February 27, 2015 · Furniture · (No comments)

Read More About:

Submitted by: Amely Wurmbrand

Your home is your castle; you love arriving home at night, after work, to relax, and you also cherish entertaining your friends and family in a place you are proud of and makes you happy, and suddenly, one day, you make the decision your home needs a makeover.

Of course, your first impulse is to DIY. Who knows your style better than you? So you decide to hit Home Depot with a long list of materials, certain that you ll be able to do it in a flash! Everything is fine until you face reality; hundreds of choices everywhere, and you end up disoriented amid an ocean of furniture and fixtures that suddenly look exactly the same.

Before you decide to venture into interior design, consider the following aspects and judge for yourself if going solo is the best way to go, for your wallet. Contrary to what you may think, hiring a professional interior designer may save you lots of money when remodeling your home.

-Interior design requires a great deal of time; do you have the time?

-Have you bought beautiful furniture in the past only to arrive home and rack your brains as to where to put it to match the rest or stand out?

-Is it easy for you to decide between hundreds or thousands of colors or fabrics at a shop? Have you made choices that ended up frustrating you?

YouTube Preview Image

-Have you got a picture of the perfect bathroom, or living room, or kitchen, and yet you don t know how to make it fit your space?

-Does everyone at home like what you like?

-Are you planning on taking down walls, joining rooms or installing light fixtures? Do you know someone who can do this for you and do it right?

-Do you need custom furniture or cabinets?

-Do you want your home to be different in its own special way but without spending too much?

-If your home is new, would you like to be sure that what you have in mind works for the space?

These are just some of the many considerations of why hiring an interior designer in Seattle may be the best way to go. A professional has the knowledge and experience to guide you and stop you from making mistakes and bad choices that will cost you money. She will also save you lots of time, as she possesses the best resources readily available to work. An interior designer will put a wide array of resources at your service, some of which are only available through them. Think that you will have all the design selections researched and presented to you before the process begins, ensuring you get the home of your dreams, one that fits your lifestyle and taste to perfection.

Here are three reasons why hiring an interior designer is your best choice in terms of investment:

1. Big makeover projects require compliance with building codes and federal and state laws; you must know these to avoid expensive mistakes or even lawsuits.

2. An interior designer is knowledgeable on design theory and its technicalities. They know everything about technical drawings, materials specifications, construction systems, installations, environmental considerations and safety issues.

3. A professional, who will present a detailed cost projection that you can adjust as needed, will research your design project.

Interior design can be simple and successful. Be wise and hire someone who knows, someone who can give you peace of mind by knowing you will get what you have dreamed of for so long.

If you enjoyed this article, please feel free to post it to your site or blog and forward this link to your friends. Have a great day!

Don’t forget to visit my interior design blog.

About the Author: Amely Wurmbrand is nationally-recognized for both her West Coast and

Seattle interior design

work. Amely and her team work closely with clients to reflect their personalities and lifestyles through innovative and sophisticated designs.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=422927&ca=Home+Management

February 27, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Sunday, April 2, 2006 

President Bush signed the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006″ into law. In the signing statement, Bush averred that he could withhold information about the administration’s controversial use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act powers and National Security Letters if he deemed that they impaired foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties. Lawmakers and Legal experts have questioned the president’s authority to contravene the Congress’s intent in such a way.

The Patriot Act reauthorisation bill specifically mandates the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to audit the administration’s use of investigative authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and National Security Letters and requires these audits to be submitted for congressional review.

In the signing statement, President Bush wrote “The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

This follows on the heels of the signing of the congressional ban on torture issued in January of this year, when the President declared that he would view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. A senior white house official told a Boston Globe reporter that “Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case.” The official added “We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”

Lawmakers tried to get a handle on President Bush’s use of signing statements in 2003, by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying “If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived,”

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said “On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism.”

Sen Arlen Specter, (R-Pa) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee argued “He (Bush) can say whatever he likes, I don’t know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent,”

Sen Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Ver) said in a prepared statement: “The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.

The signing statement is a written proclamation, issued by the president of the United Sates that accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law.

The use of signing statements started with the US’s fifth President James Monroe (1817-1825) and from that time was used sparingly. In fact from Monroe to Jimmy Carter (39 th President 1977-1981) there were a total of a 109 signing statements issued, 75 of which were to protect presidential prerogatives and 34 were to instruct the executive branch agencies on the interpretation of sections of the law. Whereas from the Reagan administration through the Clinton administration there were a total of 396 signing statements made with 322 to protect presidential prerogative and 74 to instruct on presidential interpretation of the law. Following along this sharp increase the Bush administration issued 435 statements almost entirely objecting to encroachments upon presidential prerogatives.

