Harlot

Networking absolutely helps. I don't care what anyone says, the more people you know, the easier it is to get jobs and opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable. However, when I say networking, I don't mean facebook. Maybe facebook can help in respects to politics, but when I say networking I mean getting to know your employers well enough to the point where if you find a better job, you can always call and ask for your old job back. I mean going to community events or city council meetings, and getting to know the politicians in your city. I means getting to know business leaders to the point where they know you by face and name. Networking means making sure that people are familiar with you, and know who you are. I constantly network, and try to meet new people because you never know what you might need or who will be able to help you with your needs.

It really depends. If you have never had a job before, and it is an internship with a end date, I would suggest that you go ahead and work for free just so that you can get experience and be able to say that you have work experience when it does come time to apply for a paying job. Also, if the internship is working with something that you like to do that is even better. Its really best to get an internship that you are interested in or in a field that you would like to know more about because in that case, you have more of an incentive for working for free. I did as internship, and although I was paid, I would have done it for free and when the guy told me that funding was tied up I told him that I would do it for free because it was something that I was interested in getting more experience in. However, obviously the funds for untied up and I got paid while at the same time doing something that I enjoyed and wanted to learn about, so it was two thumbs up. I think the internship really set the stage for me getting a new job. Whenever I got to an interview, I was always asked about my work experience and I would have otherwise had nothing to say. Nevertheless, I was able to say that I interned at this place and list all the duties that I had, and I was even able to create conversation by telling stories about my experiences on the internship and how I handled the quickly and professionally. I had been to job interviews before the internship, and I had to simply say that I had completely no experience, and that pretty much meant that I would not be hired. So I say that if you don't have work experience and you can afford to take it, take it even if it doesn't pay. In fact, when you are in your next job interview mention that you worked an unpaid intern. That really says a lot to a potential employee about your dedication if you worked for no pay.

I personally don't think there should be an introduction page at all unless it emphasis the fact that Xisto gives free hosting and free domains. The problem with Xisto is that it is not being marketed correctly. When I joined Xisto, I joined because I needed free webhosting. I didn't join because I wanted a quest for wisdom, so but I did not. I think more emphasis should be placed on webhosting like it was under Xisto. I really think Xisto is making a big marketing mistake, and I actually think it should be still named Xisto instead of Xisto.In addition, there is really no reason for Xisto to be so dead because this is literally the only place that gives free domains, and give you full control over those domains. I don't know any other community or company that does that, and I run across people on the web all the time who are looking for a company that gives out domains for posting. However, somehow they have never heard of Xisto. There are website where free webhosting is marketed, such as the free webhosting forums, but there is completely no advertisement of Xisto taking place there. So I think the front page should basically represent the fact that Xisto gives free hosting and domains, and the other crap should be dropped.

I've noticed a trend, the maximum I have ever got in a single payout has been $5. There has been two occasions when I posted quite a bit and remained active, and when the payout came in it was exactly $5.00 and not a center more. Has anyone ever gotten more than $5, or has anyone gotten more than $5 recently. Like this month or in the last few weeks? If so, then that would mean that some posting does not count if you go over the $5 pay out limit.

Bachmann recently stated in South Carolina that on the first day of her administration, has prices would decrease to less than $2 a gallon, and she went on to criticize President Obama's administration of mishandling gas prices, and she pointed after that before President Obama took office gas prices were below $2, and now they are above $3. However, obviously the president has little control over the cost of gas and gas prices due to the fact that the price of crude oil is controlled by mid eastern nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and also other nations that are in OPEC, which is an organization of mostly middle eastern nations who are some of the biggest oil producers in the world. Bachmann did lay out a plan to lower the restrictions on oil drilling, but there was a recent report that stated that even if the US opened up its East Coast and West Coast for oil drilling, only 500,000 barrels would be produced and the world uses over 89 million barrels a year, and by the time that 500,000 barrels are produced, which is by 2030, the world consumption would have already increased to 100m barrels. Also, OPEC has pledged to cut production if the US increases its production, which means that the prices would still remain the same if not go higher. So what do you think? Can Bachmann lower gas prices to lower than $2 if she becomes President?

I've been keeping track of the GOP campaign for President for the last couple of months, and I want to give my opinion of some of the candidates and then mention which candidate I think has the best chances of winning a general election. I am going to try to be as reasonable as possible, and give reasons for why I feel the way I do about certain candidates and why I think they have a chance of winning or don't have a chance at all.Mitt RomneyI think Mitt Romney is probably the best candidate on the GOP side and has the best chance of winning the general election. I think he has a little bit weaker when it comes to winning the primary because he isn't as aggressive an far to the right as some of the other members who pride their campaign on Tea Party politics. However, he seem to stay above the fray and re-frame from launching personal attacks on other candidates. He looks much more presidential, and looking presidential is all about character and class. I don't think it is presidential material when someone constantly launches attacks rather than focusing on their own campaign and policies. As far as I can tell Mitt Romney has done that, and even when he attacks other candidates, the attacks usually have a sound logical basis or at not so harsh to the point that it looks like he is simply pandering to the far right GOP base rather than simply speaking his mind and telling the people what he truly believes. That is one of the main ways he different from the majority of the other candidates, especially those that are on the GOP side and in the primary. He seems to be well informed on all the issues, he is a moderately charismatic guy and a decent speaker. He is in a good position at the moment, and may be the winner of the GOP primary and possibly the general election if President Obama can't get his campaign together. Newt GingrichI think Newt Gingrich is probably one of the most intelligent people who are within the GOP party when it comes to policy, and certain the most intelligent when it comes to those who are currently running for the GOP nomination for President of the United States. I've monitors him for quite a while, and his knowledge of how Washington works, and the effectiveness of the legislative process seems to be beyond the knowledge of every other candidate in the party. He usually don't pointlessly attack other candidates, and just like Mitt Romney, he looks above the fray. However, his only weakness is that he is so boring and uncharismatic. He can talk all day about policies in detail, but he doesn't seem to have the power to inspire people, and that is what is needed in order to win a campaign. People don't always vote for the smartest person on the stage, they vote for the person who they can remember most, and the people who present policies in a way that is easy to understand, logical, appealing, and emotionally moving. I can't see him winning the GOP primary, and if he does, the GOP is in trouble in respects to the general election. I highly doubt he is a man who can beat Obama. John McCain has a better chance of beating President Obama in a general election than he does. Another issue is that he seems a bit uncompromising and stubborn. This is obviously just a first impression since I don't personally know him, but it seems that his unwillingness to compromising may have been what lead to the collapse of his campaign earlier this year, when his entire campaign team pretty much quit on him, walked out, and join the campaign of other candidates.Michele BachmannI think Michele Backmann is in no way presidential material. She is only slightly more intelligent than Sarah Palin, and it appears that she does not have the intellectual capacity of candidates such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. I really want to say that she is the dumbest candidate in the entire GOP field. I can't think of any candidate more dumber in respects to politics and policy making on the federal level unless Sarah Palin or Donald Trump decides to throw their hats in the race. However, I can say that she is a good speaker and knows how to use talking points. Because of that, despite her perceived lack of knowledge, she has a chance to win the primary, especially due to the fact that she has closely aligned herself with the far right GOP base, and the Teaparty. Also, when she won the Lowa straw poll, that showed that she could mobilize people and she had a base to support her campaign. Nevertheless, she is probably one of the most far right candidates in the race, and she has not problem launching personal attacks at other candidates that are running in the primary or President Obama. Everytime she is on stage she talks about President Obama being a one term president, and that seems to be all that she talks about. It is always about the policies of President Obama or how terrible he is when she is on stage. She is going to have to talk about more than President Obama if she wins the primary and is thrown into a general election. I personally don't think she can win a general election, and she will have a hard time winning over independents. One good thing about her is that she did steal the fire of Sarah Palin. She took the lights and cameras right off of poor Sarah lol.Herman CainI think Herman Cain is the candidate with one of lowest chance of winning. I comes off as the 2nd dumbest candidate in the race, with the exception of Michele Bachmann. He is just a loud mouth, but nothing he says ever has any substance. He just talks talks talks, and run his mouth. Another problem that he has is that he makes comments that he is not willing to stick with. For example, his comment that he would not allow Muslims in his administration. He made that comment, and later retracted it after he visited with Muslim leaders, and he claimed that he lacked knowledge of Islam when he made the comments. Who wants a President that lacks knowledge of other cultures? That is a recipe for disastrous foreign relations. Even if he thought that about Muslims, no candidate who is Presidential material would say it because we have to work with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait, who are all Muslim allies who are important to the national security of the US. Another thing is that most of our oil comes from Muslim nations. The guy is not stable enough to be President, and he has completely no chance of winning either the primary or the general election. I can't really think of any strength that he has. He isn't even good at moving a crowd or speaking. He comes off too much as shouting. Although Michele Bachmann doesn't come off as intellectual, she has the ability to move a crowd and speak in a way that people are attracted to her, and she also knows what not to say as a political candidate. Ron PaulI think Ron Paul is probably the most honest candidate in the race. However, his honesty really hurts his chance of winning. I think he probably down there with Herman Cain when it comes to his chance of winning for GOP primary. As for winning a general election, he certainly doesn't have a chance. Although polls show that he can beat Obama, I highly doubt that most of the people taking those polls know who Ron Paul is or the policies that he advocate for. When he starts talking about abolishing the CIA, FBI, and removing all US bases, cutting military spending, abolishing Social Security, and Medicare, and the Department of Education, people will certainly run the other way. His policies conflict with the interest of too many people, and I think they would rather have another 4 years under President Obama rather than risk enduring 4 years under Ron Paul. I know I am missing come candidate, but those are the few candidate who I think are mot visible. Does anyone else have an opinion on these candidates?

