Joshua

You raise some scary but likely possibilities. Maybe the economy's downfall was a planned thing. Whatever's to come sure doesn't look good. If so though, it sounds similar to some of the stuff in Revelation about a one-world government which will be signaled in by a dictator declaring himself God in the temple of Jerusalem, which by the way, is even now being rebuilt by Israel after all these centuries of lying in ruin. The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. or so by Rome. The new Sanhedrin is even now working on new designs for rebuilding it. Once that happens, the events of Revelation could begin at any time. http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

True, again, it is very tough to make money on Helium without professional writing skills. The only way to make money fast on it is by winning contests or writing for publishers, which means competing against other users. Otherwise, it will take a LONG time to accumulate money, which is why I tried to stress that in my post.

People keep calling it a 'dark day for baseball', but I don't consider it so. If anything, it's a good first step. A good first step to cleaning up baseball and bringing it back to roots that were once more about sportsmanship, teamwork, and being a role model to America's youth. A good first step to getting the cheaters and lawbreakers out of baseball. Now that the U.S. government is FINALLY stepping in, Selig can't ignore the issue any longer. It's clear now that all Selig cared about was ticket revenues, and with an irate government now ready to interfere, hopefully we can now see some progress. First the government pressured Selig into harsher penalties and now looks ready to force even more drastic reforms. It's about time.As Mitchell said, this is probably just the tip of the iceberg too. More names are sure to come, and I'm guessing Julio Franco will be one. It should become very clear very quickly that many of the players displaying unusual longevity were able to do so because of steroid use rather than better training methods or other factors. I will go on the record and say I think some players will prove exceptions, like the now velocity-inhibited Greg Maddux, and Jim 'Built-Like-A-Mountain-As-A-Result-Of-Heredity' Thome, but it will become quite clear many of today's record-breakers needed to cheat to achieve their feats.I look forward to seeing the playing field leveled. To seeing a game of players who win fairly and honestly, and can be good role models for kids. However, I suppose the situation with major league baseball is only reflective of the state our economy is reaching as a whole in terms of dishonesty and overall degradation of integrity. What bothers me about all this is seeing the names of Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson linked with those of cheaters like Bonds, Giambi, and now, Clemens and Tejada as well. Rose's crime was breaking a now-defunct, non-sensical baseball rule against gambling. If the same rule existed then numerous players would be guilty every time they went to L.A. or the racetrack. The rule against gambling was only an obscure baseball rule while the steroid laws are enforced by the U.S. government, which is why I do not think breaking the ancient gambling code and using illegal steroids is not comparable.On the one hand, you have players who are supporting an illegal black market industry, who are creating an environment where other players and America's youth are motivated to use drugs that could prove life-threatening and personality-altering, and are breaking U.S. laws. On the other hand you have a guy who always played baseball hard but legal, loved the game, and broke an obscure baseball rule that is no longer enforced.With Shoeless Joe, you have a guy who supposedly admitted to throwing a World Series, but... while his other teammates showed no effort, he had a series that exceeded even his high standards and proved one of the greatest exhibitions of skill ever seen in such a setting. His performance now appears heroic rather than illegal, and while his notoriously noble character may have led him to confess over what may have been something as minor as taking one bad at bat for which he appeared to have more than atoned for, he should not be mentioned in the same sentence as men who for years broke U.S. laws for the sake of their personal records and pocketbooks. Baseball is changing, finally. Maybe someday we'll even see once more the likes of Lou Gherig, Jackie Robinson, Roberto Clemente... and Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Great site! Thanks for sharing! By 1200 rice I got my vocab rating to 42 too, and with no dictionary use either

The first 2 warning sentences in red when an account is suspended read: There are 2 typos here, both in the 2nd sentence. The first occurs because there is no space between the words at and least. The second occurs in the bolded word 'UN-SUSPENDED', which should have no 'ed' ending.

