Four held in Target thefts

first_imgNORWALK – A group of thieves pilfered merchandise from Target stores in four communities in a two-week period, authorities said Wednesday. Four suspects were in custody while others were still on the loose. The Targets hit were in Norwalk, Burbank, Pacoima and Woodland Hills. Saul Gonzalez, 42, Jesus Flores, 24, Carlos Beltran Lopez, 26, and Carlos Flores, 47, will have a preliminary hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court on Dec. 10. Gonzalez lives in Los Angeles while the others are Bellflower residents. Deputies arrested the four men on Nov. 1. Prosecutors have charged the men with five counts each of second-degree commercial burglary. They pleaded not guilty to the charges, said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Carlos Flores was being held at Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles, Lopez was at the Pitchess Detention Center North Facility in Castaic, and Jesus Flores and Gonzalez were at the North County Correctional Facility in Saugus. Their bail is $500,000 each. ruby.gonzales@sgvn.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! AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREPettersson scores another winner, Canucks beat KingsThe men allegedly stole from the stores during the day, according to Detective Mark Christiansen of the sheriff’s Norwalk station. He said the men are believed-to have hit other stores as well. Authorities remained tight-lipped about the case and wouldn’t disclose details including the alleged thieves’ modus operandi, what items were taken and what happened to the stolen loot. Christiansen said the case is ongoing and that authorities are still looking for other associates and the person who fenced the stolen goods. He said they haven’t been able to confirm if the suspects were part of a theft ring. The alleged thieves hit two Target stores in Norwalk on Oct. 19. The other stores were hit Oct. 30 and Nov. 1. last_img read more

Sources: 49ers Garoppolo may be ready to work out sooner than expected

first_imgJimmy Garoppolo’s surgery to repair a torn ACL in his left knee went so well that it is anticipated he could ready for training camp, sources told ESPN.The 49ers reported that doctors found just a torn ACL and no other major damage during surgery last week. Garoppolo’s recovery time is expected to be six to eight weeks, ESPN said.Meanwhile, 49ers head coach Kyle Shanahan, speaking with reporters, broached the possibility that Garoppolo could be working out sooner than that.“I haven’t gotten …last_img

An Oakland A’s fan favorite joins their broadcast team

first_imgCoco Crisp, the author of the “Bernie Lean” as well as one of the biggest hits in recent A’s postseason history, is back as part of the team’s broadcast team.The popular Crisp will join Ken Korach and Vince Cotroneo in the booth for 33 games this season on the A’s new flagship radio station, KTRB-860 AM. Crisp will also be utilized on their new TuneIn channel that features 24/7 A’s coverage, anchored by Chris Townsend.He’s bringing the Bernie Lean back to Oakland. Welcome back @Coco_Crisp as …last_img