Jeb Bush today was interviewed where he gave his opinion on the 2012 election and I think he hit the nail right on the head when he talked about the GOP's habit of bashing President Obama as a means to winning the 2012 election. I miss the days where candidates argued their ideological points and make logical stances on how to build a better nation, but now all I hear is "One Term President", "Tar Baby", and "You Lie". I don't hear any arguments on how conservative policies will turn around the economic crisis, create more jobs, and help lower the country's exploding financial deficit. It really is a turn off to hear nothing but attacks from people who are just trying to ride a wave of dissent into a political office. I will say that Mitt Romney has been careful not to attack, and has focused a bit more on the issues than on President Obama. However, people such as Bachmann, Palin, and Herman Cain have not presented any solutions, and only spend all of their air times launching attack after attack. Maybe that will play well with the GOP base, but that does not move independents and right leaning democrats that the GOP nominee will need in order to win the general election. Ronald Reagen is a prime example of how campaign should be ran. I am not a conservative, but he was an individual who stuck to the message and was able to inspire even those who disagreed with him. So currently, I think Romney is probably the most reasonable person on the GOP side. He is no Reagen, but he is a decent candidate compared to the other.

I wish they could tell us exactly how the system works, and it would be nice if we can see how much we have earned instantly. Perhaps the earnings would have to be validated before being able to spend it on hosting or domain just to ensure that there is no spamming in order to earn the MyCentos. I think it is really inconvenient to not know how much you have earned until its too late to increase activity so that you can reach the needed number of MyCentos. I left Xisto a few months ago and joined another free hosting community, but I guess I'm back. I miss the quality of hosting that Xisto, even though the community is all but dead. So now I am back dealing with this MyCento system that is obviously unpredictable. Also, I though we received MyCento based on the performance of our threads also. It doesn't seem as if that it reoccurring. I don't think I receive MyCento from threads that are still getting traffic.

CNN today reported that the rebels are currently hunting for Gadhafi and a ransom of 1.4 million was placed on his head. They said that they want him dead or alive. People are saying that they think that he is still in the country, but I don't think Gadhafi is that stupid. I've been trying to think of countries that would be willing to risk taking him in. For example, there has been talk and speculation that Tunisia has offered to shelter Gadhafi, but they just had a revolution themselves that overthrew the regrieme of their 30+ year president, so it is really hard to believe that they would be willing to take him in and risk the US and France making attempts to initiate another revolution. There has been talk about Zimbabwe taking him in, but it seems that Mugabe wouldn't want to take that risk either. He already has a trigger on his back, so why would he want to take in Gadhafi and make himself even more of a target for stuff like sanctions and military intervention. Saudi has a long history of taking in overthrown tyrants. They even offered to take in the Egyptian President, but its hard to see them taking in Gadhafi due to their relationship with the West and because of the fact that Saudi and Libya have never had good relations. They have been into it with each other for a long time, and one Gadhafi threatened to bring Saudi to its knees. The only countries that I can think of that will take him is and not fear the blow back that would result is North Korea and Venesula. He has a good relationship with both countries, but the question is how will he get there at this point, if he is not already there. I think Venesula is probably his best option in terms of living a decent life, but Chavez has been sick lately and if he dies its hard to tell who will take over the country. If someone that is pro-US takes over, then he will absolutely have to get out of the country quickly and find another place for safety and refuge. North Korea is more stable, and less likely to fall. Kim Jong pretty much has that country tied down, and so does his son. So I can't imagine North Korea falling any time soon, so that would be the best long term solution, but who takes to live in North Korea? That is probably one of the worst places on earth to live. It is comparable to East Germany if anyone remember that society. I had a professor who visited East Germany during his years as an undergraduate, and he talked about how gloomy the country was. However, I can not believe that Gadhafi would still be in Libya. He should know from history that if they catch him, his hand will be put on a platter. You see the President of Tunisia was smart enough to know that, and he, his wife, and children boarded a plane and got out of dodge quickly. They currently live in Saudi Arabia. But if Gadhafi is still in Libya, his best bet is to fight to the death. Its been to go down in a storm of gun fire rather than to be beat down in the streets where people can do the most gruesome things....like cut off your genitals or something or cut your head off. Saddam wanted to be shot, but they hung him. Its not a good thing to be hung either, that is not a good way to die. At this point, it is hard to see him regaining control of the country, primarily because it is not just the rebels alone. If it were just the rebel, the revolution in Libya would have been put down a long time ago. It appears that what is pretty much happening is that NATO planes are bombing the crap out of every Libyan military unit that comes into sight, and the rebels are just walking right through the carnage. NATO bombs, and the rebels just walk right into the capital. Even in the most recent development where Gadhafi's compound was over ran by rebels, the compound held off the rebels until NATO carpet bombed it, and then rebels were pretty much just able to walk on him and clean up.