I believe the world is much younger than the theory of evolution suggests, therefore, dinosaurs and humans once co-existed. I think the dragon legends found worldwide are simply proof for that. There are native american dragon legends, legends in Africa, legends in China, and legends in Europe. And an early poster said the Catholic Church would've mentioned dragons if they existed, but didn't. They must not know much about dragon lore, or they'd know some of the best known dragon stories are from Medieval Europe and associated with Catholicism, such as Saint George and the Dragon. And no, I'm not a fan of Catholicism, just of the Bible, but I wanted to point out the inaccuracy. And speaking of which, there's a perfectly good description of dragons to be found in Job ch. 41: The dragon is called here 'leviathan'. The Hebrew word is probably closer to 'livyathan', but oh well. Verse 12 speaks of its prodigious size, verses 15-17 say it has air-tight scales, verses 18-21 leave no doubt that it breathes fire, numerous verses including 25-29 express its ability to withstand human warfare, and verses 30-32 tell of it dwelling deep within the sea. However, nowhere is it said to be capable of flight. Here are 2 other interesting references in the Bible to this dragon, or leviathan: I think dragons, or leviathans, are simply a reptile species capable of creating fire or something very similar. If Bombardier Beetles have a way of doing something so similar, I figure another, larger animal species could as well. After all, it would be a lot easier for the much larger dragons to contain the fire-making apparatus needed than those small little beetles, but the beetles can do it. And just as there are varieties of dogs, or cats, or beetles according to micro-evolution, I would guess there are different varieties of dragons. I think the different kinds of plesiosaurs are just dragon species that lived alongside man from the beginning. Some may have now died off or been hunted down, but some still exist deep in the sea. I think that explains a lot of the dino species. And of the giant land dinosaurs, many would fit the behemoth mentioned in Job ch. 40, just one chapter earlier, that speaks of a gigantic animal which attempts to "drink up rivers", has a tail like a cedar tree (no land animal today comes close to that, but it would fit perfectly the ancient brachiosaurs), is an herbivore, and is said to have its strength concentrated in its belly. I believe the Bible refers to many species by their type, rather than coming up with names for all the minor variations. In other words, rather than speaking of certain kinds of rabbits, it just uses rabbits to refer to them all for the most part. Rather than speaking of all kinds of dogs, it just uses one term for the most part to refer to them all. Likewise, with the dinosaurs it makes sense to use just a few terms to refer to the overall species, many of which would fit under those two names of behemoth and leviathan. One for the huge land-dwelling sauropods with long necks and huge bellies, and the other for the finned, water-dwelling reptiles. Furthermore, as for size variations, isn't it possible others could've simply been younger versions of the same species? I think such a view explains why so many different cultures have legends of creatures very similar to the dinosaurs, with only a few exceptions. The dragons tend to be scaled and breathe fire. I am interested in seeing what kind of water dinosaurs might have been scaled, and in keeping an eye out for proof of that in the coming years. There is one more interesting reference to dragons in the Bible I'd like to share: It is interesting that the Bible speaks of a mass destruction of these dragons or dinosaurs. Apparently it involved making them food for people in a wilderness (perhaps the Israelites under Moses?) and may have involved drying up rivers. (v. 15)

This is why I like the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution". The former refers to the unproveable theory that everything popped into existence from nothing. The latter refers to the observable change we can see in species adapting to their environments. They're two different animals and people often confuse them. One is a theory that relies on a lot of assumptions on how things worked for billions of years. The other is observable in the world around us. One is a religious view dedicated to keeping God out of the equation, because as we all apparently can agree, it is not reconcilable with the Bible. Or at least it is not reconcilable with the God of the Bible, I think we can agree with that. The other is simply an observation about the world around us that is perfectly compatible with the Bible.I see microevolution as indeed perfectly compatible with the Bible. For example, God commanded species and mankind to "bring forth after their own kinds." In the first chapter of Song of Solomon the woman says her skin is black because of the effects of the sun. Obviously humans adapting to their environments in that sense of evolution is completely compatible with the Bible.What's more, if you believe in microevolution, it clears up some other mysteries of the Bible. For example, there would've been less species of dogs, cats, etc. during the flood, so less room in the ark would've been needed. It would also explain why species names were more general in the Old Testament. There would've been less species around then, and those species adapted slightly to become the many different variations we see today.All the confusion comes from whether this evolution, or microevolution, happens rapidly over only thousands of years, or requires billions of years, as evolutionists would have us believe. We know the effects water has with erosion. Macro-evolutionary theory requires the following assumptions about how aging works:-The level of carbon in the atmosphere remained the same despite global catastrophes occurring like floods, ice ages, and meteor showers which caused worldwide dust storms. -Water is not enough to age materials so that the various dating calculations are thrown off, as would happen with a worldwide flood. -Light travels through the universe at the same rate as in our atmosphere for those calculations to work, and not rather with less refraction and a much faster rate as it could according to Rhiemannian physics.There is a reason evolution is still called a theory. It is because macroevolution still has no absolute proof for the universe being as old as it claims, even though its adherents try to pass off as idiotic anyone who disagrees with their pet notions. Micro-evolution is certain because we can observe it. We can not observe macroevolution.Did everything come from original core species which adapted to their environments to create the many different species we see today, which is what I believe the Biblical view is? Or did they all come from nothing? And how do you explain the Big Bang? Some molecules exploded and created everything? But where did the molecules come from? And where did what the molecules come from, come from? How is a materialistic view of everything explainable, since all material things must have a cause? I believe the answer lies not in the material, but the immaterial, and a God who is an eternal Spirit. Did everything come from some fish swimming out in the ocean? And if so, why is such a huge percentage of the transitional forms needed not just for the links between humans and monkeys but between all other species so horribly lacking? And why is it so horribly messy? Evolutionists are having to admit the whole thing is not some majestic chain as they've been presenting it but a bushy tree with dead ends all over the place and no conceivable order, as they are forced to admit some links don't work because they lived at the same time or have other reasons they can't be compatible. Evolution can offer only more questions, with no answers. And it requires just as much, if not more, faith to believe, than that required to believe in an all-powerful, eternal Creator.

