Just how important are Facebook & Twitter to beauty brands? Most brands now know that they should have a presence on Twitter and Facebook. But do they know why? A good way to work this out is to think about how Twitter and Facebook influence YOU in your perception of brands and your purchasing decisions. If I see people discussing something on Twitter, I am influenced by their views.

I lately bought an eyebrow pen which i got no idea I wanted, but viewing people raving about any of it on Twitter and on blogs made me determine I needed it in my own life! EASILY am considering buying a beauty product but want to know if it is worthy of the investment, I ask my Twitter followers what they think about the product and their views will impact my decision to buy or not.

Sometimes a competition to ‘like’ a brandname on Facebook will drive me to become listed on the Facebook page of a brand I have never heard about before (if the reward is interesting). EASILY talk to a brand through Twitter plus they don’t respond, it creates me think badly of the brand. Conversely if they respond, it enhances my perception of the brand as I love that they took the time to reply. This demonstrates not only the need for being on Facebook, but also how to engage with your consumers once you are there. If you are not rather than joining in the conversation there, people might not know you exist and you cannot influence the perceptions of your brand even.

All chemicals were made up of atoms of about 80 (then) known elements. Every atom of a specific element was identical with another atom of the same component, and produced its properties from the fundamental nature of this element. The atom was unchangeable and fundamental. The first hint of atomic substructures came from the ongoing work of Mendeleev, who published his periodic table in 1869. He remaining spaces in his table for as undiscovered elements and could predict their properties yet. Focus on radioactivity in the early 20th century demonstrated that atoms weren’t fundamental but were made up of elementary particles – electrons, neutrons and protons.

It was found to be the number of these particles within each atom of the element that established the properties of this component, not some inherent substantial essence. Furthermore, these elementary contaminants did not act like classical ‘things’. They were only knowable by interactions with other particles, and the mere work of observation transformed their properties within an indeterminate way.

Even worse, their ‘essential nature’ appeared to change radically relating to how they were observed. If you set up your experiment to observe them as contaminants, they behaved as contaminants then. If it is set by you up to see them as waves, they behaved as waves. The Origin of the Species’ was the first major blow against essentialism in the West. Darwinian mutation, which at first seemed to be a new way of thinking about types in biology just, can spread to other phenomena and other disciplines, as we shall see.

So the entire implications of the collapse of essentialism have yet to totally permeate the traditional western psyche. But the radical change in the way that research views the world which took place between 1850 and 1950, has brought traditional western thought a lot more in line with Buddhist idea than anytime before 2500 years.

• We have less lipid creation as we age group, so our scalps dry out too
• December 6
• Melons & Berries
• They offer Cash on Delivery or COD for Metro Manila addresses

This may partially explain the quickly growing interest in Buddhism among clinically literate westerners. The impermanence of most functioning phenomena can be an inevitable logical consequence of their emptiness of inherent life. No functioning trend can be static, because to function it must change and become changed, it must give something of itself or obtain something into itself. A truly unchanging phenomenon would have a home in splendid isolation and may never even be known to exist. All working phenomena are impermanent and composite.

What we term ‘lifetime’ is really just impermanence in slow-motion. No sensation is a ‘thing in itself’. The greater you look for this, the less you think it is. Things disappear under analysis. A car exists as the standard truth, convenient for our everyday lives – a type or kind of working approximation.

But on dissection, logical analysis will get no ‘essential’ car, just a heap of parts that at a certain arbitrary stage of assembly is specified ‘car’, with a certain arbitrary stage of disassembly is specified ‘pile of junk’. Outside our brain there is absolutely no defining ‘carness’ . Although it might be true that all functioning things are processes, it doesn’t help us to find our way round the everyday world. Conventionally, we regard any object that is present unchanged for a long enough length to be useful relatively, as a ‘thing’ rather than process. This is like the situation where realizing that matter is 99.9% clear space is of no use whatsoever when we’re building a brick wall.