Its been 10 years since the death of the singer Aaliyah, who died in 2001 while making her album called Rock the Boat. I heard the news on the radio and saw it on the internet this morning. She was one of my favorite R&B artist at the time, and it was so tragic to hear that she had died. She died in a plane crash before too much equipment was placed on the plane headed to the US from Bahamas. It goes to show that life can end in an instant, but its good that everyone is remember her today. She had such great talent, and if she were alive today she would be on the same level with singers such as Beyonce.

All of those issues with the exception of disease are causes of capitalism. If you really think about it, there is no reason other than profit that people are starving. There is enough land and resources to feed everyone on the planet, but those resources are held by individual rather than society as a collective body. So a little poor girl in Somalia doesn't even have a plot of dirt, while a little girl in Europe is set to inherit a 7000 acres estate and a couple of millions. The fact is that the world is moved by profit. The question is not whether or not food in needed in Ethiopia, but rather is it profitable to feed the people of Ethiopia. So people would rather make profit, and ignore the suffering of others. They don't realize that it was only by chance that they were born in another geographical area to different parents. However, anything for profit. Just look at American slavery. It was all about profit. If you can get free labor, you have yourself an almost self-reliable money making machine. If someone has a machine that makes money, you're going to have a hard time convincing them to pursue moral correctness by giving it up. Look at the way companies treated employees in the last 200 years. Even today, American companies and people looking for a profit continue to enslave human beings in third world countries. I can't even list all of the American companies who have sweat shops in Asia. Those same sweat shops would be in the United States if it were not for unions and government policies. People will do anything for profit and just because someone is wearing a suit does not mean that they don't have the mentality of a bank robber. I find that most people have a hard time understanding the concept that their beloved cooperate leaders would enslave them if they could make profit by doing so. Just as a bank robber would shot you if you get in the way of the loot. Or how a pimp puts his girl on the corner to make money and beat her down if she refuses to sell his body. So no one really cares about world poverty or starvation because they are all about profit.Even when it comes to the environment, they don't care. There is a neighborhood in Alabama that is contaminated and killing the people living there because a company came in and put all kind of pollutants in the air and soil. The EPA is currently trying to find a solution, but you can't really move the air and soil, so the neighborhood is ruined and the people are dropping like flies. They are all dying, and I could not believe it until I saw it on the news over and over again. It was quite conceivable to me that a company would come in and contaminate a neighborhood to the point in which children playing in the dirt got cancer and the only solution that the EPA could give was to tell the children to wash their hands and keep them out of the grass and dirt. What about the air? People just don't believe that these companies are actually hurting the environment to that extend, and those hurting it don't give a darn anyway. As long as their pockets are heavy, and they don't live in the neighborhood.

Although this conversation is old, I will have to disagree. The best thing I can compare not raising the debt ceiling to is going to a 5 star restaurant, and then eating a five course meal on a credit card and then refusing the pay the credit card bill. If you are a nation who needs to borrow money in order to operate, you're going to be driven into deeper debt as a result of that default (also known as bad credit). No only that, but Wall Street would go crazy because that bad credit would not only effect the government, but also publicly traded companies, student loans, mortgages, and etc. Therefore, not raising the debt ceiling would actually drive not only the government into deeper debt, but the entire country. Yes, spending is a problem, but that should not handled in the budgetary process. The Congress approved the budget, borrowed the money, and is now talking about not raising the debt ceiling so that they can repay that debt. That is completely insane. However, what they should do is when drafting the next budget, make sure that it include deep cuts and appropriate tax increases so that the country's budget can find balance.

The different between China and...lets say the United States, is that in China people and private corporations wield less political influence. China is not a democratic society, so they can make smart and reasonable decisions without thinking about the next election. I am not saying that less democratic societies are better, but all people have interest and they tend to use the democratic system to push for their interest in government. It may be a corporation buying votes in the Senate and House of Representatives in order to maintain tax breaks or citizens organizing and marching against cuts in Social Security and Medicare. In China, which is much less democratic, politicians only have to worry about is maintain a cozy relationship with Communist party leaders. In other words, there is more political stability in China in relations to cooperation because the government has no repercussions for making sensible laws that conflict with individual and corporate interest. Even if you look at the recent debt debate in Washington, it was just two parties dancing to their political supporters rather than making sensible decisions to slash the country's deficit and fix the economy. The Republican for example, stuck to their ideological stand on taxes instead of facing reality and realizing that tax cuts on the wealthiest citizens should be revoked. Their argument that it would hurt the economy is moot because taxes on the wealthiest citizens under President Clinton, and the economy was stronger than ever and there was no deficit. The Democrats are also stuck on the ideological stand that programs of social uplift should not be touched. I will give President Obama credit for putting those programs on the table, but there were many Democrats who would not budge. Another reason why more democratic nations have issues with getting stuff done is because representatives are usually not much smarter than voters. Most people vote for those who they can relate to. If a representative is saying no more taxes, they will bite and vote for no new taxes without even research on if that is a good policy or not. There are some exceptions where representative lie to the voters, and then have enough sense to do the opposite. However, the politician who get elected and actually believe in their campaign promises will reflect the beliefs and ideologies of those who voters them in, and most voters are dumb. I hate to judge, but mankind is really stupid. For example, a recent presidential candidate said that she would make gas prices go down to $2, but she was never asked how she would do it. This was the same candidate who called President Obama a socialist, but it seems a bit socialist to control gas prices. No one pointed that out. There was another incident when I was in class and a student began to bash America for being a socialist nation. I refuted the idea that the US was a socialist nation with the exception of education and public safety. He went on to say that those two sectors alone was too much socialism, and after I pointed out that he was attending a public university he shut up. So if our college students don't even know that America isn't socialist, then how can we expect them to not stick to ideological points that has been driven into their heads from birth when it is does not serve as a benefit to the country?The debt problem won't be handled until people become educated and leave their ideological safe ground. Either that, or there will have to be a new generation of politicians who are willing to get voted out for making the right decisions. However, most politicians tend to make choices that benefit their careers rather than the well being of the country and people. I don't know much about European politics, but it seems to be a similar situation. I heard that in many countries in Europe, college education is largely a public purpose. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that they are stuck under a similar situation of uncontrollable government spending and political pressure that prevents cutting the budget because they don't have the money to fund social programs anymore.