An Ugly Head Rises in Lenin’s Land

first_imgAccording to Andy Coghlan, reporter for New Scientist, the spectre of an “ugly head” is rising in Russia.  What is it?  It’s not atheism, because Coghlan admits that Russia once made that the state religion.  It’s not communism, because Coghlan admits “Godless communism” once prevailed in the Soviet Union.  No, it is an ugly head Coghlan believes Russian dissidents, scientists and liberals must band together to fight before it invades the schools of the vast country.    What is it, you ask?  Creationism.  “Yes, creationism has now reared its ugly and evolving head in Russia, the heart of the ‘Godless communism’ that prevailed in the Soviet Union,” Andy Coghlan wrote.  In a strange twist of fate, American creationists have taken on the role of the Comintern and are propagandizing Russian schools with the subversive doctrine that “Darwin’s theory remains a theory… This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too.”    How could this ever happen in a land that once imprisoned pastors and closed churches, turning them into museums of atheism?  Coghlan referenced “a superb blog by Michael Zimmerman in the Huffington Post” as a source.  (Zimmerman, head of the “Clergy Letter Project,” seeks to get American pastors to sign a statement that Darwinism is not such a bad idea.)  Coghlan also referenced the Dover, Pennsylvania court case as “momentous” in combatting American attempts to allow creationism and intelligent design to get a foothold in schools.    The irony rises to a fever pitch at the end of the article.  Coghlan quotes a Russian dissident who conflates fighting alternatives to Darwinism with fighting communist propaganda: “It’s a dangerous idea and we will do all we can to stop it.  We overcame communism as the state ideology and certain forces want to replace it with Orthodox Christianity.”  It appears nobody – not even the Archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Church whom Coghlan quoted – was even suggesting making the Russian Orthodox Church a state ideology; even so, it begs the question how teaching creationism in science classes would lead to that, if such a suggestion were even on the table.  But visions of moral equivalency like booting Darwin out of science class, sending biology teachers to Siberia, or turning science centers into museums of Russian Orthodoxy are surely absurd.  Yet Coghlan ended with this shocker: With pressure from evangelicals for the US to abandon the division between church and state insisted upon by Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the growing influence of the Orthodox church within Russia, we could see an unlikely alliance forged between former enemies.  Jefferson and Lenin would be spinning in their tombs.For some clarity on what Jefferson meant by the oft-quoted “wall of separation between church and state” (not a part of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights, but part of a letter he wrote to Baptists worried about the Federal governments power to infringe on their rights), readers are encouraged to see this explanation on Wallbuilders.org that shows it has been turned to mean the exact opposite of what Jefferson meant and believed.Is there any reader not left breathless with disbelief at such a statement like what Coghlan just said?  Any reporter who can put Lenin and Jefferson in the same sentence as allies against creationists has just reached a new low, both in historical ineptitude and calumny.  This guy needs a serious remedial education.  We suggest some Teaching Company courses in the Rise of Soviet Communism and Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century for starters, and some good books on the horrors perpetrated by the communist dictators.  Remember the unforgettable 11/30/2005 entry?  How on earth can one compare such polar opposites as Jefferson, lover of liberty, with a murderous totalitarian dictator like Lenin, whose first acts were to shut down freedom of the press, freedom of education, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, institute one-party rule, and start murdering everyone who opposed him?  We need a category not just for Dumb Ideas, but for Evil Ideas.    If you are a Darwinist reading this, welcome.  See?  This is part of the open marketplace of ideas.  (Notice: This is part of the open marketplace that American students don’t get.)  One thing you can be assured of is that creationists, as much as you may despise their beliefs, are not bad people.  Take any one of the famous ones: Henry Morris (see Scientist of the Month) or Duane Gish, say; even pro-Darwin historians will be among the first to state openly that they are (or were, in the case of Henry) nice, pleasant people (as well as qualified and informed scientists).  They didn’t go around ordering purges of their enemies (with real guns and real bullets) and sending people to Siberia, OK?  The same is true of all the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement.  You would be hard put to find a more pleasant group of people to share a stage or a lunch with.  Even Michael Ruse knows that.  Take Paul Nelson to lunch sometime as a scientific experiment and you’ll see.  If you had a chance to live in a country ruled by creationists or by communist dictators of the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, Castro or the rest of those murderous incarnations of evil, you can be sure that 100 times out of 100, you would flee the Iron Curtain at every chance for the freedom that coincides with those who embrace ID or creation or both.    Please notice also that no mainline creationist or ID organization has ever advocating banning Darwin.  In fact, ICR and some ID organizations have stated clearly that they want to teach “more Darwin” than the Darwinists allow the schools to teach.  One reason is to include both the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, but another is the reality that students cannot understand the 20th century without an understanding of Darwinism.  The only dogmatists who want to teach one side are the DODOs (Darwin-only, Darwin-only).  It’s the Darwin-olators that would have Jefferson spinning in his grave.  As for Lenin, well; most people who know their history would be grinning with satisfaction to see the RPMs turned up on his tomb.(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Miracles in Solar System Origin Theories

