is no option but to stand outLet me use some visual aid for that:(Source)According to Ascend2’s research, email list segmentation is a task of high difficulty but high reward as well.Email segmentation will make you stand out, and especially personalization, as I mentioned before.Take personalized subject lines, for example. They will make the subscriber open their email, mainly because they see their name on it:But the email’s content needs to be something just as personal, in order to stand out.The sheer volume of emails a user receives every day is astounding, which means that your email will need to make an impression.(Source)This is content that manages to combine seasonal, heavy personalization and value. It’s simply incredible, and I know I’d be enticed to click on the CTA, whether I’d lost something in an Uber or not.7. Segmentation equals happinessI don’t think that this requires an explanation. If you segment your list, people that are interested will see your content.Your subscribers will learn to expect your email and get excited upon receiving it, much like receiving an email from an old friend they always enjoy chatting with.They will also think that your emails are carefully curated especially for them, seeing as the content won’t be irrelevant or dull and boring.Make sure that it feels more like H2H and less like B2C. It’s easier for your subscribers to remain interested if your tone is friendly, effortless and not trying to sell them something.What is more, list segmentation can bring you more leads than you’d think. Segmenting your list will keep subscribers happy with tailor-made content and promotions too good to resist.These happy subscribers are bound to do two things:ConvertSpread the wordWe talked about conversion before. But spread the word? Well, that’s something to think about.Just make sure to pick out an email marketing and automation software that will enable you to do so. For example, Moosend, a Mailchimp alternative, enables users to forward campaigns to other users.And since email marketing converts and word-of-mouth is social proof (has been since the beginning of time, really), then it is guaranteed to bring you more leads.So, keep ‘em happy to keep ‘em coming!In conclusionYour email campaigns cannot appeal to everyone (not even fries can!), but they can be of huge value to some specific groups that are within your target audience and your subscribers’ list.By segmenting your list, you’re doing exactly what you’re supposed to be doing: You’re showcasing what you’re about, one step at a time, to people who are interested to know the bits and pieces you’d like to present in each email.Oh, and before I go, a quick reminder: List segmentation is a fantastic way, but it won’t work wonders on its own. Data-driven decisions, on the other hand, will do the trick, and there is no better way to that than to test away!And another thing: Optimize for all devices. Use your data to see what percentage of your users checks their email on mobile. Compare it to desktop users. And make sure that it works on any and all operating systems.You wouldn’t want to come a long way, just to see your rates drop because of poor performance on some devices, would you?What did you think of this article?Did it answer your questions?Is there something you think we didn’t mention?Please let us know in the comments and don’t forget to share the knowledge with your favorite marketer! Tea Liarokapi 4 Ways You Can Make Your Workplace an Engine of… A Review of Instagram Marketing by Matthew Lucas Téa is a content writer working for email marketing software company Moosend and an obsessive writer in general. In her free time, she tries to find new ways to stuff more books in her bookcase and content ideas-and cats-to play with. Tags:#list segmentation It’s been a really long time since the launch of Hotmail, an even longer time since email was created in the “@” form we’ve all grown to know and love and an even longer time since email itself was grasped as a concept.And even though technology evolves and trends come and go, email is the one and only staple, up to the point where the most effective marketing channel-that inspired the creation of many other channels: Email marketing.Email marketing survived, despite all the ominous predictions that come and go from time to time, that want it dead in some years’ time.Which almost happened, with the invention of spam emails, that reached an all-time high in 2008, as shown by the graph below:(Source)However, email marketing managed to overcome that obstacle and all other obstacles that were thrown in its path (like Google’s tabs for inbox, for example).But how did email marketing get from spam to the force that can guarantee the best ROI, compared to other marketing channels?The trick happened when realization hit all marketers everywhere: Email as a medium needed to be true to its original trait, and that meant that it needed to become personal again, and not a carrier of unsolicited (spammy) information!Personal, you said?Think of an email like a knock on your door. It’s better for you to know who is behind that door, knocking. It’s safer, at least.Now think of someone that knocks on your door and calls your name at the same time. Doesn’t it make you feel like you should open the door and invite them in?That’s what personalized emails are, and that’s why they’re more common nowadays. People expect to hear something that interests them, something that will come in handy sometime.Something they signed up for.You see, the business model nowadays is Human To Human, and this means that you can’t have an email that looks automated and expect it to convert.Try personalization in every step you take! But how are you going to go about that, when you’ve got a good amount of subscribers? You can’t possibly start examining each email subscriber you’ve got, case-by-case.Enter: List SegmentationLet me first go through with the definition: Generally speaking, segmentation is the act