Let me quickly give my opinion on the matter. I am not Socrates, but I will try to use logic as much as possible. Now, I believe that suicide is caused by one of two things. That is depression or insanity. I simply do not believe that as completely normal person wakes up one day and decide to end their life. It has been mentioned that people who are suicidal are stereotyped as either insane or depressed, but its because that is exactly what the majority of them are. People who commit suicide are unhappy with the world, their life, and themselves. It becomes so unbearable that they can not handle it. I also think that suicide is usually emotional more so than logical. I seriously doubt many people commit suicide as a result of an epiphany after deep thought. I doubt that the majority of suicides are caused by new insight or some sort of logical realization that death is good, and life is bad. So in a sense, suicides are a result of mental or emotional instability. Before this is denied, I think its important that reasons for suicide be listed. I think all of those reason can be attributed to an emotional or mental deranged individual. I think an issue that will arise in my argument thus far is the definition of insanity. One definitions that I found labeled insanity as extremely foolish and irrational. However, I do not use the word insanity in that context alone. Perhaps I use insanity for the lack of a better word, but I also use it in the context of someone whose thinking is completely incompatible with the beliefs, values, and morals that hold society together. I know that it has been noted previously that morals, values, and all of those good sounding word should not be used, as they supposedly amount to nothing. I must disagree. What hold society together is morals and values. Of course, human morals and values differ on some levels, however, all humans or at least the powerful institutions that regulate humans, have shared values on a basic level. It is morals and values that keep one man from killing another without a justifiable excuse. Most humans hold that value, and those who do not are incompatible with society and therefore are forced to cooperate through either force and fear, or be put away in order to uphold a society that is bind together. My definition of insanity is what it is because irrational can differ from what society view as right. It may be rational, in your view, to kill someone for stepping on your lawn. I believe that such an action could be rationalized. However, it the action conflicts with the values that are established for a functioning society to exist. So now that we have established that suicide is caused by depression or insanity, if suicide conflicts with the values that hold society together and it can not be put to an end through force, than the person is put away so that society can not be harmed. How can society be harmed by a person's decision to commit suicide? Because that person is a part of society, and as a part of society they are prevented from harming themselves. In addition, others in society who have a personal or emotional connection are temporary protected from the horrors of death.Of course, it makes little sense when closely examined, but it is the reality in my opinion. The world and it's standards do not always make sense to those of us who are not well connected with the values established by society, for those of us who are partially insane. I say it makes little sense because death is inevitable. However, analyzing that truth is dangerous for those who fear death. If death is inevitable, why are murders placed behind bars for speeding up the inevitable. And is the death penalty truly a punish if it was going to happen eventually anyway. Does the punishment amount to beating me down today instead of next week? Either way I will be beat down. So the entire argument is complex, and it all comes down to values and morality more so than logic. Even those who support suicide must hold the value that man is his own decision maker and should determine his own destiny. However, it can be argued that man is a social animal, and society collectively decides his fate. It can be argued that man has no right to individually make the decision of life and death when all of humanity is at stake. If it is the job of humans to reproduce, and reproduction keeps humanity going, as a social creature who is he to decide the fate of society? He is a slave of nature, and is just as much enslaved to life as he is to death. The truth is that there is no truth. When it comes to social questions, rationality and logic is based on values and beliefs shaped by life experiences. Should man fate be decided collectively or individually? There is no equation for the correct answer. Even if we drop the "should" there is still no truth. Is the fate of men decided collectively or individually? Is men fate decided at all? Who decides how a man thinks? Is it the educational system set up by society or the naturally independent thought of men? Does any one really know? My opinion? Rationality and logic is justification of belief systems, which are not always rational. In fact, it is obvious that anyway argument on the issue hangs on right and wrong. It hangs on values and beliefs. Is it right or wrong for someone to commit suicide? Is it right or wrong for someone to be prevented from commit suicide? This is really why I have no issue with religion. Humanity is absurd, so why is the believe in absurdity wrong? Maybe humanity is not absurd, but even if it is not absurd universally, it is absurd because on our knowledge and current capacity. Therefore, why is one level of absurdity unacceptable and living a life with no clear purpose acceptable. How is it any more absurd to live to die than it is to live for the purpose of having life externally? In fact, the first sound more absurd than the latter. So suicide could even be rationalized on a religious level. One side could argue that it is pointless to live because life has no purpose, and therefore suicide is the way for the sane. Another side could argue that life has a purpose, and the purpose is to serve a being in order to live externally in happiness, bliss, and riches (personal gratification). So my opinion on suicide is neutral. I accept it as a reality, but I do not have the logic, knowledge, or patience to compare values in an attempt to come to a conclusion of truth, and I don't really believe that there is a truth anyway - only more values and beliefs. I would have to base my entire opinion on what hold society together, but than I would have to tackle the question of if it is good or bad that society is held together...especially if humanity possibly does not have a purpose.

I hate to contribute to such an old topic, but since this is the most interesting topic on Xisto at the moment, I will give my opinion. I don't believe in astrology. In fact, I get upset when someone attempts to try to predict my future based on astrology, or attempt to tell me how I feel or what problems are in my life. The fact is that astrology, especially horoscopes, are written in a way that is so vague that it could apply to anything. I remember reading through an entire horoscope, and each one applied to me. Then another day, I read through a horoscope, and hardly none of them applied to me. It attempts to throw everyone in a single bunch, and pretty much argues that someone's actions, feelings, and future can be predicted by the date on which they were born. I know people who were born on the exact same day, and are completely different people. The fact is that people are shaped by their environment, not by their birthday. You could pick out two different people from seperate parts of the world for a clear demonstration of that fact. If you were to take two people with the same birthday from Saudi Arabia and America, those two people would most likely be completely different. They are likely to have different social belief, different political beliefs, and a different religious belief. They will have a different perpective of right and wrong, and a different perspective on life. One may not even know what a horoscope is. So the actions of people can not be relegated to a birthdate, there must be a deeper examination. That examination must include all of their influences, beliefs, teachers, rolemodels, government, media, and etc. All of the influences that are in that person's life. I think astrology, especially the way that it has been used in the modern day, is basicly a for-profit enterprise. People want to know what is in the future for them. They want to know if they will find that perfect mate, or if they will find happiness. They don't want to hear the truth, which is that no one knows, they want something tangle. They want a response that they can work with. That is why a lot of people mess around with pyhics. When their husband beat them, they go to the lady at the back of the corner store with the cystal ball and incent. The lady sit at the cystal ball and speak super vaguely, and then before a clear answer is given, the 10 mintute session is up, and the more money is to be paid.

I agree, its not just you, the forum is slow. This is my first time coming on Xisto in a month or so, and I thought my internet connection was down when I attempted to come on the forum. I shut down my hosting account, which I shouldn't have, thinking that I would be satisfied not running a website. Now I want to restart my website though. I am kind of sketical about coming back, especially knowing that the spam has increased since my last visit, on top of the fact that the forum has become slow. I actually had to go play games while waiting on the page to load to post this comment. The community is pretty much dead, and most people are here for the hosting and domains.