first_imgSkipping over a difficulty because it can’t be solved scientifically: that’s one giant backward leap for theory kind.Finagle’s Rule #6 for scientists recommends, “Do not believe in miracles. Rely on them.” Secular materialists follow that rule implicitly when trying to account for the origin of the solar system. They know full well that the “building blocks” of small grains, thought to have condensed out of a primordial gas cloud, do not stick together. They bounce off each other or, worse, erode each other into smaller grains. Only when an accreting ball of grains grows to about a kilometer in diameter will the so-called “planetesimal” begin to accrete more material through gravity. That’s the problem; you have to start with small planets to get planets. But materialists need a theory from the bottom up: from molecules to planets. How can they deal with this giant hurdle? Two ways: (1) invoke miracles, and (2) use the Big Lie tactic while doing it to make it sound convincing. Need proof? Look right here.In Science Magazine, Francesco DeMeo introduces a family reunion of sorts: “Meet the primordial asteroid family.” Drum roll. Here comes the miracle and the big lie.One of the major goals of planetary science is to understand the formation of all the bodies within our solar system, including the nearly one million known asteroids. There are two main competing theories (see the figure). The first and classical theory suggests that these bodies formed incrementally, starting as dust grains and accumulating bit by bit until they reached their final size. The second and more recent theory suggests that these bodies formed almost instantly through the gravitational collapse of clusters of pebble-sized material in the protoplanetary disk into single bodies hundreds or thousands of kilometers in diameter [the miracle]. This method skips the meter-to-kilometer intermediate size range that has been problematic to quantify with the classical method. On page 1026 of this issue, Delbo et al. find compelling observational evidence that when the asteroids formed, they were initially of large size, thus favoring the second model [the big lie].Notice first that the evolutionists exclude creation as a model from the outset. That leaves secular materialists with only two models: gradualism and secular miracles. Instant planets thousands of kilometers in diameter? How can they propose that? If you thought punctuated equilibria was a miraculous theory in biology, look at the miracle here. What physical force could possibly bring this about?The paper by Delbo et al. actually infers the secular miracle in a roundabout way. They never test if grains can actually condense into planetesimals with any experiments in a lab. All they do is count and measure asteroids. They find some orphan asteroids that they claim are 4 billion years old (Darwin Years, that is). Through their convoluted thinking, this can only mean one thing:We discovered a 4-billion-year-old asteroid family extending across the entire inner part of the main belt whose members include most of the dark asteroids previously unlinked to families. This allows us to identify some original planetesimals, which are all larger than 35 kilometers, supporting the view of asteroids being born big.“Born big”? That is worse than claiming that humans exit the birth canal as adults. Here’s how they present the miracle of instant planetesimals: they only refer to previous papers, particularly one in 2008 (see arXiv) that only proposed a “scenario” because of “the poorly understood sticking of mineral particle aggregates and the apparent difficulty of growing beyond meter size due to rapid inward migration and collisional disruption.” Now, nine years since that proposal, Delbo et al. know that the problem remains unsolved:Understanding the formation of the planetesimals, the building blocks of planets, is a crucial problem in planetary science. Traditionally, a coagulation process is invoked, in which accreting collisions create bodies of all sizes up to several hundreds of kilometers. However, new models propose that planetesimals can form preferentially as 102 to 104 km in size directly from the clumping of dust particles in the protoplanetary disk, essentially skipping the formation of kilometer-sized and smaller bodies (1–4).The authors speak of “objects that were lost because of the collisional and dynamical evolution.” That makes sense; we know from experience that collisions break things down. Dynamical evolution can fling objects out of the solar system. But can chance instabilities organize planets instantly? Alan Boss felt like a heretic when he embraced the theory of disk instabilities forming instant gas giant planets (3/21/06, 8/15/15), but he thought core accretion would work for inner planets. This paper shows it does not. It appears that heresy is becoming orthodoxy.Everybody believes in miracles. Some believe in guided miracles by an all-wise, omniscient Creator. Some believe in miracles of chance. Everyone believes in the supernatural. Some refer to it as God’s realm. Others restrict it to science, which is supernatural, because it is not composed of matter in motion.So don’t be fooled into falling for the faith vs science dichotomy. The choice is not between supernatural and natural, but which supernatural worldview logically coheres with the evidence. (Visited 614 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Heat-Pump Clothes Dryers

