Pizza Restaurant & Fast Food Industry Analysis Essays - Fast Food

Pizza: Restaurant & Fast Food Industry Analysis THE RESTAURANT such as eat-at-home foods and supermarket deli take-out arrangements. The business is very capital intensive. It can cost approximately $1 million dollars to open a new fast food store and even more for traditional dining establishments. Most fast food chain restaurants are franchisee operated. The industry is segmented into two major categories: fast food and full-service restaurants. ENVIRONMENT & OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET Traditionally, restaurants (and hotels) have been among the most entrepreneurial of businesses in the sense that the barriers to entry are relatively weak or minor. Factors creating environmental changes were a result of the early 1970's when dual-income families became the norm and generated more disposable income for eating out and leaving less time for cooking at home. The demographic shift, and the restaurant industry's ability to deliver a consistent product, at a reasonable price, has created a generation of U. S. consumers who eat out. Restaur ant sales have grown steadily throughout the 1990's (about 5% in 1999). United States citizens spend nearly half of their food dollars eating out (approximately $350 billion each year). As an introduction to the overall restaurant industry, Graph 1 illustrates Percentage of Market Share Sales by Segment for the Top 100 Restaurants for 1998 and the Second 100 Market Sale Shares by Segment for 1998. 1998 aggregate Restaurant Sales totalled $123.6 and $16.6 billion for a combined total of $140.2 billion. Combined Pizza sales for the 200 chains, as a percentage to aggregate sales, represent 15.96% of market share, or $22.380 billion for pizza segment sales. GRAPH 1 GRAPH 2 Table 1 on Page 4 illustrates Pizza Chains Ranked by the number of U. S. Units for fiscal years ending 1998, 1997 and 1996. The four power players, in the pizza chain industry, dominant

Blitzkrieg Warfare essays

Blitzkrieg Warfare essays The ultimate warfare called Blitzkrieg was first used by Germany in the early twentieth century. Everyone was tired of the old trench warfare, and after World War I many speculated that a type of mobile warfare would be much more effective. The Germans tested this new-found type of combat during the Spanish Civil War (1936-38). This test proved that mobile warfare-soon known as Blitzkrieg-was a more suitable type of combat. The whole concept of Blitzkrieg is quite simple. The air force attacks their opponents front lines, rear positions, and main communication centers. Forces then plow through the weakened front-lines, and set up defenses to their rear to prevent retreat. Now, other infantry divisions will simultaneously attack portions of the front-lines preventing the enemy from knowing where the main force will attack. Their opponent is also confused because their communications have been taken out. Again, the front lines are unable to retreat because of the divisions that already broke through and set up posts behind them in their territory. The infantry divisions continue to attack the front-lines occupying them so they dont establish effective defense, and also so that the forces that have broken through can establish more defensive posts to their rear. These forces will then prepare to take their enemys artillery stores. Once this is done their enemy will definitely fall when they run out of ammunition. The infantry forces on the front lines will start to flank their enemy (to the enemys left and right) once the front lines are sufficiently weakened. Meanwhile, groups head deeper into enemy territory outflanking more enemy positions ultimately weakening even the confidence of their opponent. With everyone working together, all of the divisions eventually link up completely cutting off the enemy. This is when their opponent will surrender; everyone is taken prisoner, and any s...

How to Say Thank You in Japanese by Using Arigatou

How to Say 'Thank You' in Japanese by Using 'Arigatou' If you are in Japan, you will probably hear the word arigatou (㠁‚り㠁Å'㠁 ¨Ã£ â€ ) used on a regular basis. It is an informal way of saying thank you. But it can also be used in conjunction with other words to say thank you in Japanese in more formal settings, such as an office or a shop or anywhere where manners matter. Common Ways of SayingThank You There are two common ways of saying thank you formally: arigatou gozaimasu and arigatou gozaimashita. You would use the first phrase in a setting like an office when addressing a social superior. For example, if your boss brings you a cup of coffee or offers praise for a presentation you gave, youd thank her by saying, arigatou  gozaimasu. Written out, it looks like this:  Ã£ â€šÃ£â€šÅ Ã£ Å'㠁 ¨Ã£ â€ Ã£ â€Ã£ â€"㠁„㠁 ¾Ã£ â„¢. You can also use this phrase in less formal settings as a more general expression of thanks, either for something someone has done or will do for you.    The second phrase is used to thank someone for a service, transaction, or something that someone has done for you. For example, after a clerk has wrapped and bagged your purchase, you would thank him by saying arigatou  gozaimashita. Written out, it looks like this: 㠁‚り㠁Å'㠁 ¨Ã£ â€ Ã£ â€Ã£ â€"㠁„㠁 ¾Ã£ â€"㠁Ÿ. Grammatically, the difference between the two phrases is in the tense. In Japanese, the past tense is indicated by adding mashita to the end of a verb. For example, ikimasu (è ¡Å'㠁 Ã£  ¾Ã£ â„¢ ) is the present tense of the verb to go, while ikimashita (è ¡Å'㠁 Ã£  ¾Ã£ â€"㠁Ÿ) is the past tense.