I have always found Xisto - Web Hosting's services very reliable. I don't know another free host that even comes close to comparing to Xisto - Web Hosting. The customer service has alwau been nice and friendly, and it seems that they try their best. Anytime I have a problem, I am always shoot them over a support ticket, and they answer it with satisfactory. Of course, they don't answer my support tickets immediately, but no one should expect a small hosting company to answer support tickets immediately. My support tickets are always answered within 24 hours of posting it, and that is good enough for a free host, and I don't need support that often anyway because I have held so many websites that I am can usually solve issues myself. Unless there is a technical issue with the server, I typically don't have a reason to use the support ticket feature. I guess some people may be upset with Xisto - Web Hosting, but I think it is fantastic. My problem is with Xisto, and I dropped my hosting account here primarily because it felt like a task to post here every month. I was spending more time posting here than posting on my own website. So I was pretty much posting for hosting, and not using the hosting to its full potential. I decided that it would be better to use a different host that didn't require posting. I have not decided what host I will use yet, but I may not go into paid hosting until my website is making at least $10/month so that the site is paying for its own way. Then, it would actually be easier to earn money posting a few articles on content mills. I could post 2-3 short articles (400 words) each month and have enough to pay for a bill at host gator. I can post 2-3 article in least than 2 hours. If I post three articles on content mill, that is like $9. I would have to spend much more time on Xisto to make $9 in earnings, and then I hate waiting for the MyCento system to kick in. As for the quality hosting, I will certainly miss it. I hope that my next host is as wonderful as this one, and that the support is just as nice and hardworking.

Thanks for the encouragement and the suggestion on good places to register a domain. If I were to register my domain with xisto, and xisto closed down, would my domain be lost? Perhaps that would probably be a better question for Xisto to answer.

It really depends on how hard you want to work. You can definitely make money online, but it depends on what you are looking for. If you want a 9am-5pm job, you could write articles for a living. Demand Studio pays $15/article, so you could make $15/hour doing that if you can dish out an article per hour and you are disciplined enough to do it at least 8 hours a day. If you work 7 days a week, that is $840 a week - $3360 a month. Of course, if you have a masters degree or something, you may be able to find easier work that pays around the same or more. Nevertheless, if you are the type of person who has to choose between writing articles and taking minimum wage at McDonalds, writing articles may be a good alternative. The problem with Demand Studios is that they want high quality work for that $15 an hour, so it could take a hour or more to finish one article. Then there is hubpages, which I believe pay $10/hour, and I am not sure about their standard. I have never written for them, but I would try them and see if it is easier to write articles there. If you can create two article in one hour at hubpages, and only one a hour at Demand Studios, go with Hubpages. Finally, there is Associated Content. You can sell those folks just about anything anything, their standards are very low. They won't take stuff like movie reviews or stuff too available on the net, but you could write about your favorite pet store or the best grocery stores in your area, and they will pay you. Their pay is low, usually in the $3 range, so being able to make a living there is based on putting out a lot of quickly written, crappy content. I only write for Associated Content at the moment, but I rarely write for them. I only write when I need to pay for a domain or something, like I wrote 7 articles in the past few days. I needed to purchase a domain. They usually pay you a few days after writing the article, usually 3 or 4. It has been five days from the point where I wrote my first article this month, and I have yet to be paid, so it appears that I will have enough money on Xisto to buy a domain before their money comes through into my paypal. The reason I don't write for associated content much, although I should because I don't have a job and I need gas money to get to school very often, it feels weird wasting my time tossing out quick articles for pay when I could invest such time into writing articles on my own blog and trying to generate traffic for revenue. The only reason I wrote for them recently is to get money to set up a domain for my new blog. Nevertheless, I think I am going to start writing articles for them even when my blog is up so that I can have gas money to get from and to school. Another good thing about it is that all of the sites list do give a performance bonus. They give like $1.50 for each 1000 page views that your article receive. Although that's not much, if you have thousands of articles, you could make a few hundred dollars a month in passive income simply from your articles existing. But..it would probably be wiser to post those thousands of articles on your own website. So I am going to use them just to cover cost until my website start getting traffic and ad money.When I speak of "Making Money", I am not talking about getting rich, just earning enough to live. So of course, you won't get rich from associated content until you have 100,000 articles on it. As for adsense, I disagree that you can't make real money with it. I know people who have websites and adsense is their main source. One guy was making $4000/day from adsense after blogging for a two years, and having a thousand or so article. You have to get traffic by blogging and constantly promoting - constantly posting your website link around the net and placing ads in the right place on your website. I have never seriously promoted any of my websites, I usually just wrote a few articles and hoped that traffic would come - and it didn't. Then after I saw that traffic was not coming, I shut down the site. Then I tried a forum, and that was the same case. One thing about my previous websites is that I was not consistently promoting them, adding contents to them, and none of them helped people solved any kind of problem or issue. I am confident that I can make at least $100/day after the first year of my site being opened, so that is my goal. So that is $3000 a month. I know a guy who was making $40,000/day from his blog in 2006, there is no taking how much he is making now. I probably could never make that much, but I think that with hard work, $3000 a month is reasonable. So my recommendation is start a blog, it will not see immediate income, but if you keep at it, you may make a little extra change every month and who knows what will happen after that. Just make sure you promote the website. Promote, Promote, Promote. Treat it as a full time job, if you are not adding content, you should be promoting. That is my plan. I am going to keep at it no matter what. I commit to keeping the site open for at least two years before closing it. If I make enough money to get it up, about $10/month, I probably won't shut it down. Progress really has a way of keeping you going. Pick a niche, if you decide to blog, that help people. Find a list of the biggest problems people have, and that you know a little about, and blog on it.