Maybe they did go into Iraq for those reasons, maybe they didn't. Seems likely, but I won't call it certain but it's not. Just because that's the way some people or even most people might run things doesn't make it right. Isn't the dollar declining in value in part because of our stagnating job economy which is due to jobs leaving our country and our growing deficit? And how should any decrease in the dollar's worth account for 3 Trillion dollars of debt piled on in about 6 years? Maybe you're right and there were gains from the war. But I don't think we should operate on a system of only doing good if there's something in it for us. I'd like to think our country's founders, at least some of them, had more noble ideals in mind. There are a lot of college students and high school students competing with seniors for just any kinds of jobs. I don't think it matters so much what kind of jobs are created in our country so long as they're humane. What the companies want is people they can pay slave wages to like Walmart does to its workers in China (ever hear of a documentary called "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price"?). If Americans want jobs better than that, I don't blame them, and our government owes it to them to provide them with better jobs than it is. Maybe you're right. Maybe the world isn't ready for it. But once in a while a crazy dream will succeed and if it's worth enough, sometimes you just need to go ahead and try to make it happen. America has a bad habit of starting wars for selfish reasons, as you yourself alluded to it as far as the contractors. The Revolutionary War was started right after England passed a law against slavery, and some would say southern plantation owners pushed a revolt to protect their industry. The Mexican American War was started because Mexico generously opened its borders to all because it had extra land in what we know as Texas, and greedy slave-owners ran into claim their land. But when Mexico likewise passed a law against slavery, the slave-owners got together to say they wanted to cede from Mexico. The U.S. knew it was a sham but southerners pushed the war to add another slave state since the slave states needed 1 more to equal out the non-slave states' advantage. And why are we cutting off Cuba from the rest of the world? Not to mention the Vietnam War and the Iraq War... We've had some good presidents, we've had some bad presidents. If we can just get a good one they could turn all this around and set our country on a right course once more. We need another Washington or Lincoln to stand up for our country.

Maybe it should be 412 points instead? Maybe it's a smaller portion size or something. Also, just some friendly advice, don't neglect exercising. My mom lost around 60 pounds and 2 of my brothers lost around 30 all just by exercising. I really think exercise is the key factor, whether swimming or jogging or even better, playing sports, while nutrition gets a little too heavily emphasized.

