STRATEGI PELAYANAN TRANSPORTASI ONLINE GOJEK DI KOTA KENDARI

Penelitian ini dilakukan pada komunitas transportasi online GOJEK di Kota Kendari dengan rumusan masalah adalah Bagaimana strategi pelayanan transportasi online Gojek. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahuistrategi pelayanan transportasi online Gojek di Kota Kendari. Data yang digunakan dalam penulisan tugas akhir ini dikumpulkan melalui observasi, wawancara, dan dokumentasi dan dianalisis dengan metode deskripsi kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa strategi pelayanan transportasi online gojek di Kota Kendari dengan mengutamakan kualitas jasa, mengelola harapa pelanggan, membutikan pelayanan kepada pelanggan, memberikan informasil jasa online gojek kepada pelanggan dan membangun budaya layam transportasi online yang dibutuhkan oleh masyarakat. Strategi pelayanan transportasi mendukung kelancaran pelayanan pelanggan dengan jasa internet yang didalamnya terdapat bukti layanan yang baik, perhatian kepada pelanggan, dapat dihandalkan, respon dengan baik kepada pelanggan dan meberi jaminan keselamatan kepada pelanggan yang pada akhirnya akan meningkatkan kepercayaan dan kepuasan masyarakat terhadap transportasi online goje

Defeating the U-Boat

In Defeating the U-boat: Inventing Antisubmarine Warfare, Newport Paper 36, Jan. S. Breemer tells the story of the British response to the German submarine threat. His account of Germany\u27s \u27asymmetric\u27 challenge (to use the contemporary term) to Britain\u27s naval mastery holds important lessons for the United States today, the U.S. Navy in particular.https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers/1035/thumbnail.jp

Re-imagining community identity through articulation: a case study of two newspapers, a strike, and a community\u27s negotiation of change

The work examines how rhetorical practices connect and overlap within circumstances of active negotiation of social, economic, and physical change. Specifically, it asks: can privileging of particularized knowledges, pervasive skepticism, and the individual petit recit of postmodernism co-exist with what James Mackin calls communitarianism, or reliance on a system of social connections? This work argues that it can, and does, through the negotiation of community identity.;Using case study methodology as well as analysis and application of articulation theory, this work examines identifiable links across public practices. These practices illustrate the active process of community identity negotiation---what links occur, what power dynamics emerge in order for a collective to accept, albeit temporarily, some notion of self. ;While theory can be fascinating and useful in advancing our understanding of how a process works conceptually, the challenge often comes in its application. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz challenges researchers to localize knowledge, or to examine the particular in order to better, more accurately see. Therefore, this work analyzes the specific words, images, institutions, behaviors, and practices associated with identity negotiation in a particularized setting.;The case study focuses on a community responding to social and economic change and residents\u27 resulting efforts to re-see the community\u27s identity. Specifically it looks at the city of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, formerly the hotbed of the anthracite coal mining industry. Wilkes-Barre is one of only a handful of cities in the nation that still supports two competing, daily newspapers, and the case study looks at a newspaper strike in 1978 that resulted in the birth of its second daily newspaper. The Wilkes-Barre case looks at identity formation in response to change that emerged from several uncontrollable circumstances---the death of the industrial economic base of the area, the 1972 Agnes Flood, and population shifts, all of which occurred prior to the union strike at The Times Leader and the subsequent formation of its competitor, The Citizens\u27 Voice. Addressing change often means re-articulating a sense of self. It is this process of re-articulation---and the rhetoric that surrounds the process---the dissertation maps

The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts’ “Prudential” Answer to Williamson County’s Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement

This article reviews recent federal court decisions that have loosened the state litigation ripeness barrier to federal takings review based on its “prudential” character. Part II provides relevant background on Williamson County and the development of the state litigation rule. It explores the logic underlying the rule and the problems it causes in application. Part III reviews the judicial shift away from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule—under which compliance with the rule is a prerequisite to a court’s power to hear a takings claim—to a prudential view in which application of the state litigation rule lies within the court’s discretion. The article then reviews circuit court decisions that have declined to enforce the state litigation rule. It concludes that courts act correctly when they view the prudential nature of the state litigation rule as a license to balance fairness and other considerations in deciding whether to apply or not apply the rule, and that this understanding provides a partial solution to the jurisdictional confusion and inequity resulting from Williamson County

You Can Check Out But You Can Never Leave: The Story of San Remo Hotel -- The Supreme Court Relegates Federal Takings Claims to State Courts Under a Rule Intended to Ripen the Claims for Federal Review

On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City of San Francisco, holding that property owners with “takings” claims arising under the Fifth Amendment could not obtain federal review after litigating in state court in compliance with the ripeness requirements of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. The case presented the specific question of whether federal takings claimants could invoke an exception to claim and issue preclusion doctrines under England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners because Williamson County forced them to involuntarily litigate in state court. This Article reviews the San Remo decision, criticizing the majority’s narrow interpretation of England and the result in banishing takings claims to state courts. The Article then explores the Williamson County ripeness requirement, and condemns the majority’s decision for failing to explicitly address Williamson County’s flaws. Finally, the Article considers whether San Remo closes the federal courthouse door to takings claims seeking noncompensatory relief

The Rebirth of Federal Takings Review? The Courts’ “Prudential” Answer to Williamson County’s Flawed State Litigation Ripeness Requirement

This article reviews recent federal court decisions that have loosened the state litigation ripeness barrier to federal takings review based on its “prudential” character. Part II provides relevant background on Williamson County and the development of the state litigation rule. It explores the logic underlying the rule and the problems it causes in application. Part III reviews the judicial shift away from a jurisdictional understanding of the state litigation rule—under which compliance with the rule is a prerequisite to a court’s power to hear a takings claim—to a prudential view in which application of the state litigation rule lies within the court’s discretion. The article then reviews circuit court decisions that have declined to enforce the state litigation rule. It concludes that courts act correctly when they view the prudential nature of the state litigation rule as a license to balance fairness and other considerations in deciding whether to apply or not apply the rule, and that this understanding provides a partial solution to the jurisdictional confusion and inequity resulting from Williamson County

The Burden of Trafalgar: Decisive Battle and Naval Strategic Expectations on the Eve of the First World War

On the afternoon of 31 May 1916, the British grand fleet and the German High Sea Fleet met in the only massed battle fleet action of the First World War. After a series of exchanges that lasted some twelve hours, both sides, in what became known as the Battle of Jutland, broke off battle and failed to engage each other again. The German decision was prompted by the unexpected appearance of the Grand Fleet\u27s superior number of battleships; Admiral Sir John Jellicoe\u27s decision not to pursue his fleeing opponent stemmed from his fear of running into a torpedo trap. Both sides claimed victory.https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers/1004/thumbnail.jp