Yes. Ironically, it was a quote used by one of my teachers who was fairly religious. He was also over a few academic groups in the school, and he would suggest that we pray before each competition. Although I am not religious, I don't see why not. It took a while for me to understand how such an intelligence, level headed, and tolerant man could be religious. In fact, I am almost certain that there was a part of him that didn't believe in religion. I was born in a religious home. I hate to use the word "religious home" because it gives off authoritarian undertones. I will correct myself and say that my entire family believed in God and would go to church every now and than. When you whole family and everyone you know believe in God, and you believe in God. You pray and when you do something wrong, you ask for forgiveness. When you prayer, you actually think God is listening to you. Then one day it hits you that the crap doesn't make sense, and slowly you realize that it is all made up. That is pretty much what happened to me, but my family still think I believe in God - or at least I think they do. As for voltaire's words, they don't apply to religion, they apply to intelligence. If religion didn't exist, the belief in absurdities still would and so would the existence of atrocities by deception. Religion isn't the issue, human intelligence is. Human ignorance is one of the key elements that perpetuate religion, and without it, religion would probably not exist. So in my opinion, religion is not the reason for ignorance; ignorance is the reason for religion. The world would be no better without religion because the source will still exist. Actually, I change my mind. It is not ignorance that that is reason for religion, it is the ignorance of ignorance and the ignorance of the effects of being ignorant of ignorance. I believe the same applies to Atheist who claim to be certain that a God does not exist. It would be like a human being in the dark age saying that they are certain that the earth is not a sphere floating around the sun. If you can not prove a statement is false, then you should say you don't know. If you can't prove that a God does not exist, then you should say that you don't know. To put it in more concise terms, if someone were to say, "Does God exist?", I would respond by saying, "I don't know". If someone were to say, "Is there a possibility for a God to exist", I would say "Yes". If someone asked, "Does God not exist?", I would say, "I don't know". If they say, "Is it a possibility that God doesn't exist", I would say "Yes". I think that is the position that thinking people should take, but Atheist don't take that position. They claim that they are certain that a God does not exist. My position is in no way to appease religion, as I don't believe in it, but I also don't know. People have issues with not knowing for some reason. People being scared of not knowing is one reason why religion exist, no one wants to admit that they don't know why the heck we are on earth or how we got here (outside of unproven theory). So in order to know, they create a story about a man who created the world in 7 days and is all seeing, all knowing, and perfect, but yet he is so imperfect and short sighted that he has to destroy the world with a flood because his creation was flawed and he didn't see it coming. Lets note that when I say "God", I don't necessarily mean the Christian God, but any super-natural life form. The word "super-natural" is actually descriptive, because super-natural is a word that we really use for nature or natural things that we can not comprehend. So we begin to rely super-natural as something that is scientifically impossible rather than something that is so scientifically advantage that we can not yet understand. It depends on how hard that the reality of the real world is, and we must understand that people have different realities. I had a hard time understanding that until I left the hood for a while and then had to go back. I realized that moods, in a very mysterious way (unexplainable), completely change based on your social condition. Therefore, I would say that picking the former is not as undesirable as it sounds. When you are living in a reality that is so grim and hopefulness, and there is no imaginable future progress...if you are on your last string and the belief that a God is in the sky that will make things work out for you, I say take the fantasy. The only other option is to give up, to die. People too often try to over simplify rather than understand. Of course this is not the case for everyone, but for most of the people in my community, it is. And their belief that they have no prospects are true. Some of them have a hard time finding the United States on a map. It all goes back to ignorance and ignorance of ignorance, but the ignorance is what lead to halted progress. It is not even able being intelligent either, but having common sense and thinking logically. I will first say that my statement was taken out of context, I should have clarified. When I said that religion is a good thing, I meant for the individual. I know people whose last string is their religion, and their life is so miserable that without their belief in heaven and that a God is on their side, they would commit suicide. Their religion is what makes them content and at terms with their condition. A condition created by ignorance in most cases. As for religion doing good things in regards to helping others, it does, although that was not my original context. I have not problem with religion doing good, and I think Atheist groups should take note and focus more on improving the lives of people rather than combating religion. I won't comment on the Catholic Church, they leave a bad taste in my mouth. As for atheist in my community having a hard time in my community, it is true. Nevertheless, a Christian would have the same hard time in an majority Atheist community. The thing that should be stressed towards both sides is acceptance. I don't care if people wanna pray in public or exercise their religion, I accept it. If someone wants to do their witch craft or Buddhist chanting in public, I accept it. By confronting bigotry with bigotry, people are wasting time. My goal in life is to be a happier person, and gain as much knowledge about the world as I can. It is to be content with myself and I have no interest in telling other people what to believe or how to live their life. I would prefer that everyone keep their religion in the closet, but it just doesn't work that way. I keep my beliefs in the closet, I don't tell people my belief...which would probably be classified as agnostic or maybe there is no label for it...but I keep it to myself. People should believe in whatever makes life easier to live. If believe in a fairy tale make life easier for someone to live it, then power to them. As long as government maintains a separation of state, and make sure my head isn't chopped off, I am fine. Yes, I am black. It is not about appeasement, it is about asking "What will this accomplish?" For example, if I ran into someone racist, I would not entertain their ignorance. I would accept that I can't change their views about race, and as long as the discrimination is not coming from someone who is legally obligated to be racial objective, I move on. I can't fully comprehend the realities of that individual and his life. So yes, people will discriminate based on religion. However, it is not an issue of religion...that is an issue of people. I have discriminated in this very post by calling religious people ignorant. I am sure that comment is offensive, and a religious person would not understand why I feel that why because they have a different reality. If I were to call a religious person ignorant, would them getting into an argument with me change anything? It would most likely just reaffirm my belief rather than force me to reevaluate my opinion. I absolutely agree. Let me note that I am commenting on this as I read it. So I made a statement regarding that trail of logic above before I read your stance - seems like I agree with you. Do you believe God exist? No - (belief = meaningless) Does God exist? I don't know - (knowledge = significant) Well I guess ill take a nap now. I am hope I didn't make too many contradiction in my reply...I am sleepy so I rushed through my response without much thought, and I change my mind a lot anyway (like Rousseau lol); I could have a different opinion about this tomorrow after thinking about it again. By the way, thanks for the music.

I don't really think over population is a big problem at the moment - especially not in countries such as the United States. It is estimated that the U.S. population won't double until somewhere around 2090. This means that in 2090, we are expected to have around 600-650 million people. Based on the resources that we currently have, we would have no problem handling that kind of population growth. The fact is that human beings only new 3 things for survival. Food, water, and shelter. Of course, a lot of people will disagree with that, but it is a fact. Human beings are nothing more than mammals, and the majority of mammals only have food, water, and shelter. When I say "shelter", that consist of things such as clothing, a structure, and warmth. Those are the only three resources human beings need, unless you want to be technical and include free stuff as oxygen. Come to find out, there is an abundance of food, water, and shelter. There is so much food, we throw it away. In fact, we burn crops so that they won't flood the markets. The true reason that people are against population growth is because it will transform life. People always tend to be against change. Just as the industrial revolution caused drastic change in the way society function, so would a large growth in the world's population. In a society with a huge population, where resources must be managed wisely, capitalism could not exist. You could not have 1% of the population owning 80% or 90% of the wealth. There would be no Bill Gates and Oprah. You couldn't have a single person with $60 billion and others without two pennies to rub together. I take that back, capitalism could exist, but the three basic needs of life would most likely be rationed and moved outside of the monetary system. Those three basic needs being food, water, and clothing. It would be impossible to peacefully live in an overpopulated world with social inequality determining who can and can't eat. I noticed that most revolutions start two ways - or probably all revolutions. The first way is nationalism or an equivalent emotional appeal. The second way is starvation. A hungry people is an angry people. As long as people have food, they are usually willing to come to terms with whatever other hardships are going on in their life. As soon as you take away the food, the poor are burning the country down. Nevertheless, I don't think overpopulation is a problem for the US. Although, I may not be looking at the big picture, because on an international level, the population of the world in general will eventually effect the resource availability for others countries. It is especially true if you live in a country that is import based such as the US. I think the most important thing to do, based on the fact that India and China population is set to double between 2070-2100, is to become more self reliance. The question is, "Does the U.S. have access to enough raw material to be self reliant". I can't answer that question, but I can say that the biggest problem with be oil. In the next 70 years, our top agenda should be finding an alternative to fossil fuels or developing cars that take 1/3 of the fossil fuel that it takes to operate currently. But then that even lies on the question of "Is the world's supply of fossil fuel really running out?" It depends on a variety of factors, but I don't believe that the population growth for the next 100-200 years will be so large that the resources of the earth, if properly used, can't hand it. People will have to learn how to use resources wisely and spread them out in a way that is more equal. I actually think it will do a semi-good thing. People in the world are already too greedy and materialistic. They cling to religion, but they forgot the chore teachings of Jesus, who was to give to your neighbor and put your neighbor before yourself. We don't do that unless we are forced to by circumstances. Even now, in a world with so many resources, no one should be starving. However, since we want to ensure the food prices stay high, we are willing to increase demand and price by forcing the less fortunate to starve. I also agree with the idea of education. Nevertheless, I don't think the educational purpose should be less babies. I mean, that could be an aspect of it, but what I am saying is that people are stupid to be active citizens, and that must change. As I stated previously, a poll showed that 50% of Americans can't name a single branch of government. That same percentage don't know the name of their congressional representative. I wonder what percentage doesn't know the earth is round, and believe it or not, I had a guy who recently argued that it was flat. His logic was that, "If it was round, why don't we fall off?" I told him gravity, and after I explained to him what gravity was, he still didn't understand why we were not falling off of the earth, and then he asked me, "Why do we not walk upside down on certain parts of the planet then?" I am happy that he asked such questions, it shows that he has the potential to become a thinking person, but the fact that he didn't already know at his age shows us that we have serious problems with educating our people. In fact, I think over 14% of Americans believe that the sun revolve around the earth...No Kidding! If we have that kind of misinformation going on, how do we expect people to demand equality. How can they see right through the lies placed on FOX News, and in some cases, MSNBC. For example, you have people in the U.S. who say that they support cutting spending. Nevertheless, they don't know where the majority of U.S. spending goes. A large percentage of Americans that think 25% of U.S. spending goes on foreign aid, when its under 1%. The majority of U.S. spending goes to Medicare, Defense, and Social Security. Ironically, the same people calling for the government to cut spending, will march in the street and get ready to burn the country down if their medicare and social security is taken away...lets not even talk about defense spending. So I do think that education is one of the variable.