first_imgHow heat-pump clothes dryers workA traditional dryer works by heating air, blowing it into the drum chamber (where it absorbs moisture from the clothes), and then exhausting the now moisture-laden hot air out of the dryer and out of the house.A condensing dryer, on the other hand, works by heating air, blowing it into the drum chamber and then pulling that warm moist air from the drum and cooling it to the point that the moisture condenses and drips into a collection tray. The cool dry air is then heated and recirculated back into the drum where it again picks up moisture and the cycle continues.The tricky thing with a condensing dryer is how to cool the air being pulled from the drum. Some condensing dryers use a metal plate that is air-cooled and some use a scheme that requires a steady supply of cold water. Neither of these systems results in a dryer that is any more energy-efficient than a traditional dryer, and the appliances are much slower. The market for condensing dryers has typically been for apartment buildings where running an exhaust vent isn’t feasible.A heat-pump dryer is a kind of condensing dryer. Like pretty much every heat pump device, the heat pump in a heat pump clothes dryer has a cold coil and a hot coil. This works out perfectly for a condensing dryer as the cold coil can be used to cool the warm moist air coming from the drum (and to provide a condensing surface for the moisture in the air) and the hot coil can be used to heat the air before sending it back.Heat pump clothes dryers use 40% to 50% as much electricity as a traditional electric dryer and dry clothes much faster than condensing dryers that don’t use heat pumps, while still being slower than a conventional gas or electric dryer. For a family that does five five loads of drying a week, that’s a savings of $1.90 per week during the winter and $1.00 per week during the summer for a heat-pump dryer vs. a traditional electric. Averaged out that comes to a savings of about $75 per year, which would bring the total lifetime cost of a heat pump dryer much closer to the cost of a traditional dryer. But unless you live in a very cold climate or dry an excessive amount of laundry, a heat-pump dryer, at today’s prices, is unlikely to save you a lot of money. If prices come down, or if the price of energy goes up, that could change.While the cost may or may not be an issue, one great feature of this dryer that could turn it into a mainstream product is how much gentler it is on your clothes. Because it’s not using heat alone to dry the clothes, it doesn’t heat the air as much as a traditional dryer. Not only will clothes last longer but it might make it possible to dry clothes that you would otherwise need to hang dry. RELATED ARTICLES Alternatives to Clothes DryersEnergy-Saving Clothes Dryers Hit U.S. MarketsDrying Clothes With Less EnergyEnergy Star Program to Include Clothes DryersAll About Washing Machines Joe Rice is a retired software engineer who recently moved into his energy-efficient house in eastern Massachusetts. His blog about the construction and performance of the house is called Pretty Good Lake House. Heat pump electric dryer17¢33¢ The real downside to the dryer is the cost. I got it from A. J. Madison for $1,399 with free shipping. That’s a lot for a dryer. Of course, I’ll save money every time I run a load, at least, compared to a traditional dryer, right? To figure out how much I created a spreadsheet. It takes into account the amount of energy each dryer requires to run, the amount of energy a minisplit heating system would use to heat/cool the makeup air (for a venting dryer) and the fact that all of the energy used to run a heat-pump dryer stays in the house. This latter effect is a significant savings in the heating season and a significant cost in the cooling season.According to these calculations, and based on prices for electricity and gas in Massachusetts, the costs per load are: Whirlpool announced it back in July; I was able to order it in October; and it wasn’t delivered until January 21st — but I now own a real live, made for the U.S. market, heat-pump clothes dryer. It’s officially the Whirlpool HybridCare Duet Dryer with Heat Pump Technology.Heat-pump clothes dryers have been available for many years in Europe, but this dryer and another recently announced model from LG are the first to hit the U.S. market. I chose the Whirlpool over the LG primarily because the LG, for some reason, still has a vent to the outdoors. One of the major advantages of incorporating a heat pump into a clothes dryer is that the dryer can be ventless. For a tight building enclosure that means one fewer penetration to be sealed. It also means that the dryer isn’t taking conditioned air from the living space and venting it to the outdoors.The dryer (see Image #1, above) looks pretty much like every other clothes dryer, doesn’t it? From this angle, the only difference you can really see between a standard dryer and this dryer is the panel at the bottom right which open to allow access to the secondary lint filter. Traditional gas dryer39¢38¢ But look at the washing machine outlet box at left. The two steel-braided hoses and the large black drain hose come from the washing machine. But that small copper tube attached to the small black hose is the drain from the dryer.I ran a medium-large load using the most efficient cycle and, well, it worked. It didn’t seem to take terribly long (although I didn’t time it) and the clothes came out not just dry but quite soft and with fewer wrinkles than the laundry from the last dryer I owned. In fact, the towels came out positively luxuriously soft. It is a bit louder than your typical dryer, though — something to keep in mind if your dryer isn’t located in an acoustically isolated area of your house. Winter Summer Traditional electric dryer55¢53¢last_img read more