The key argument involved here is in the interpretation of the constitution. The Bush administration is acting from on an idea called the Unitary Executive theory – you may have noticed it is mentioned twice in his signing statement – this theory holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and that the meaning of the Constitution is determined through the dynamic interaction of all three branches.

This idea gained strength during the Reagan administration as a response to the presidency having been severely weakened by Vietnam and, Watergate and is mainly championed by the “Federalist Society,” a group of conservative lawyers who nearly all worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan white houses. It largely claims its authority from two sources within the Constitution—the “Oath” and “Take Care” clauses of Article II. The “Oath” requirement acts as a sort of shield, protecting the president from enforcing things he independently determines are unconstitutional, and the “Oath” clause directs the president to “faithfully execute the Office of the President and [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Acting on this theory, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito wrote a draft memo On a Feb. 5, 1986 outlined a strategy for strengthening presidential authority. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law. He explained his thoughts this way:

“Since the president’s approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,” He later added that “by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.”

Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University states his objection to this; “It’s nothing short of breath-taking. In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.

The office of legal consul under President Clinton declared: “If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.”

February 27, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Sunday, April 2, 2006 

President Bush signed the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006″ into law. In the signing statement, Bush averred that he could withhold information about the administration’s controversial use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act powers and National Security Letters if he deemed that they impaired foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties. Lawmakers and Legal experts have questioned the president’s authority to contravene the Congress’s intent in such a way.

The Patriot Act reauthorisation bill specifically mandates the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to audit the administration’s use of investigative authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and National Security Letters and requires these audits to be submitted for congressional review.

In the signing statement, President Bush wrote “The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

This follows on the heels of the signing of the congressional ban on torture issued in January of this year, when the President declared that he would view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. A senior white house official told a Boston Globe reporter that “Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case.” The official added “We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”

Lawmakers tried to get a handle on President Bush’s use of signing statements in 2003, by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying “If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived,”

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said “On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism.”

Sen Arlen Specter, (R-Pa) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee argued “He (Bush) can say whatever he likes, I don’t know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent,”

Sen Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Ver) said in a prepared statement: “The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.

The signing statement is a written proclamation, issued by the president of the United Sates that accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law.

The use of signing statements started with the US’s fifth President James Monroe (1817-1825) and from that time was used sparingly. In fact from Monroe to Jimmy Carter (39 th President 1977-1981) there were a total of a 109 signing statements issued, 75 of which were to protect presidential prerogatives and 34 were to instruct the executive branch agencies on the interpretation of sections of the law. Whereas from the Reagan administration through the Clinton administration there were a total of 396 signing statements made with 322 to protect presidential prerogative and 74 to instruct on presidential interpretation of the law. Following along this sharp increase the Bush administration issued 435 statements almost entirely objecting to encroachments upon presidential prerogatives.

The key argument involved here is in the interpretation of the constitution. The Bush administration is acting from on an idea called the Unitary Executive theory – you may have noticed it is mentioned twice in his signing statement – this theory holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and that the meaning of the Constitution is determined through the dynamic interaction of all three branches.

This idea gained strength during the Reagan administration as a response to the presidency having been severely weakened by Vietnam and, Watergate and is mainly championed by the “Federalist Society,” a group of conservative lawyers who nearly all worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan white houses. It largely claims its authority from two sources within the Constitution—the “Oath” and “Take Care” clauses of Article II. The “Oath” requirement acts as a sort of shield, protecting the president from enforcing things he independently determines are unconstitutional, and the “Oath” clause directs the president to “faithfully execute the Office of the President and [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Acting on this theory, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito wrote a draft memo On a Feb. 5, 1986 outlined a strategy for strengthening presidential authority. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law. He explained his thoughts this way:

“Since the president’s approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,” He later added that “by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.”

Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University states his objection to this; “It’s nothing short of breath-taking. In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.

The office of legal consul under President Clinton declared: “If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.”

February 27, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Sunday, April 2, 2006 

President Bush signed the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006″ into law. In the signing statement, Bush averred that he could withhold information about the administration’s controversial use of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act powers and National Security Letters if he deemed that they impaired foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties. Lawmakers and Legal experts have questioned the president’s authority to contravene the Congress’s intent in such a way.