Our deficit began ballooning after the war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq escalated that process. Just look at our federal deficit at the beginning of each year: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ 1998 - $5.50 Trillion 1999 - $5.61 Trillion 2000 - $5.77 Trillion 2001 - $5.66 Trillion 2002 - $5.94 Trillion (right after Afghanistan War started in October of 2001) 2003 - $6.40 Trillion 2004 - $7.00 Trillion (after Iraq War started in March of 2003) 2005 - $7.60 Trillion 2006 - $8.170 Trillion 2007 - $8.68 Trillion Current - $9.06 Trillion Our federal deficit had been hovering right around the 5-6 Trillion dollar range. Clinton had even gotten it to drop towards the end, although it's hardly as big as an achievement as his supporters would like it to appear. But once we went into Afghanistan and Iraq our deficit jumped in about 6 years by more than 3 Trillion U.S. Dollars. Just a coincidence? You can keep telling yourself that. And I don't know what you're talking about with investing. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan was hardly an investment, and if so, probably not a good one. There's a reason we're 3 Trillion more dollars in the red after starting those wars. Considering the wars that have since happened (Iraq, Afghanistan, Persian Gulf, Vietnam), I'd say that "doctrine", assuming you're right about that having been adopted, hasn't worked all that well. As I pointed out, stationing these troops all over the place and trying to play the global policeman is hurting our economy and our global reputation. Maybe it's time to adopt a new "doctrine". Umm... what are you talking about? Believe it or not, there are actually some people who don't like seeing those atrocities committed and would be willing to act to stop them regardless of whether there's any personal gain. Are you saying that we went into Iraq and Afghanistan then because there was "some sort of gain included"? You can keep your "real world" morals, thank you very much. Either way it's a solution to the problem posed by those suggesting Iran might attack Iraq if we pull out. And might as well be honest and up front with other nations. Maybe they'd respect us a little more if we started doing that. What I don't think you realize is that BY staying in Iraq we've been creating a "new terrorist playground." There is no evidence any WOMD ever existed. Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden while he was in charge. We effectively eliminated a huge point of resistance AGAINST the very terrorists who attacked us and by destroying the country's government not only created the lawlessness needed for terrorists but also created the cause/incentive needed for them to attract fresh troops. We are also creating growing global dissent against our heavy-handed ways by staying in Iraq. The papers are full of our atrocities like Guantanamo Bay and every time our troops kill Iraqi civilians the world hears about it. Think about it. If you rush into a country, kill off the leader in what appears a biased trial, destroy the forces and the country's infrastructure, and annihilate a bunch of innocent civilians along the way, don't you think that if some of the citizens WEREN'T going to fight you before, now they WILL? And all the jobs the steel-workers had? What about those? And all the telephone operating jobs we're outsourcing? You don't think some Americans might want those? And the factory jobs getting sent down to Mexico, like when General Mills shut down their cereal plants in Illinois to opt for the cheaper labor a few years ago? You don't think that's costing a few jobs as well? So basically you're saying making major changes are a bad thing? Serious problems call for serious changes. Our federal deficit is sky-rocketing. Unemployment is growing. Economists are telling us we're at risk for a depression due to a stagnating housing market among other things. And you think a bunch of "little changes" are just going to turn all this around? Major changes are what created these problems, and if we're going to fix them, we're going to need major reversals. Maybe if we hadn't sent that "strongest military force" to attack countries who hadn't done anything to us there would be a few less million "crackheads" who'd like to see your head just south of their scimitars.

Actually, no, the permissions weren't the problem. I tried the index.html permissions at both 6-4-4 and 7-7-7 and it didn't matter. Whenever I'd try using the HTML Editor on a file instead of saving it would delete everything in the file and replace it with a single word: undefined. Then when I try re-opening the HTML Editor after it does that it says "no input file". And unless I was smart enough to copy the source code before using the HTML Editor, I have to copy another page and use the basic outline to restart the page all over again. Fortunately I've come to suspect this and have started making backups and using tactics like that, but it's still really annoying not to be able to use the HTML Editor at all.

After typing it, try clicking on the ball and holding it. You should be able to move the ball wherever you want. Great cheat

Some other tactics I'd mention for Sudoku involve the fact that all #'s 1-9 must exist in a row, a column, and a section. So one easy way to easily improve your Sudoku game is to start looking for rows, columns, or 1 of the 9 sections that have a lot of numbers filled up. Say a row has 6 #'s in it, or a column has 7, or a section of the grid has 5; then you just figure out which numbers are missing in the row/column/section and try seeing which ones can fit in.Also, it's a lot easier if you make little notations of numbers inside the boxes for possibilities that could work in the box. Then you can just erase them and put in the number when you figure out what it is. I don't like that method though because it makes it too easy and removes some of the mental computation needed.

