Jun 28 2018

Forbes and Charity

Posted by domain admin in News

Many people confuse giving with the unit. If you have read about Southwest Airlines already – you may have come to the same conclusion. This article presents the opinion of the richest man in the world according to Forbes, specialized magazine, regarding the charity. This article should serve to you to develop a powerful consciousness of giving to create a better universe, a universe rich and beautiful, and not to create dependency. Before proceeding, it is necessary to grant appropriations: this article is based on the article by Robert Frank Carlos Slim: charity does not solve anything for the newspaper The Wall Street Journal. In this article I present excerpts from that article.

In his book the secret of the secret, Andrew Corentt writes that one of the great mistakes of people is giving alms. It is not Corentt to be against giving, of course that no, on the contrary the writes that it is necessary to give to receive. Corentt speaks of giving wisely, i.e. give to aggrandize and not by pity. Give to aggrandize enriches the lives of all. Let’s look at a summary of the Article, henceforth the summary of the article are presented in quotes: Mexican billionaire, whom Forbes named yet as the world’s richest man, said in 2007 that it could do more to combat poverty creating a company which still a Santa Claus.During a Conference in Sydney last month, Slim said that the charity achieves little. The only way to fight poverty is with employment, he said. Billions of dollars to charity have been delivered in the past 50 years, and do not solve anything. As for thinking Corentt and Slim, they seem to go hand in hand, Corentt said that instead of giving alms should support people to develop the skills that will take them to the richness, we see another summary: as for the charitable project of Gates and Buffett said: give a 50%, 40%, that does nothing.

Nov 24 2012

Dominio Agrees

Posted by domain admin in News

What Amount De Nombres de Dominio Agrees To have? A frequent situation with which many agencies of professional cathedral must fight is the coexistence of several names of dominion of the same owner or group industralist. That is to say, when trying to work in the positioning a page, the company owns other similar dominions with the same content. The cause by which some people in charge of dominion tend to monopolize similar dominions responds to an attempt to diminish or to neutralize the possible competition, or to safeguard the integrity of the mark against little ethical attempts of the bad competitors. That is that in prevention of which other competing companies can become of easily posicionables dominions or that they can buy very similar dominions and fill them of information that could damage our client, is chosen to buy or to reserve that dominion. The intention is reasonable, not always it more causes for the cathedral and positioning of the dominion that we tried to promote. The main hindrance is the duplicated content. On the other hand Google tends to penalize any type of action that can be interpreted like a manipulation of the natural positioning.

Reason why if it detects that several exist " Web sites espejo" a sanction can be triggered. This becomes more evident when the mailing dress that it appears in the forms of contact of these sites is the same, and does not require of concerted effort to realize, then, of which the Web sites are of the same person or the same person in charge, and they are not competing, being at some moments causes sufficient for so feared sanction. I want to make clear, that I precise talk about to the creation of a Web site residing in each dominion, with its own space of hosting. I am not speaking than we know like Parking.