Today, I really noticed something I never noticed before for some strange reason. What I noticed is that Xisto has a lot of potential, and I mean a whole lot of it. I realized how much potential Xisto has when I was brainstorming about how I first discovered this forum, and it was way back during the Xisto days. I remember looking for a free host, and not finding any reliable ones outside of Xisto. At the time, Xisto offers a very limited amount of disk space and bandwidth, but unlike other free host, it was reliable, stayed online, and was ad free. I remember leaving Xisto when I stopped hosting my website, and then when I decided to reopen my website, there were hundreds of free host that seemed to have popped up overnight. Those new free host required much less posting, and they provided way more diskspace and bandwidth. Nevertheless, those free host were still unreliable and many of them were fly-by-night. They were there one day, and gone the next. There were some who stuck around for a year or so, but even those were not reliable in regards to up-time. There was no consistency in up-time. Although I know a handful of decent free host still today, none of them are reliable as Xisto. When I found out that the plans here had increased in disk space and bandwidth, I had every reason to come back. In addition, I didn't want to worry about my website going down, and I knew that with Xisto it would always be up. Although the free host I was at before was decent, they were unpredictable, just as all free host (except for Xisto). There was no sense of security, and I always felt the host would close down at the flip of a hat. I was backing up my website every day just in case. When I came back to Xisto, I rarely backed up my website - foolishly so - because I knew it would be there or at least felt that way. The problem though is that if I were to start my first website today, I would not know about Xisto. I know about Xisto (Xisto) only because I found it when there was no one who could touch Xisto in the free hosting business. I went looking for free hosting on Google, and there was consensus that Xisto was the best based on reviews and a single google search for free hosting would find Xisto. That is not the case anymore. When I decided I wanted to come back to check on Xisto, I had forgotten that it was called "Xisto" and I had a hard time finding it by searching "free hosting" on Google. Back in the day, Xisto did not have to do much promotion because they were the only one. Now, there are hundreds of free host. And, even though I am sure many people run across Xisto on Google, I doubt many know that it offers free hosting. By just looking at the forum, how could you tell? So there are many differences between Xisto and Xisto, and a lot of it has to do with a lack of marketing. 1) Admin should encourage promotion One thing that I noticed is that admin does not encourage users to promote the website, and it doesn't appear as if they do any promotion themselves. I notice that every other free host that I know, actively post their website on free hosting forums in order to inform people of the services that they are offering. The majority of quality free host that I have found, I have found on web-hosting forums. I have never seen Xisto on a web-hosting forum or discussed on any site. Most people who look for a host check webhosting forums, and the decent free host I knew have drawn hundreds of active members from them. This is despite the fact that Xisto is by far better (unbiasedly speaking) then any other free web-hosting service that I have used or seen. In addition, Xisto has much more potential when it comes to promotion also because it has a monetary system. Most other free host are posting based. When you have a monetary system, you can give trust members an incentive for actively promoting the website - and if you have a chain reactive of trust members being recruited to promote for MyCento, the growth is unlimited. 2) Foremost, Promote Knowledesutra as a FreeHost One of the primary difference between Xisto and Xisto, is that Xisto was promoted as a free host. When you came on Xisto, you knew it was a hosting forum and you can primarily for hosting. Of course, people developed close ties to the website and began to see it as a community, but the community is not what attracted people to join site - its what helped kept people there. People don't know how the atmosphere of the community is when they join a forum, they only learn after joining. Therefore, the marketing focus should be on the incentive for joining and the community marketing should be used in order to keep users, not encourage them to join. Most people join Xisto for free hosting, and the power of the community was evident because many stayed even after they no longer needed hosting. 3) Expand into Domaining and Create Economy Xisto has two huge advantages over every other free host out there. It is important that Xisto capitalize on those advantages before it is too late. The first advantage is that unlike the vast majority of other host, Xisto is based on a credit system. The second is that Xisto allows for the purchase of domains. Now, my first suggestion is to make Xisto into a forum that is monetary based. What I mean by that is allow for MyCento to be traded. Xisto would probably have to stop MyCentos from automatically being transferred to Xisto's billing system and replace it with a transfer button that transfer the MyCento to the billing system. As long as you can buy domains and hosting with Mycento, they will be valuable. So why not allow people to trade them for things other than hosting and domains. For example, if I wanted my website bookmarked on 100 different social websites, I could pay other members in MyCentos for doing it. Another example, if I had a website and needed someone to write a few articles for me, many people would accept MyCento. It would also be a good idea to create some sort of auction or feedback system. I won't go into detail with that because it may be a little over the top and I am trying to present reasonable ideas - not put too much work on admins or take away too much from the intended atmosphere. Anyway, another idea on building an economy, and also promoting is to start a referral program. Make it so that the person receives like 5% of the MyCento earnings (from posting/threads only) of those who you refer (probably not directly from the person referred). That would really be a good incentive for inviting friends and family to join Xisto. Most people won't invite friends unless they have an incentive to do so, and the best part is that they can't get MyCento because their friend simply signed up, the friend has to be an active member and earn MyCento in order for them to benefit from it. 4) Bring the RPG System Back Bring the RPG System back, and don't put it on a separate website. In fact, make MyCento the currency for the RPG System. If not, introduce a second currency that is also earned by posting contents. 5) Get to Firing & Get to Hiring 90% of the mods here at Xisto should be fired. I think that is evident. If I didn't have minimum respect for Xisto and other people contents, I could just steal articles posted on blogs and paste them, and I am 100% sure that I wouldn't be banned. In fact, I could probably get away with copy and pasting news article also. Back in the day, there is no doubt in my mind that I would not have been able to do such a thing and get away with it. That is because moderators were active, and they were serious about their job. We need new moderators, and we need moderators that are dedicated to the forum. I would recommend quite a few people here as moderators. We have a selection of tolerant people on this forum, who I don't believe would abuse their moderation powers. In addition to hiring new moderators, create new positions. I already recommended the position of promoter, which would obviously need to be accommodated with guidelines on how to go about promoting the and minimum standard of what is considered as fulfilling that duty. I am sure there are other people here who can come up with suggestion. 6) Give Out Rewards & Recognition Host contest, and have people vote for "Member of the Month" or even "Member of the Year". Those recognitions could be even accommodated with MyCento or some kind of forum badge. You could even have "Topic of the Month". Find out which topic was the best performing, and got the most views and comments for that particular month. There could also be contest, although I can't think of any good contest at the moment, and I sure that other members here could think of them. I think that is it at the moment. I would love to hear everyone else ideas, and it would be great if all the members on Xisto could brainstorm on what admin could do to improve Xisto. This is not a thread for complaining about problems, like inactive admin, but rather presenting ideas and maybe we can organize our ideas into a single list and present them to admin collectively. I did not write this thread so that others can comment on the ideas or the thing that I think will improve Xisto, but feel free to comment on them. My purpose is to post my ideas in hopes that others will brainstorm and post their ideas also.