Burning Man outline Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Burning Man outline - Essay Example ve such a large number of individuals across the world spending so much of their efforts and their time to construct something that will only last a few weeks? Why would the same people spend a junk of their resources on things that do not have any monetary gains? What compelling force was behind the formation of the Burning man and what powers make it possible to spread as fast as it did soon after its foundation? The last question is what importance does the festival of burning man have on our lives? The answers to such issues relate to the creativity of the founders of the movement, who developed an idea that replicated and extended on itself to form one of the strongest movements. As such, the founders of the ceremony talk of the importance of the ceremony on the sensitization of humans on the need for identity. The body of this work will discuss a number of implications of the ceremony of burning man on the lives of people. For instance, there will be a demonstration of how the whole idea of the ceremony developed in relation to propaganda. As such, the work will describe the usefulness of idea novelty in the manipulation of the minds of individuals. There are those people who participate in the without understanding the needfulness of the same. Essentially, the creative extremities that the ceremony holds are a result of its differentiating ethos (Johnson 20). The ceremony could be one that satisfies the truthfulness of the quotation that what matters to the lives of people Is not what happens to them, but what they remember as well as how they remember it. What people do in life in relation to the burning man ceremony is, therefore, an emphasis on the usefulness of propaganda in the development of life-binding ideologies. The movement is now among those that inspires people across the world on the need for identity and personality. McRae, Kateri, et al. "Context-Dependent Emotion Regulation: Suppression and Reappraisal at the Burning Man Festival."Â  Basic

Philosophy of Science Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 2

Philosophy of Science - Coursework Example These research methods include philosophical assumptions such as ontology, epistemology, and philosophical assumptions. While ontology is the claim about what knowledge is, epistemology refers to how a researcher recognizes the knowledge (Creswell, 2013). Additionally, how investigators write the facts is referred to as rhetoric while the study procedure is the methodology. Dr. Patton explains epistemology as the investigation of learning taking a deep insight on how we distinguish what we know. The meaning of this is how human differentiate between what they know and what they do not know. On the other hand, ontology refers to the address of the issue that someone is examining, what makes up the world. Philosophy of science refers to the study of theoretical fundamentals of scientific investigation. It is important for a researcher to be familiar with the philosophy of science to study and offer disapprovals for scientific ideas.