The Patriot Act reauthorisation bill specifically mandates the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to audit the administration’s use of investigative authority granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and National Security Letters and requires these audits to be submitted for congressional review.

In the signing statement, President Bush wrote “The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.”

This follows on the heels of the signing of the congressional ban on torture issued in January of this year, when the President declared that he would view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. A senior white house official told a Boston Globe reporter that “Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case.” The official added “We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it’s possible that they will.”

Lawmakers tried to get a handle on President Bush’s use of signing statements in 2003, by passing a Justice Department spending bill that required the department to inform Congress whenever the administration decided to ignore a legislative provision on constitutional grounds.

Bush signed the bill, but issued a statement asserting his right to ignore the notification requirement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) voiced concern over the way national security is being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing statements, saying “If you take this to its logical conclusion, because during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any statute on the books could be summarily waived,”

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said “On the one hand, they deny that Congress even has the authority to pass laws on these subjects like torture and eavesdropping, and in addition to that, they say that Congress is not even entitled to get information about anything to do with the war on terrorism.”

Sen Arlen Specter, (R-Pa) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee argued “He (Bush) can say whatever he likes, I don’t know if that has a whole lot of impact on the statute. Statutes are traditionally a matter of congressional intent,”

Sen Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Ver) said in a prepared statement: “The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word, The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.

The signing statement is a written proclamation, issued by the president of the United Sates that accompany the signing of a law passed by the legislative branch and generally sets forth how the executive branch intends to interpret and enforce the new law.

The use of signing statements started with the US’s fifth President James Monroe (1817-1825) and from that time was used sparingly. In fact from Monroe to Jimmy Carter (39 th President 1977-1981) there were a total of a 109 signing statements issued, 75 of which were to protect presidential prerogatives and 34 were to instruct the executive branch agencies on the interpretation of sections of the law. Whereas from the Reagan administration through the Clinton administration there were a total of 396 signing statements made with 322 to protect presidential prerogative and 74 to instruct on presidential interpretation of the law. Following along this sharp increase the Bush administration issued 435 statements almost entirely objecting to encroachments upon presidential prerogatives.

The key argument involved here is in the interpretation of the constitution. The Bush administration is acting from on an idea called the Unitary Executive theory – you may have noticed it is mentioned twice in his signing statement – this theory holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution and that the meaning of the Constitution is determined through the dynamic interaction of all three branches.

This idea gained strength during the Reagan administration as a response to the presidency having been severely weakened by Vietnam and, Watergate and is mainly championed by the “Federalist Society,” a group of conservative lawyers who nearly all worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan white houses. It largely claims its authority from two sources within the Constitution—the “Oath” and “Take Care” clauses of Article II. The “Oath” requirement acts as a sort of shield, protecting the president from enforcing things he independently determines are unconstitutional, and the “Oath” clause directs the president to “faithfully execute the Office of the President and [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Acting on this theory, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel Samuel Alito wrote a draft memo On a Feb. 5, 1986 outlined a strategy for strengthening presidential authority. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law. He explained his thoughts this way:

“Since the president’s approval is just as important as that of the House or Senate, it seems to follow that the president’s understanding of the bill should be just as important as that of Congress,” He later added that “by forcing some rethinking by courts, scholars, and litigants, it may help to curb some of the prevalent abuses of legislative history.”

Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University states his objection to this; “It’s nothing short of breath-taking. In every case, the White House has interpreted presidential authority as broadly as possible, interpreted legislative authority as narrowly as possible, and preempted the judiciary.

The office of legal consul under President Clinton declared: “If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President’s unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority.”

February 24, 2015 · Web Design · (No comments)

Understanding benefits of website design Lower Hutt

by

Dylan Ross

Website is very important for a business. It helps a business in carving niche in the industry and attracts potential clients. Website design Lower Hutt has many benefits. Businesses can reach out to more number of clients than they would normally do without taking help of IT Support Lower Hutt. A website also adds to the authenticity of a business and its products.

Businesses whether large or small would require IT Support Lower Hutt. The primary purpose of a Website Designer Lower Hutt is to assist small and large businesses to find a special place online. Potential clients would find it easy to know that a company exists and offers exactly what they are looking for. In short, Website Designer Lower Hutt helps businesses reassess present IT set up. This is a fabulous way to know the amount of savings a business can make. The web designer Lower Hutt service also helps in increasing profits of a business via supporting different features such as email, software evaluation, data backups, and a lot more.