Alright, I have an idea about how to quickly fix our deficit and turn our economy around. To put it simply, first reduce our biggest expense, and secondly keep jobs and money from leaving our economy. Here are the details:1. Reduce military expenses. A single fighter jet can cost over a billion dollars to manufacture. Small wonder that our federal deficit instantly appeared and ballooned right after we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. It takes a lot of money to support all those troops, supply all their equipment and food, provide reconnaisance in enemy territory, organize logistics, etc. What's more, we have troops stationed in dozens of countries where we no longer need troops in. If we were to pull back our troops from around the world and just focus on protecting our own borders, several things would happen: A: Expenses would get drastically reduced.B: Our world reputation would improve as nations would stop resenting us for our heavy-handed "global policeman" tactics.C: We would have the troops and diplomatic influence needed to stop real atrocities like the Darfour atrocities.Now, some might say Iran could try attacking Iraq if we pull out altogether, and with control of all Iraq's oil become so rich as to build nuclear weapons. But a simple solution would be to globally announce that anyone attacking Iraq after we leave will be dealt with harshly and quickly, and that we will utterly defend Iraq from invading forces. What is more, we could remove the large bulk of our troops and leave a remnant to protect the government headquarters and oil reserves. It is far easier, safer, and more cost effective for troops to defend a few defensible areas than trying to police an entire country. 2. Protect American jobs.People have been deceived by corporations into thinking free trade pacts like NAFTA and CAFTA are a good thing. But while they may increase trade, they provide companies with incentive to move industries out of the company. Thanks to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is very easy for companies like General Mills to send factories down to Mexico where the labor is cheaper and then ship the goods back up here at much lower costs. And thanks to NAFTA we are rewarding them for such a practice; one which is costing American workers their jobs and hurting our economy! What is more, we are becoming less independent as a nation as our industries (like the steel industry) move to other countries. This dependence on other countries gives them power over us they once did not have. We are allowing our companies to outsource jobs as much as they wish, and honest companies who would like to employ American workers are inevitably forced to employ the same horrible tactics to stay in business, or else cut jobs to avoid their rising costs (think the sole remaining American car companies Ford and G.M.).If we would eliminate those free trade pacts, yes, it would come at the cost of decreased trade. But it would be well worth it to make our country industrially independent again and on its way to becoming the global superpower it once was. It would be well worth it to protect our American jobs. Once the pacts are abolished we could set tariffs to allow American companies to compete with foreign ones. One way to do this would be to base a nation's tariff levels on what their minimum wage is as well as the working conditions for their citizens, thus creating incentive for other countries to treat their workers better. We should also enact laws to keep American companies in America, and that would punish companies like Microsoft that move their headquarters to foreign countries (in Microsoft's case, Ireland) to avoid paying the U.S.' higher taxes; thus cheating our nation out of valuable tax dollars that should be supporting our economy. ============================================================ I am convinced that effectively executing these 2 steps would turn our entire economy around. We would see such a huge amount of savings for our economy that the economic growth would be tremendous. We'd have more than enough money to enact a universal healthcare system for our citizens with all the money saved from our reduced military expenses; for I believe a country's greatness is evidenced by how it cares for the weakest of its citizens. We could pour more money into our education systems; for our future is our children. More money could be focused on scientific research including medical developments; for we should care for the sick and not lightly esteem human life.What is more, I do not think illegal immigration is the real issue behind a tightening job market. If we stopped jobs from leaving the country it would be much less of a problem. The problem with illegal immigrants is that they often bring criminal ties with them from third-world countries and because they are poor and forced to hide from the authorities they are at a greater risk of getting involved with crimes such as identity theft. IF (and that is a big IF) we could stabilize our economy first by enacting the 2 steps I mentioned above, I would be in favor of legalizing all illegal immigrants in the country, but with a probationary period so that if they commit a certain level of crime within their first 10 years as a citizen they can be instantly deported. However, after this legalization, I would enact strict border controls to keep future illegal immigrants out, but with a strengthened job market would loosen the immigration quotas so more could enter the country anyway. Once the job market is stable so there is no worry about immigrants taking vital American jobs, we could loosen the quotas to allow others the same freedom to enter our country our own ancestors once enjoyed. What is more, with them entering legally, we would have more power to keep those likely to become criminally involved from entering where they could negatively influence our society, as is now happening.

Ok, that probably is the problem, thanks. I changed file permissions after seeing the thread about site hackers hijacking a site and how that could be prevented by setting most files to 444 settings.

