Microwave Wave Guide Cover Fell Is It Safe

Houses are brands like: They can be stretched But They can not lie.

Preface [ENG] Homes, just like industrial brands, transmit values. This Particular values \u200b\u200bReflect Their choices made by owners Them When They design. That Being Said, one brand's Most important is not the only one he buys But The One That Owns truly: himself. The house is, above all, the most effective means to measure one's very own personality, hopes and historical feelings. Just as industrial brands have to be very aware when dealing with "brand stretching", people should be careful when they design their houses: the farther they get from their true identity, trying to give an enhanced image of theirselves, the weaker and the more ridiculous will be the final result. Good houses should be filled with concepts, not symbols, because symbols are meant to speak to others and concepts are meant to speak to the owner himsef. Hard programming very often goes along with forced image, unconcius flow of personal choices instead brings a deep understand of true personality. Houses represent the more intimate "core value" of a person, Therefore They Should Never Speak to Their guests Unless When Communicating how big is the honor to Have Them as Their guests.

This is a place ripe for a long time, because I am used to identify a lot with my case. I have some choices, some not (because it already exists), but in all I feel a strong sense of belonging and of course become extensions of my personality and the people with whom I share them. You need not be marketing people to work on the brand, because the first brand that we have available we are just ourselves through our behavior and our choices, (even in terms of objects) know it or not, we define the guidelines of our personal image, you need to sell. The successful product is bought, not that bad. Leaving out the qualities that define a person's behavior, which are without doubt the most important but they deserve a very different analysis, let us reflect on the more "visible" or the assets we have. The elements are sadly more visible and accessible cars, clothes, watches, and everything should immediately set a status. It 'easy to play with objects, but they are made of smoke went out of fashion when nothing remains of them. The houses, more than anything else are the "Core value" for the definition of personal brand. They are solid, there really are made of walls, but above all feelings are the true mirror of the soul of a person. Not everyone is willing to invest because they are actually less obvious of fully equipped "accessories" you can not esisbirle and cost much more. Hospitality, then, is not a universal vocation. But back to the title: Houses are like brands, they're can be stretched But hey can not lie. All brand, from the poorest to have the most sophisticated of the core values, historical values \u200b\u200bor constructed, which increase the perceived value of a product. Then come Stretch, Stretch, to cover as many market segments, as many consumers as possible. Still under the same umbrella, but with nuances such as elongated tentacles. The more tentacles are long, especially since they are far from the core values, much less be effective and sincere. Brand stronger longer tentacles can afford, without running the risk of breaking them, while weaker brands must be careful to stretch, because it is extremely likely that normally surface on their weaknesses, their lack of history. For homes is the same, except that the core values \u200b\u200bare made by ourselves and the tentacles are attempts to give an image enlarged and altered self. As in the brand, people will be able to stronger and deeper play a bit more and stretch the tentacles, while makeshift attempt to give an image of himself exponential always have poor results, often even ridiculous, if not miserable. The most classic example is that of those who came in with good financial resources, seeks to "establish itself" in a house full, but improvised. Usually these houses are dotted with "symbols" rather than "concepts". A giant TV is a symbol, is a harmonious architectural concept. Furnishings are a precious symbol, the choice is a concept of a color. Symbols are forced, the concepts are spontaneous, because they come from the heart and not from the brain. Planning is extremely symptom of insecurity as well as an uneven flow of the unconscious choices has become a symptom of that dynamic is typical of large (or small) homes, the kind you breathe in the history of those who have designed, furnished, living. I think the main dichotomy is in wanting to say something to others or want to remember something for themselves. The house represents the "core value" of a person, should reflect the most intimate way of being, should never talk to guests, except for telling them what is honored to receive them.

JS

How Tp Play Monnt And Blade On Lan

Ipad on His Way to success.


My brother is now in New York for a while, then asked me yesterday what to do with this blessed intendessimo iPad. Take it or not? Instinctively, I said yes, Let's take it, use it as a toy to go online and do several stupid things in the living room for guests, or when we do not want to turn on the laptop. If anyone out there in Cupertino, had followed our conversation would surely horrified: I believe that we have absolutely captured the raison d'etre of the new Apple device, especially because it is still difficult for most people, to swallow the concept of i- book. Yeah, because maybe the iBook would be more correct name for the iPad, if it had not already been used for the known series of laptops. Apart from various amenities, such as and internet applications, iPad is - and yearns to be - an electronic book. Pixels instead of cellulose. But what will become? We all slowly overwhelmed by the technology or will remain indissoluble linked to that pile of paper-bound book called? Each day, the other as well, in the NYT editorial discussing the future of journalism, publishing and book over the Internet and to the product derived from it.

The question now revolves around two main pivots: the economic sustainability of business models based on Internet publishing and usability (acceptance?) By the consumer of such profound change. Recently the large publishing groups are testing the waters to see if online readers are willing to pay to read content that until recently could see for free, and the results appear less encouraging, especially because the news and comments are still free of charge. Urge then find marketing solutions that make that content more desirable by the average user. From the front of the book however, though the prospect of downloading hundreds on the same support as well as tempting it may seem fast, I can not imagine how one can give up the scent, the texture of the paper and the pleasure of seeing his personal library to rise over the years in memory of acquired culture. I think everyone is born with a book paper in their hands will find this an insurmountable obstacle, but it is also clear that the younger generation (the Digital, those who came after the Millennials), born with electronic books under the eyes, at home and at school, be omitted easily. The cunning

dell'iPad (compared to Kindle for example) lies in having been able to attract the undecided with the "candies" application side when in reality is slowly introducing the concept of electronic book on a large scale, thus creating the gap decisive for the evolution and proliferation of his (sinister?) species. IPad will be an overwhelming success.

JS