YouTube Preview Image

Adept consulting and technical support is vital for a business to survive online. This assistance is offered by Website Designer Lower Hutt. Businesses relying on IT Support Lower Hutt can benefit from a variety of features that helps in enhancing profit prospects too. Most of the Website design Lower Hutt services specialize in offering affordable solutions. These are designed in a fashion to offer streamlined solutions to a business and help them reach out to their clients at a faster pace. Businesses can benefit from both online and onsite IT solutions via Website Design Lower Hutt features.

It is crucial for a business to keep a back up of all important documents. The backup needs to be secured at a protected site. IT Support Lower Hutt is an excellent way to ensure this. Many impressive online data backups are offered by Website Designer Lower Hutt. Every business would require adept and secure management services for crucial documents and files. This is important for smooth and secure business operations.

Time and money are two crucial factors for a business. Saving on both can result in huge profits. Computer repair and web designer Lower Hutt services are also important for a business online. It helps a business to thrive and obtain success online. There are many other crucial technical facilities that must be integrated into a business website. Web designer Lower Hutt will create an effective platform via integrating a revolutionary website Design Lower Hutt. This will work for offering a business what it requires to maintain its reputation among clients. In a nutshell, a website will help a business create a strong online presence.

In case, you want your business to reach out to potential clients and carve a niche online, you may visit our

website Design Lower Hutt

. Here you would benefit from helpful information on enhancing your business prospects online, web designer Lower Hutt, Website Designer Lower Hutt,

IT Support Lower Hutt

and much more.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

February 24, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Sunday, April 29, 2007 

Telecom New Zealand has apologised to Gay Hamilton after her e-mail was bounced because it contained the word gay eight times. The automatic reply Ms Hamilton received stated that the e-mail was not suited for “business-like communication”.

Website designer and lesbian, Gay Hamilton had sent the largest public company in New Zealand a message to their help desk via e-mail, asking if she was able to receive their broadband services in her Nelson suburb.

Lenska Papich, spokesperson for Telecom, has said that e-mails are usually only monitored internally, and the words are blocked to help reduce harassment cases by threatening disciplinary action. “Our systems internally detect a number of words, including both the words gay and heterosexual, that could be deemed as inappropriate for use at work.” Telecom refused to list the other words that are blocked.

Ms Hamilton has said that she is worried about the amount of time and effort Telecom must have put into deciding that gay was an inappropriate word in e-mail communication. “If they do have to put content filters on, then maybe they should ensure that it only gets genuinely abusive words.”

Ms Hamilton has been apologised to by Lenska Papich, who said that she was very good about it all.

February 24, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Want to be kept in the loop? Want to help? Add your name to the list!

Make sure you add your username, what operating systems you have access to and know, any expertise on the area you have, what all the relevant programs you know which might help and any other information which may be useful.

You don’t even need to know anything! If we ever need someone in your area, we might be able to supply you with some training from another Wikinewsie in your area or, you can help with stories and research. We need help with everything.

User: Trisreed
Operating System/s: Windows Vista
Expertise: Graphics, Image Editing, Video Editing, 3D Design, Music Compsition
Relevant Programs Known: Fireworks, Flash, Vegas, ACID, Paint Shop Pro, Windows Movie Maker, Photoshop
Other Information: Experienced in graphic design.

User: Stickeylabel
Operating System/s: XP
Expertise: Graphics, Image Editing
Relevant Programs Known: Fireworks, Flash, Vegas, Windows Movie Maker, Photoshop
Other Information: Experienced in logo and web design.

User: Symode09
Operating System/s: OSX, XP, Vista
Expertise: Video and Audio Editing, and Recording
Relevant Programs Known: Macromedia Flash, Vegas, Final Cut Pro, Avid, Windows Movie Maker, Fireworks, Acid, Photoshop
Other Information: Have access to a green screen and a camera, prefer 16:9 over 4:3.

User: Markie
Operating System/s: XP
Expertise: Good with audio editing (if needed – esp Audacity) and ok with video editing. Will also help complete research if needed.
Relevant Programs Known: Audacity, Windows Movie Maker and a few others
Other Information: Err will leave this for later

User: DragonFire1024
Operating System/s: Windows XP, Second edition.
Expertise: News reporting, Original Reporting, In the field reporting and interviews. Can do some small still graphics work.
Relevant Programs Known: Gimp logo and graphics program, photoshop programs.
Other Information: Did a small news bit, just as we are attampting to do, for a school report on a polluted river in my birth city of Wayne, MI. It was on TV at one point and it was soo many years ago…I wouldn’t know where to look to see what it looked like. Also created the second Wikinews Video 2.0 Video. Produced by: Zachary.