Stair Design Basics

first_img Sign up for a free trial and get instant access to this article as well as GBA’s complete library of premium articles and construction details. Start Free Trial Already a member? Log in Stair design requires attention to all of the usual rules of residential design. Stairs should be graceful, useful, and comfortable. In addition, stairs must also be safe. Clearly, safety is more important for stair design than for most design issues (for example, ceiling height or window orientation).Once you understand the basic principles of stair design, you’ll probably notice that lots of stairs lack a graspable handrail, or have inconsistent riser heights, or are dimly lit. Examples of flawed stairs are unfortunately common. Why should green builders care? Is stair design a green issue? Perhaps. There are at least two ways that stair safety principles are in mild conflict with green construction principles:I don’t want to belabor these two points, because the conflicts are obviously minor. Safety clearly trumps building size targets or energy use targets. Code requirements There are lots of good online documents on code requirements for stairs; for example: Stair safety basics I won’t try to recreate these guides here. Instead, I’ll focus on the most common stair safety issues.Designers and builders need to get these important details right: The 7-11 controversy Jake Pauls, a safety consultant from Silver Springs, Maryland, has carved out a niche as one of the nation’s most vociferous advocates for stair safety. He has been waging a tireless campaign is favor of the 7-11 stair for more than 30 years. Pauls argues that 7-11 stairs result in lower injury rates than steeper stairs.Pauls (and other 7-11 advocates) won an early victory in 1991, when BOCA, one of the model code organizations that pre-dated the establishment of the International Code Council, voted for a code change establishing a maximum stair riser height of 7 inches and a minimum stair tread width… center_img This article is only available to GBA Prime Memberslast_img read more

Rihanna’s topless pictures leaked

first_imgR&B star Rihanna is at the centre of another scandal after topless pictures of her, clicked during a sexting session, were leaked online.The photographs were clicked a year ago, while she was sporting a blonde quiff and were clicked by the Rude Boy hitmaker in her bathroom, reported Radar Online.The website reported that the photos were clicked while the 22-year-old was seeing a yet unnamed sports star.The identity of the man who received the photos is unclear, but this was supposedly before her year-long relationship with Matt Kemp.The singer was recently at the centre of another controversy when she used cuss words on her Twitter page.Her foul mouthed comments to rapper Katt who compared her to the cartoon character, Clifford the Red Dog, had earned the ire of fellow Twitter users.last_img read more