Theories Of Intellectual Property Philosophy Essay

Theories Of Intellectual Property Philosophy Essay Introduction: The term intellectual property refers to a loose cluster of legal doctrines that regulate the uses of different sorts of ideas and insignia.   The law of copyright protects various original forms of expression. The economic and cultural importance of this collection of rules is increasing rapidly. And lawmakers throughout the world are busily revising their intellectual-property laws.  [1]  Partly as a result of these trends, scholarly interest in the field has risen dramatically in recent years. There has been an evident mushrooming of articles deploying theories of intellectual property in law reviews and in journals of economics and philosophy. This article discusses those theories, evaluates them, and considers the roles they do and ought to play in lawmaking. Different jurisprudential approaches in IP law making: Most of the recent theoretical writings consist of struggles among and within four jurisprudential approaches of intellectual property law. 1.2.1 Utilitarian aspect of IP jurisprudence: The first and most popular of the four employs the familiar utilitarian guideline that lawmakers must put emphasis on maximization of net social welfare while shaping property rights.   In the context of intellectual property, it is generally thought that, lawmakers must strike an optimal balance between, on one hand, the individual rights of the creator and on the other hand maximization of public interest. A good example in this regard is William Landess and Richard Posners essay on copyright law  [2]  .   The distinctive characteristics of most intellectual products are that they are easily replicated. Those characteristics in combination create a danger that the creators of such products will be unable to recoup their costs of expression (i.e. the time and effort devoted to writing or composing and the costs of negotiating with publishers or record companies), because they will be undercut by copyists who bear only the low costs of production (the costs of manufacturing and distributing books or CDs) and thus can offer consumers identical products at very low prices.   Awareness of this danger will deter creators from making socially valuable intellectual products in the first instance.   We can avoid this by allocating to the creators (for limited times) the exclusive right to make copies of their creations. All of the various alternative ways in which creators might be em powered to recover their costs are, for one reason or another, more wasteful of social resources.  [3]  Ã‚   This utilitarian rationale, however has been criticized on the ground of its tendency to create monopoly rights. A related argument dominates the trademark law. The primary economic benefits of trademarks, are (1) the reduction of consumers search costs, because consumers can rely upon their prior experiences with various brands while deciding which brand to buy in future, and (2) the creation of an incentive for businesses to produce consistently high-quality goods and services. On the other hand while dealing with its criticism, trademarks can sometimes be socially harmful also, like for example, by enabling the first entrant into a market to discourage competition by appropriating for itself an especially attractive or informative brand name. Awareness of these benefits and harms should (and usually does), guide legislators and judges when tuning trademark law; marks should be (and usually are) protected when they are socially beneficial and not when they are, on balance, deleterious.  [4]   1.2.2 Labour theory and its jurisprudential aspect: Robert Nozick  [5]  after associating himself with Lockes argument, Nozick turns his attention to Lockes famously ambiguous proviso the proposition that a person may legitimately acquire property rights by mixing his labor with resources held in common only if, after the acquisition, there is enough and as good left in common for others.  [6]   Nozick contends that the correct interpretation of this limitation is that the acquisition of property through labor is legitimate if and only if other persons do not suffer thereby any net harm. Construed in this fashion, the Lockean proviso is not violated, Nozick argues, by the assignment of a patent right to an inventor because, although other persons access to the invention is undoubtedly limited by the issuance of the patent, the invention would not have existed at all had the inventor not put in any effort due to fear of copying. 1.2.3 Personality theory and its jurisprudential aspect: The premise of the third approach derived loosely from the writings of Kant and Hegel i.e. private property rights are crucial to the satisfaction of some fundamental human needs; policymakers should thus strive to create and allocate entitlements to resources in the fashion that best enables people to fulfill those needs. From this standpoint, intellectual property rights may be justified either on the ground that they shield from appropriation or modification artifacts through which authors and artists have expressed their wills (an activity thought central to personhood) or on the ground that they create social and economic conditions conducive to creative intellectual activity, which in turn is important to human flourishing.  [7]   Justin Hughes derives from Hegels Philosophy of Rights the following guidelines concerning the proper shape of an intellectual-property system (a) We should be more willing to accord legal protection to the fruits of highly expressive intellectual activities, (b) Because a persons persona his public image, including his physical features, mannerisms, and history is an important part of personality, it deserves generous legal protection, despite the fact that ordinarily it does not result from labor (c) Authors and inventors should be permitted to earn respect, honor, admiration, and money from the public by selling or giving away copies of their works.  [8]   1.2.4 Social planning theory and its jurisprudential aspect: The last of the four approaches says that, property rights in general and intellectual-property rights in particular can and should be shaped so as to help foster the achievement of a just and attractive culture.   This approach is similar to utilitarianism in its orientation, but dissimilar in its willingness to deploy visions of a desirable society richer than the conceptions of social welfare deployed by utilitarians.  [9]   Other writers who have approached intellectual-property law from similar perspectives include Keith Aoki, Rosemary Coombe  [10]  , Niva Elkin-Koren, and Michael Madow.  [11]  As yet, however, this fourth approach is less well established and recognized than the other three. 1.3 Varying jurisprudential views in US, UK, France and Germany: Until recently, the personality theory had much less currency in American law.  However in contrast, it has figured very prominently in Europe.  The French and German copyright regimes, for example, have been strongly shaped by the writings of Kant and Hegel.   This influence is especially evident in the generous protection those countries provide for authors and artists rights. In the past two decades, moral-rights doctrine and the philosophic perspective on which it rests have found increasing favor with American lawmakers, as evidenced most clearly by the proliferation of state art-preservation statutes and the recent adoption of the federal Visual Artists Rights Act.  [12]   Critical analysis of the theories of IP jurisprudence: Lawmakers are confronted these days with many difficult questions involving rights to control information. The proponents of all four leading theories purport to provide lawmakers with answers to the upcoming questions in IP jurisprudence. Unfortunately, our choice among these four options will often make a big difference. The third, for instance, suggests that we should insist, before issuing a patent or other intellectual-property right, that the discovery in question must satisfy a meaningful utility requirement; the other three would not.  The second would counsel against conferring legal rights on artists who love their work; the other three point in the opposite direction. The fourth would suggest that we add to copyright law a requirement analogous to the patent doctrine of nonobviousness; the others would not.  In short, a lawmakers inability to choose among the four will often be disabling. Similar troubles arise when one tries to apply Lockes conception of the commons to the field of intellectual property.  What exactly are the raw materials, owned by the community as a whole, with which individual workers mix their labor in order to produce intellectual products? It is agreed that IP law would have to be radically revised to conform to the Lockean scheme.  But the scale of the necessary revision is daunting. Is it justifiable on Lockean or any other premises -that if one thinks of a new way of dancing he claim IP protection and prevent everybody else from doing the same? Similarly, by registering the trademark Nike, can one prevent others from using it in any way- including reproducing it in an essay on intellectual property? If not, then what Is the extent of these rights? We come, finally, to the well-known problem of proportionality. Nozick asks:  If I pour my can of tomato juice into the ocean, do I own the ocean?  How far, in short, do my rights go?   Locke gives us little guidance.  [13]   1.5 Conclusion: The limitations of the guidance provided by general theories of intellectual property is perhaps easiest to see with respect to the last of the four approaches.  Lawmakers who try to harness social-planning theory must make difficult choices at two levels.  The first and most obvious involves formulating a vision of a just and attractive culture. What sort of society should we try, through adjustments of copyright, patent, and trademark law, to promote?   The possibilities are endless. Through continued conversations among scholars, legislators, judges, litigants, lobbyists, and the public at large, there may lie some hope of addressing the inadequacies of the existing theories.  The analytical difficulties associated with the effort to apply the Lockean version of labor theory to intellectual property may well prove insurmountable, but there may be some non-Lockean way of capturing the popular intuition that the law should reward people for hard work.  Only by continuing to discuss the possibility and trying to bring some alternative variant of labor theory to bear on real cases can we hope to make progress.   Much the same can be said of the gaps in personality theory.   The conception of selfhood employed by current theorists may be too thin and acontextual to provide lawmakers much purchase on doctrinal problems.  But perhaps, through continued reflection and conversation, we can do better. Conversational uses of intellectual property theories of the sort sketched above would be different from the way in which such theories most often have been deployed in the past.  Instead of trying to compel readers, through a combination of noncontroversial premises and inexorable logic, to accept a particular interpretation or reform of legal doctrine, the jurists and lawmakers should attempt, by deploying a combination of theory and application, to strike a chord of sympathy in their audience.  The sought-after response would not be, I cant see any loopholes in the argument, but rather, it needs to be acknowledged and addressed. That conclusion, however, does not imply that the theories have no practical use.  [14]  In two respects, I suggest, they retain considerable value.  First, while they have failed to make good on their promises to provide comprehensive prescriptions concerning the ideal shape of intellectual-property law, they can help identify nonobvious attractive resolutions of particular problems. Second, they can foster valuable conversations among the various participants in the lawmaking process.  