I don't know if I previously posted on this topic about how I found this forum, but I really don't remember how I found it. I know that at the time that I found it, it was called Xisto. I believe I found it on Google while searching for a free host, and I remember going to a website with a lot of flash in it, and then clicking onto the forum and posting in order to get credits for hosting. After that, I soon left because I didn't need hosting anymore, and plus I didn't have time the post. At that time the plans sucked also, and new host were coming out that required less posting and their plans were much larger. I think the main plan here was like 500mb of disk space at most and maybe a gig or two of bandwidth. Then there was also an upload limit on top of that. So, there were other host that were more appealing, and had better plans, and I think that may be way Xisto went down in the first place. Hosting became cheaper, move available, and free in way more places. When I joined Xisto, free hosting was very hard to find. I remember using a free hosting that was constantly down. I knew the owner, and I think he was on a reseller, because the thing was down for hours at a time, and they always claimed to be working on the servers - in reality they couldn't work on the servers because it was a reseller. I wish I would have remembers the people hosting them, because it was obviously a very crappy business. So Xisto was like gold when I found it. They didn't provide much space, but it was always up. However, there are so many reliable free host now that its really a huge competition, and I think that Xisto is losing primarily because of its failure to market the website. It has a wide range on topics on this forum, even though I think it should be cut down a bit. I liked Xisto as a domain name better - it was cooler - but the site has something going for it. I think the forum should be downsized. Maybe cut around 15-20% of the topics, a lot of them are redundant anyway and can be combined into one.

I been waiting for her to be confirmed as the winner of the Senate race for quite a while. If you guy don't know who she is, she is a Republican Senator from Alaska. She almost lost her seat. What happened was that as the incumbent, she lost the Republican Primaries to a tea party candidate whose name is Joe Miller. So instead of just accepting the loss, she decided to run a write in campaign for the general elections, and with the support of both the Republican supports who voted for her during primaries, and a crap load of Democrats who saw knew that the Democratic candidate has no change on earth to win and saw Joe Miller as way too extremist, voted for her. Pretty much, she moved to the center right in order to attract Democrats who was strongly against Joe Miller, and she held on to her base. She ran a write in campaign and ran radio and television ads teaching people how to spell her name, and surprisingly she won. Experts claimed that she won because Joe Miller, who was supported by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, was way to extremist and scared the crap out of Democrats. In other words, he made Murkowski look like a saint in the eyes of Democrats and their own choice was to vote for her along side her Republican supporters, or vote for the Democrat and allow Joe Miller to win. Murkowksi would have absolutely lost without the Democrats, and Democrats voted for her in large numbers and the evidence is the low number of votes garnered by the Democrat candidate. The Democrat candidate could have actually won if Democrats would have voted for him like they voted for Murkowski. Besides, Murkowski took at least 1/4th of the Republican votes away from Joe Miller, which would have been enough for the Democratic candidate to win with Democratic support.So she won, and she has been confirmed as the winner. Joe Miller has been challenging the results, claiming that some of the voters spelled her name wrong. Now in my opinion, that is a crappy challenge. Seems like Joe Miller has been suggesting that we deprive people of their voters. Even if someone spelled her name incorrectly, and she has a difficult name, that does not mean that they did not intend to vote for her. Of course he tried to interpret this and that law in order to try to keep her from getting confirmed, and to get himself confirmed, and I think he was wrong. The winner is the winner, and even if someone spelled of her name "Murkow" or "Murcow" or "Morcowski" or "Morkowsku" or "Morkow", it is obvious who they are trying to vote for. I think that he will soon drop out, because he has little chance of being confirmed and replacing Murkowski. He might as well go back and live under a rock. Another reason why I think Joe Miller lost is because of his arrogance. There was a big outrage when Joe Miller's private security guard arrested a reporter. This was not secret service, this was hired security. How can security arrest people? And why was the reporter arrest?...for asking Joe Miller a question. I think the security firm should be sued for kidnapping that reporter. Nevertheless, it really hurt Joe Miller reputation and Murkowski made sure that everyone knew about it, and it was all over the national news. The final reason why I think he lost is because of Sarah Palin. That was like the kiss of death in regards to getting Democratic support. He should have made an hard turn to the center after winning the Republican primary or at least he should have not been so extreme. He was really a charismatic guy, and he could have easily gotten Democratic support if he would have played his cards correctly. Instead, he ran his campaign as if he was an radical celebrity, he reminded me of Sarah Palin after McCain lost the 2008 Presidential Election. Sarah Palin endorsed him because of the differences that she has with Murkowski. Sarah Palin won the election against Lisa Murkowski's father in order to become the governor of Alaska. So I guess it was a big blow to Palin when Murkowski won. Joe Miller should have just dropped out of the race when it was obvious that he lost. I hate sore losers who take fair elections to trial. If you don't think that you got more votes than the other person, you shouldn't take them to court in most cases. I remember in a mayoral election in my area, the winner of the election was taken to court and the election was challenged on the basis of the winner's residency. I think the challenge was weak, especially when the winner got over 60% of the vote. There are few judges that are going to overturn the results of an election where the person overwhelmingly won, especially when the people who voted for him knew that he lived in a smaller neighboring city, but in the city that I am talking about, living in one of the many smaller cities on the border is like living in the city itself. Its like a metro area, and the guy grew up, when to school, and worked in the city he was running, and even had an apartment close to his office (which was considered a residence). Joe Miller challenge is kind of similar, but I think his is even more ridiculous, at least challenging residency is reasonable. I hope he drops out soon.