Stosur shocks Williams to win 6-2, 6-3 in US Open final

first_imgSam Stosur pulled off one of the biggest shocks in the history of women’s Grand Slam tennis finals by comprehensively outplaying a frustrated Serena Williams and claiming the U.S. Open title with a 6-2, 6-3 win on Sunday.Stosur claimed her first Grand Slam singles title and became only the second Australian to win the U.S. Open crown by dominating a match which she was widely expected to lose to the home favorite.Williams lost her composure, arguing with the chair umpire after being docked a point for shouting out in the midst of a rally. It was reminiscent of the ugly tirade against a line judge two years ago.The overwhelming favorite for the match, Williams suffered only her second ever loss in a Grand Slam final to someone other than sister Venus; she was beaten by Maria Sharapova in the 2004 Wimbledon decider.”I had one of my best days,” Stosur said. “I’m very fortunate to do it on this stage.””To go out there and play the way I did is just an unbelievable feeling, and you always hope and you want to be able to do that, but to actually do it, is unbelievable.”Hitting powerful strokes from the baseline, and looking fitter than her opponent despite a series of gruelling matches over the tournament, the ninth-seeded Stosur became the first Australian woman to win a major championship since Evonne Goolagong-Cawley at Wimbledon in 1980.Five-time champion Margaret Court is the only other Australian to win the U.S. Open.advertisementOnly 2-9 in tournament finals before beating Williams, Stosur made the U.S. Open the third consecutive Grand Slam tournament with a first-time women’s major champion, after Li Na at the French Open, and Petra Kvitova at Wimbledon.”She played really, really well. She’s a great player, and it’s good to see,” Williams said. “I tried my hardest and she kept hitting winners and I was, ‘Oh my God, what am I doing?'”This was only the 27-year-old Stosur’s third title at any tour-level event, and what a way to do it. She took advantage of Williams’ so-so serving and stayed steady throughout – finishing with 12 unforced errors to Williams’ 25 – despite the bizarre events that unfolded in the second set.Down a set and facing a break point in the first game of the second, the 13-time major champion hit a forehand and shouted, “Come on!” as Stosur reached down for a backhand. Chair umpire Eva Asderaki ruled that Williams hindered Stosur’s ability to complete the point and awarded it to Stosur – putting her ahead 1-0 in that set.Williams went over to talk to Asderaki, saying, “I’m not giving her that game.”Williams also said: “I promise you, that’s not cool. That’s totally not cool.”Some fans began booing, delaying the start of the next game as both players waited for the commotion to subside.Tournament director Brian Earley said Asderaki’s ruling was proper.But Williams had trouble putting the whole episode behind her.During the changeover two games later, Williams continued to talk to Asderaki, saying, “You’re out of control. … You’re a hater, and you’re just unattractive inside. … And I never complain. Wow.”Williams also told the official: “Really, don’t even look at me.”When Stosur wrapped up the match with a forehand winner, Williams refused the customary post-match handshake with the chair umpire.”I hit a winner, but I guess it didn’t count,” Williams said during the trophy presentation. “It wouldn’t have mattered in the end. Sam played really well.”Asderaki issued a code violation warning for verbal abuse, and U.S. Tennis Association spokesman Chris Widmaier said Earley would speak to the chair umpire and review tape to determine whether Williams would be fined. That decision will be announced Monday.At her news conference, Williams rolled her eyes while deflecting a question about whether she regretted what she said to Asderaki.”I don’t even remember what I said. It was just so intense out there. … I guess I’ll see it on YouTube,” Williams said.Asked about being given the point, Stosur said: “It had never happened (to me) before. I was trying to see what was happening. I’m aware of the rule. It was something I’d never had to deal with before.”This sort of thing has happened before at the U.S. Open to Williams, who won the tournament in 1999, 2002 and 2008.last_img read more

Inbound Lead Quality from a Sales Rep’s Perspective

first_img Inbound marketing is like a synchronized rhythm of sales, marketing and prospects. Passing Leads to Sales Inbound Marketing Kit , that’s what happens.  now Topics: Learn more about inbound marketing and how to combine blogging, SEO and social media for results. Download our Why? What if marketing were able to remove the 97 “bad timing” calls I was making and make all my calls as productive as the remaining 3?  With  Don’t forget to share this post! AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to Email AppEmail AppShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to MessengerMessengerShare to SlackSlack As a sales rep., working for a smaller company and calling a lead that is generated via inbound marketing is far more productive than calling an existing client from a huge brand name company. That’s because timing is everything. Timing is everything, especially in sales and marketing.  The difference between  inbound and outbound marketing is timing. Less than a year ago, I worked for a very large company — a leader in its industry, a house hold name.  I carried a territory of existing clients and I was responsible for up-selling and adding new products and services.center_img Originally published Mar 10, 2009 8:31:00 AM, updated October 20 2016 inbound marketing kit . This means that with inbound marketing, all my calls are the quality of what it used to take 100 calls to generate.  My last company would be considered a safer place to stay considering the state of the economy.  However, after 8 years, I packed up and came to work for HubSpot, a much smaller, venture-capital-backed company.   inbound marketing . Although HubSpot is a smaller company, I’m now calling leads who’ve found us. Furthermore, they found us because they’re looking for help with initiatives they’re dealing with  What sales rep wouldn’t want to make calls to leads that found their company while looking for help with the services their company has to offer   Chances are, what I was offering, wasn’t what they were currently working on. It’s said that for every 100 calls a sales person makes, 3 will be an actual opportunity or the “right timing.”    You’d think the calls I was making into an existing book of business would produce lots of opportunities. But this wasn’t the case. Although I was calling clients, I was still calling at random, not knowing if they were looking to buy the additional services or product I was selling. I was interrupting my contacts from the initiatives they currently had on their plate.last_img read more