Air Jordan Essay

Air Jordan is a brand of shoes and athletic clothing designed, owned, and produced by Michael Jordan for Nike’s Jordan Brand subsidiary. The shoes, informally referred to in the plural as Air Jordan’s or simply J’s, were first released for public consumption in 1985 after Michael Jordan wore them in 1984 as a rookie; thereafter, new designs were released annually. Since its introduction into the sports shoe market, the Air Jordan evolved to the original basketball shoes to models for different uses, including I-XXIII). Air Jordan currently sponsors 19 active NBA players, including Chris Paul, Ray Allen, and Carmelo Anthony. They also endorse Nike Air Jordan products. Air Jordan 1 Air Jordan I, first Nike sneakers for Michael Jordan.  The Air Jordan 1 was designed by Peter Moore. The Air Jordan 1 was first released in 1985, in a red and black colorway to match the uniform of the Chicago Bulls, the team for which Michael Jordan played. This red and black color-way was later outlawed by NBA Commissioner David Stern for not having any white on them. Michael Jordan would wear the shoes anyway, and each time he stepped on the court with the Air Jordan 1 he would be fined five thousand dollars. Air Jordan 2 The success of the Air Jordan 1 encouraged Nike to release the New Air Jordan in 1986 for the new basketball season. Designed by Peter Moore and Bruce Kilgore, the original Air Jordan II was unique in that it was made in Italy giving the shoe a luxury feel. The Air Jordan II was originally retailed at $64.99. Air Jordan 3 The Air Jordan III was designed by Tinker Hatfield. By that time Michael Jordan was ready to leave Nike, but the Jordan III changed his mind. It was the first Air Jordan to feature a visible air unit on the heel, the new Jumpman logo, an elephant print trim and tumble leather to give it a luxury look. The Air Jordan III was also famous for the humorous ads depicting Spike Lee as Mars Blackmon, the character he played in his film ‘She’s Gotta Have It’. This campaign was known as the â€Å"Mars and Mike† ad campaign, which was one of Nike’s most successful advertisement campaigns. Air Jordan 4 In 1989 The Jordan IV shoe was released into the public, designed by Tinker  Hatfield. It was the first Jordan shoe released on the global market. Spike Lee, the director and actor helped in the ads for Jordan IV. Spike Lee had featured the Air Jordan IV in his movie Do The Right Thing. The Air Jordan Bordeaux â€Å"Spiz’ike IV† were specifically made for Spike Lee in order to pay respect for advertising the Jordan Cement 4’s. Air Jordan 5 The Air Jordan V was released on February 1990, designed by Tinker Hatfield again. Some elements were carried over from the Air Jordan IV, but overall they were a completely new look. Some of its new features were a reflective tongue, translucent rubber soles and lace locks. Hatfield is believed to have drawn inspiration for the Air Jordan V from World War II fighter planes, which was most notably visible in the shark teeth shapes on the midsole. Air Jordan 6 The Air Jordan VI had a new design by Tinker Hatfield and released in 1991. Later that year the Bulls defeated the Lakers in the 1991 NBA Finals, with Jordan named as the most valuable player. That was also the first NBA Championship won by Jordan and the Bulls. The Jordan VI was also seen in the film White Men Can’t Jump, which was produced in 1991 and released one year later. Air Jordan 7 Air Jordan VII sneakers specially released for 1992 Barcelona Olympics. The Air Jordan VII was released in 1992 with a new design by Tinker Hatfield. This shoe introduced the huarache technology which allowed the shoes to better conform to the user’s foot. A few things were no longer featured on the new model, such as the visible air sole, the Nike Air logo, and the yellowing soles. This was the first Air-Jordan in the line that did not have any distinctive â€Å"Nike Air† on the outer portions of the shoe. When Jordan went to compete at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics to play for the US Men’s Basketball Team (also known as the â€Å"Dream Team†), Nike released a special Olympic color combo of the Air Jordan VII model which had Jordan’s Olympic jersey number, 9 even though most of the jordans that were made, especially the Air Jordan VII had a â€Å"23† on the back. Air Jordan 8 The Air Jordan VIII was released to coincide with the 1992–1993 NBA season.  