Three times I've tried using HTML Editor to edit my index.html page and the first 2 times it instantly deleted all the page's coding and replaced it with the word "undefined". I noticed the 3rd time after editing a page it gives the following message: Anyway, it was really annoying the first time it happened because it deleted all my work. I've since learned to make backups. I think it's because I put some JavaScript on my pages now and the HTML Editor can't handle it. For some reason on the 3rd time it didn't delete all the coding though, which is strange. Maybe because I didn't edit enough that time? In fact, I notice it gives the error even if saving normally now in regular Edit. Maybe I just didn't notice it before? I haven't figured out yet why it deletes everything sometimes and not others though. Notice from rvalkass: I've put the error in QUOTE tags. You didn't write it, so it needs to be quoted.

It's a personal peeve of mine when people put down the beliefs of others thinking that theirs are superior. If you think about evolutionary theory, it's claiming everything we now see, this vast complex universe, poofed into existence from nothing. It's pretty incredible if you think about it to claim that computers, and the wonders we see around us in nature are often more complex than anything scientists with all their technology can now create; all of this just came from "nothing". I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just asking: have you actually thought about and considered how logical and sensible your own beliefs are?

Alright, thanks for the info. I still think it's unfair though. Either way the posting gets done. What's the difference between doing your posting before getting the account and then disappearing, and doing the posting after getting the account and then disappearing? All someone has to do is know this fact and get their posting done after getting the account. All the rule serves to do, in my opinion, is punish those who didn't know about this rule, so that any posting done after getting to 10 or 30 credits is worthless before getting your account.

While Helium.com is hardly a get-rich-QUICK site, if you are capable of producing professional quality writing about technical/life-applicable topics, or have a lot of free time you'd like to use in a somewhat productive fashion, Helium may be the site for you. Here's how it works:Helium will actually pay you for articles based on page views, although it's determined in cents. It's very tough to earn money this way, even though articles can keep earning you money once written, and since Helium only pays once you reach $25 in your Account, that can take a long time. However, there are other, better ways to earn money on Helium. They have two sections called "Marketplace" and "Contests" which allow users to earn money quickly. The Marketplace is where Publishers basically have writing contests for articles they need written. They say what the topic is, and then Helium users write about the topic. Whoever is chosen at the end gets the reward, which can be as little as $15 or as much as $200. In the Contests section, you can see the contests regularly held by Helium, covering a wide range of article topics. Other users rank articles via Helium's rating system (which doesn't allow you to choose what articles you see for ranking) and the articles ranked the highest count towards a points total determining who wins the Contests. Contest prizes are $75 for 1st place, $25 for 2nd place, $10 for 3rd place, and $5 for 4th, 5th, or 6th place.Helium can be a good way to earn money, but only for a select few quality writers capable of writing on topics requiring life knowledge and experience.