of dividing a whole into smaller parts of sections, taking specific factors into account.When it comes to marketing, things are not too different, as email list segmentation means dividing your email list into smaller groups by taking various data and demographics into account.That data could be anything. You can try geographic segmentation, segmentation according to income, educational background, gender, marital status, you name it!This helps in a lot of ways and saving money while making the most of an email campaign is one of them.But I promised you an article about the reasons why email list segmentation is what you need, so without further ado, here’s a list of reasons:1. It can increase your open rateYou can have the most innovative product, the freshest idea, the most wonderful content in the world, the most beautiful email newsletter templates and the best intentions at heart, and still be unable to convert. You know why?Because if nobody opens your email, it doesn’t really matter. It won’t convert anyway.The general idea is that not 100% of your audience is interested in one thing alone. No matter how big or small your list is, you’ll have groups of people that differ significantly from one another. You’ll need to look into the data these groups can provide and act accordingly.You see, your content might be old news or unsolicited information to some and a goldmine to others. Study them, create your buyer personas and check which campaign fits which persona and what KPIs you need for each one, and you’ll see your open rate skyrocket!2. Unsubscribers Who?Sending an email to, say, 1000 people, when only 10 of them would be interested in what you’ve got to offer at that time is a waste of resources and contentThe results won’t be worthy at all, as this tactic will test your subscribers’ patience and, eventually, give you a large unsubscribe rate.(Source)As you can see, 21% of users unsubscribe due to irrelevant content. Which can be potentially harmful and can lead to unwanted expenses as well.List segmentation can help you lower the dreaded unsubscribe rate. Of course there can be no list with a 1% unsubscribe rate, but still, fewer unsubscribers mean more chances to convert.3. No spam, pleaseBeing marked as spam can greatly affect your email deliverability, which is only logical. A spam complaint will show your email provider that your email is not only unwanted but potentially dangerous for your subscribers.The purpose of your email may be to inform, educate or sell, but a spam complaint will definitely make mailbox and email providers think that you’re a scam, which will harm your deliverability rates.The odds will be in your favor though if you provide content the user signed up for. And you will know which content that is, by segmenting your list and making sure to show your subscribers what they need to see, whether it’s news, tips and information, or offers and discount codes.You see, a good open rate is what makes or breaks your reputation as a sender when it comes to mailbox providers and how protective they are of their users. It’ll help them see that your subscribers see how valuable and useful your emails are and make them realize that your content needs to be seen by many.For those of you in the know, it works kind of like backlinks work for SERPs.4. Make your click-through rate (CTR) skyrocketLet me begin by defining what CTR really is: It’s a marketing metric used to determine the rate of subscribers who not only opened but also clicked on any link (or all links) in the main body of your email.Why is that though? Well, content may be king, but what happens when this content doesn’t interest your subscribers at all?This is where segmentation comes to save the day.If, for example, you’re running an email campaign for men’s watches and you’ve included a great discount code in there, you’ll see your click-through rate reach an all-time high if you segment your list and make sure to send this campaign to people who would be interested.Meaning: Men (mostly), in their 20s or older, who care about their appearance and (again, mostly) have a good income and a busy life.A qualified person will see value in your promotional email, click on the link(s) and utilize the offer. Which counts as engagement, which will be greatly appreciated by an email and mailbox provider!5. And what about conversion?The main reason a business is trying to grow their email list is to create loyal members and increase conversion rates, sales and so on and so forth. Therefore, the place for non-converting signups should be limited or, even better, non-existent.Of course, squaring the circle would be easier than having a 100% conversion rate. A general rule of the thumb dictates that a conversion rate of 10% is a good one and it can go higher from that point on.But how are you going to get to that 10%? Why, by appealing to the subscriber’s impulsive nature, of course!Think like a buyer for that one and not a marketer. An email that is appropriate, with strong CTAs and all the information you need would make you click the link and buy the product, that’s a no-brainer.You wouldn’t think twice, especially if the email was just what you needed or was suggesting a product that could be combined with the one you bought originally.Kind of like this: CEOs in Troubled Waters (with Myriam Joire from… When I subscribed to that brand’s newsletter, I got a discount code to use at checkout. You can see that there’s nothing too complicated about that promotional discount and it did appeal to my impulsive nature, as a buyer.But this was all it did. Which resulted in my receiving this, a long time later: Related Posts read more