The eighth model of the Air Jordan was noticeably heavier than its predecessors. This shoe had a lot more detail than most of the earlier Air Jordan’s such as two crossover straps on each shoe and a Jumpman. Thus the Air Jordan VIII model became known as the â€Å"Punisher† because of the advanced basketball ankle support and enhanced traction. This shoe contains a full length air sole, polyurethane midsole, polycarbonate shank plate, and two crossover straps (for added support and more custom fit). Air Jordan 9 Originally released in November 1993, the Air Jordan IX model was the first model released after Michael Jordan’s retirement. Jordan never played a full season of NBA Basketball wearing these shoes. This model was inspired by baseball cleats that Jordan wore when playing minor-league baseball. Air Jordan 10 This was released in 1995, It was the first Air Jordan to feature a lightweight phylon midsole. The shoe also featured all of Michael Jordan’s accomplishments on the outsole of the shoe. Air Jordan 11 This model was designed by Tinker Hatfield. When the shoe launched, Michael Jordan (retired from basketball by then) was trying in minor baseball leagues. Hatfield designed the sneaker waiting for Jordan to comeback and hoping he would play in them. The ballistic mesh upper of the sneaker was meant to give the Air Jordan XI lighter and more durable than the past sneakers. Further changes came with the use of a carbon fiber spring plate in the clear out sole, giving the shoe better torque when turning on the court. The highlight and arguably most well-known aspect of the shoe is the patent leather mudguard. Patent leather was lightweight, when compared to genuine leather, and also tended not to stretch as much – a property to help keep the foot within the bounds of the shoe bed during direction changes on the court. The patent leather gave the XI a â€Å"formal† look. When this shoe released, some wore this model with business suits instead of dress shoes. Air jordan 12 The Air Jordan XII was inspired by Nisshoki (the Japanese flag), and a 19th-century women dress boot. However, featuring gold-plated steel lace  loops, embossed lizard skin pattern and zoom air, this model set a new direction in style and technology in shoe design. Though not as light weight as previous models, the construction and firmness of the shoe is widely considered to be the most durable and sturdy shoes from the Air Jordan line. Air Jordan 13 in 1997 Air Jordan XIII’s were released into the public . This model was known for its cushioning along the feet, designed by Hatfield. The Black Panther was the inspiration for the Air Jordan XIII, the sole resembles the pads on a panther’s paw. But also the panther is the hologram on the back of the shoe which imitates a panther’s eyes in the dark when light is shined at them. Air Jordan 14 The Air Jordan XIV was originally released from 1998 to 1999. The Air Jordan XIV co-styled by the famous Tinker Hatfield and Mark Smith was made race ready and equipped with the Jordan Jumpman insignia on a Ferrari shaped badge. In addition, these shoes include breathable air ducts on the outer sole. Air Jordan 15 The Air Jordan XVs were released in 1999–2000. Reggie Miller wore it during the 2000 NBA Finals. This was the first shoe after Jordan’s retirement. The design of the XV’s originated from the aircraft prototype X-15, which was developed by NASA during the 1950s. The sides of the XV were made from woven kevlar fibre. Air jordan 16 Air Jordan XVIs, designed by Nike’s Senior Footwear Designer Wilson Smith, were released in 2001. Unique to the Air Jordan XVI was a gaiter/shroud that covered the shoe and could be removed to give the shoe a new look. Not only was this for fashion purposes, it also had a thermal functionality. Air jordan 17 This pair of Jordan’s come equipped with Keefer, which held the shoes and a compact disc containing the Air Jordan XVII song. The retail price of the shoe was US$200. The defining functional design element of the Air Jordan XVII model, which was later replicated on the Air Jordan XXIII model, was  the reinforced mid-sole which provided a sturdy and stable chassis for the shoe. Air jordan 18 The Air Jordan XVIII shoe was released in 2003, and was the shoe for Jordan’s last season, in which he played for the Washington Wizards. The shoe was designed by Air Jordan Senior Footwear Designer, Tate Kuerbis, The inspiration for the design came from a number of things; sleek racing lines of the auto world, carbon fibre-based monocoque of F1 race cars, race car driving shoes (rubber heel wrap) and Fine Italian dress shoes (bold stitching on the soles). Air Jordan 19 Released in 2004, this is the first Jordan release after his third, and final, retirement which came after the 2002–2003 NBA season. The design was inspired by the Black Mamba snake, The Air Jordan XIX used innovative materials. The upper section of shoe was developed in collaboration with the global materials consultancy Material ConneXion, who sourced Nike a sleeving normally used in architectural applications for protecting PVC pipes from bursting. Air Jordan 20 The Air Jordan XX was also inspired by bicycling shoes. The strap was placed in the center of the shoe over the laces. It also helped to create a tighter fit and increased support.