I've been working on my Resume for months now. Here is a summary of what I've learned:1. Avoid referring to yourself via 1st person or 3rd person terms. Rather than saying "I started this job in" just say "Began job in"... Employers expect Resumes to be professional and avoid reference to oneself; and instead speaking in an impersonal tone that presents achievements/skills/experience/education without personalization. Avoid words like "I", "my", "he", "she", etc. Leave out personal pronouns and only use the action words/verbs. This also includes your Objective. 2. Make sure spelling and grammar are perfect.Employers expect your Resume to be flawless. It is their key impression of you, and if it's a poorly written Resume, it will reflect poorly on you. The best excuse you can give an employer to instantly toss your Resume out is to have simple writing mistakes on the Resume, as it can show them you are sloppy, careless, and/or uneducated. 3. Arrange information well and be succinct.It is said employers scan Resumes for only 15 seconds or so. You want your best information to stand out on the Resume. It may be a very informative, detailed Resume with good information, but if it's filled with a lot of details that don't matter or the best reasons for hiring you are hard to find, you may not get an interview. Figure out what best puts you apart from other applicants on your resume and is the best reason for employers to hire you, and then try to put that information at the top. Is it your Skills, your Education, or your Achievements? Different people want their sections ordered differently. Also, if your Resume format doesn't make the best information stand out, even if the Resume looks fancy, you should consider finding a new format. The Resume should appear orderly and categorize information clearly; a chaotic format will reflect poorly upon you.4. Be prepared to provide references/sources/proofs. You should have a References page ready at any interview to provide Reference information to employers. You should also consider a Sources page which provides school/work address/contact information, which may be requested on applications anyway. If there are online sources or other sources which verify the information in your Resume, you may want to consider providing the info on a Sources/Verification page. And while you don't want to bring in a lot of folders, in a day where a lot of applicants are lying about their qualifications, you may want to consider bringing in a thin folder containing a few key items like education transcripts, a few key work papers, or awards/certificates. 5. Think outside the box for information you can include.What will stand out positively to employers and set you apart from other applicants? If you have little work experience, you may want to focus more on your skills, education, volunteer work, awards/achievements, and even test results/awards for exams like the PSAE (Prairie State Achievement Exam) or ACT.6. Keep information relevant.If a job, club, skill, etc. is not relevant to the job, why include it? Think from a standpoint of what the Employer is looking for. Unless you have little to put on your Resume, you should keep an eye out for irrelevant information to keep off the Resume that will only clog up the Resume, making it harder for an Employer to find the vital information.7. With jobs/education, keep information specific.Try to include dates of employment or attendance, name of the position, name of the company, job location, job duties (or even better unique accomplishments), and if you have less to put on your Resume, possibly the total number of hours worked or miles driven and what the pay rate was. 8. Don't name your Resume something generic like "resume" because it may be hard for employers to find, assuming it's being transmitted through online means such as email. Instead, you should include something relating to your name or job title in the file name so employers can find it more easily.9. Make sure your contact information is included and correct.This should go without saying, but try to make it easy for employers to contact you by providing a phone number and email address, if you have both, and make sure to include the area code for the phone number. Also, realize that your email address reflects on who you are. You don't want one that shows immaturity to an employer, and should consider carefully which one to use. One that simply has your name and/or birthdate info should be a safe bet.10. Check the margins.You want the information centered well on the page(s). Make sure your formatting is correct.

Adobe Photoshop CS3 and CS3 Extended are just 2 of the many Adobe products available for download from Adobe's site: http://www.adobe.com/downloads.html Many of them come with free trials. The CS3 ones are for 30 days each! If you're interested in buying the software, there's info during the download on how to buy them as well.

Yeah, the problem was the browser's temporary internet files. I also set the temp files limit as low as it could go too, as suggested, something I probably should've done earlier since I end up deleting those things manually anyway. That seems to have solved it, thanks for the help!

I had 194 credits either yesterday or the day before. I should've lost 30 for my new hosting account. Yet it says I can only be inactive for 1.61 days. Shouldn't that number be bigger?

Alright, I figured out the edit html windows need to be refreshed each time opening them for them to show the last updates so you don't just work off the old, un-updated version and mess everything up (which really should get fixed). The problem that most annoys me though is when I try deleting files and the File Manager doesn't delete them. I try uploading updated files over them and it doesn't update them, but just keeps the old ones there. It's getting really annoying. And when I try deleting stuff from the Trash Can, it never deletes it. Sometimes it won't even put it in the trash can even though I go to the file and choose Delete File. And once it goes in the Trash Can I go to the file again and try deleting it once more while in the can, and it stays there. I click on the can and it doesn't delete what's in it. And it's extremely frustrating. Oh yeah, and for whatever reason it won't let me use the visual editor for any given file more than once, and sometimes not even once. Anyone know how to resolve these problems? It's really, really difficult to build a website when you can't manage the files you need adequately. I have my site at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and am trying to upload files without that black line in them. But each time it says the files upload, or overwrite the previously existing files, it never uploads them. I go to look at the files and they remain the old ones. I check the site and it still shows the black line gifs as part of the site. I try deleting the problematic files so I can upload the new ones, and it won't delete them, and they just stay there.

Huh, I guess no one heard the update on the case then. The legislator actually got a reply from "God": http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ According to the Clerk working there, "This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here _ poof!" According to the letter, the defendant is immune from certain earthly laws and the case lacks jurisdiction. And on the matter of problems in the world, the letter speaks of man's free will as a gift from God. I think the letter is dead on. First of all, you can't sue God. How can the thing made attack its Creator? First of all, how are you going to punish God? He's bigger Secondly, why would God listen to you? He's perfect, you're not, no matter who you are. Thirdly, He knows everything, and you don't. Therefore anything you accuse Him of runs the risk of being spoken of in ignorance.