This image was purchased by MFLNMC from iStock.com under member ID 8085767. Return to article. Long Description Chart created in Word Doc. Return to article. Long DescriptionWritten by: Lakshmi Mahadevan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Extension Specialist – Special Populations, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service.DefinitionsSection 504Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities, public or private, that receive federal financial assistance. This law conforms to the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA). Section 504, defines a person as having a disability if he or she:has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities,has a record of such an impairment, oris regarded as having such an impairment. 28 CFR Sec. 36.104Under the regulation, learning, reading, thinking and concentrating among others listed in the ADAAA are all considered major life activities. As a general rule, if a child is eligible for services under IDEA, he or she qualifies for protection under Section 504. However, not all students covered by Section 504 are eligible for IDEA-related services. Section 504 has much broader definitions of disability and so it pertains to many more people.Individualized Education Plan or Program (IEP)An individualized education program (IEP) is a required step in the process of receiving special education services. A student’s parents, teachers, and other service providers meet to come to a consensus about the educational accommodations necessary to assist the student in meeting the objectives. This group of professionals and parents are known as the IEP team. Before an IEP can be written a student must be identified as needing services, evaluated, and found eligible (as defined by the Individuals with Disability Education Act, IDEA) for services. Parents/guardians and school personnel (and if applicable the students) must approve the IEP before services can be provided. All are provided with a copy of the IEP. Progress is reported regularly so parents/guardians know if the objectives for the year will be met. At least once a year the IEP team meets to review. During reviews, school personnel and parents/guardians (and student if it’s appropriate) evaluate the progress and decide if revisions should be made. If they’re unable to come to consensus, the parents/guardians may ask for mediation or a due process hearing.What’s the difference between 504 Plans and IEPs?While the procedures are different, the goal is the same: to ensure that students with disabilities have access to a free and appropriate public education that is comparable to the education available to students without disabilities.IEP plans under IDEA cover students who qualify for Special Education. Section 504 covers students who don’t meet the criteria for special education but who still require some accommodations. A student is eligible as long he/she currently has or has had a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity. For e.g. students who have Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) may qualify if their ADHD “substantially limits” their ability to learn.Students who qualify under Section 504 are required to have a plan that specifies any accommodations that will be made in the classroom. Section 504 plans aren’t part of special education, so they don’t provide individualized instruction, like IEPs do. 504 plans list strategies like extended time on tests or the ability to leave the classroom for short breaks; and related services such as speech-language therapy or study skills classes.Typical conditions that may receive 504 accommodations include but are not limited to, Allergies, Arthritis, Asthma, ADD/ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Hearing Impairment, Certain Learning Disabilities, Orthopedically Impaired Student with health needs, Tourette’s Syndrome Traumatic Brain Injury, Tuberculosis, Visual Impairment and /or Weight issues (obesity, anorexia, bulimia). Since conditions vary and there are no set rules for what a 504 plan should look like, schools do not typically provide for an individualized Section 504 committee. Special education teachers, case managers and teachers can serve as 504 planners. Public schools are however required to write down their policies on 504 plans detailing who formulates them, implements them and under what conditions. Click here to download a sample 504 plan for a child with ADHD.Which is better for my child?At the assessment meeting, parents/guardians are entitled to have all assessment information explained to them before the next meeting at which IEP or 504 accommodations and services are to be determined. Under IDEA parents/guardians’ participation in the IEP process is required. With 504 plans, parents don’t have a law-specified “right” to participate, although it’s best practice for schools to include them. Some school teams may assess the child and make their recommendations of 504 Plan services without parents’ input.Parents/guardians should ask many questions regarding the assessment for e.g.:What is the diagnosis?What level of impairment and what academic areas are impacted by the disability?Will there be a time when a switch will be made for e.g. from an IEP over to 504 or vice versa?How will you be informed about progress?Will there be a re-evaluation and when?What if I disagree? (504 plan failing?)Both 504 plans and IEPs can be very effective when educating children with disabilities. A 504 Plan is a better option when the student can function well in a regular education environment with accommodations. The 504 is generally less restrictive than the IEP, and also less stigmatizing.An IEP is a better option for students with a disability that is adversely impacting education. Eligibility in Special Education opens the door to a variety of related services and supports.Due to the informality of the 504 plans, the legal requirements for implementation are fewer. Parents/guardians have lesser recourse if they disagree with the 504 plan. IDEA has much stronger protections for parents and students, and many more options if there is a dispute. Parents/guardians should consider this when deciding between 504 plans and IEPs. For a free chart comparing IEPs to 504 plans click here. read more