User: Thunderhead
Operating System/s: Windows 2000, XP
Expertise: Behind-the-scenes work, public coordination, etc.
Relevant Programs Known: N/A
Other Information: Did radio work for 4 years

User: Zanimum
Operating System(s): Windows XP

User: User:Bawolff
Operating System/s: Windows XP, Gentoo Linux
Expertise: Next to none :(
Relevant Programs Known: Very little. I have blender installed on one computer, which I mean to learn how to do cool things with, but havn’t yet. I’m familiar with win movie maker if that’s helpful

User: Matt2501
Operating System/s: Mac OS X 10.4
Expertise: Public and Media Relations!
Relevant Programs Known: Nothing really, iMovie HD on my Mac, that’s about it!
Other Information: Although I am really the technical sort of person, compared to some people here, I am nothing, I have done a course in Public and Media Relations, so am happy to work on any publicity if nessesary

User: Nzgabriel
Operating System/s: Windows XP and live version of Ubuntu
Expertise:News reporting, photography, audio editing, and graphic editing.
Relevant Programs Known:Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator and Windows Movie Maker.
Other Information: Online social media

User: Steven Fruitsmaak
Operating System/s: Windows XP
Expertise: some from Audio Wikinews, and reporting of course
Relevant Programs Known: Photoshop, Audacity
Other Information: just here to help if I can, to get doughnuts or do some typing or something.

User: FellowWikiNews
Operating System/s: Windows XP, Ubuntu Linux
Expertise: Writing, Reporting, Photography, Graphics Editing, and Sound Editing
Relevant Programs Known: GIMP, Picasa, Audacity, Windows Movie Maker
Other Information: Can help with writing and other jobs.

User: User:Jackl
Operating System/s: XP
Expertise: Journalism. Editing/Production.
Relevant Programs Known: Video Editing Suites. Camcorder.
Other Information: 2 year experience with School magazine. 6 months expertise as Head of Design, and Features Writer. 18 months as Head of Current Affairs (News and Sport). Three times winner of School’s Journalist Competition. 2004, 2005, 2006

User: TheFearow
Operating System/s: Mac OS X, Windows XP Home, Linux
Expertise: I have basic qulaifications in video production and web design, and I have been doing it as a hobby for several years.
Relevant Programs Known: Premiere, Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator/etc.
Other Information: Not much else

User: Gamersedge
Operating System/s: Windows XP
Expertise: Garageband, teleprompting
Relevant Programs Known: Garageband, iMovie, Windows Movie Maker etc.
Other Information: Uhhh not really. im 13.

User: Sm07
Operating System/s: Mac OS X 10.4
Expertise: Video editing, title design, image editing and web design.
Relevant Programs Known: iMovie HD, After Effects 7, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Garageband, Audacity
Other Information: I designed [[1]] and the titles for this project [[2]] (I only did the end section – fast forward to the globe)

User: mgeheren
Operating System/s: Vista
Expertise: I am a Journalist for Scholastic News and KV Chronicles I have interviewed John McCain and many other people, I can do field reporting or interviewing
Relevant Programs Known: Movie Maker, I Movie can learn others fast
Other Information: I am 13 but willing to help

User: Csmcdem
Operating System/s: Mac OS X Leopard, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Ubuntu
Expertise: Nothing Really, but I’m pretty good at Photoshop, and can learn fast.
Relevant Programs Known: iMovie, Premiere Pro, Windows Movie Maker, Photoshop, Fireworks, a little Flash, and Dreamweaver
Other Information: I am 15 and would love to help, it seems like a good project.

February 24, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 

The Church of Scientology’s European website was hacked and defaced earlier today by hackers claiming to be members of Anonymous. Anonymous proponents previously hacked Scientology’s main website, www.scientology.org. The group also protested the church in February 2008.

Another website run by the church, freedom-belgium.org, was also hacked and defaced. The hacked websites contain content taken from .whyaretheydead.info, a website critical of Scientology which lists members of the Church who are alleged to have died while in its care. Anonymous has stated that whyaretheydead.info was not involved in the hacking, but the hackers merely used content from their website.

This is not the first time hackers have defaced Scientology websites. In January 2008, ‘Anonymous’ hacked the Church’s international website by using a denial-of-service attack. The attack caused the website to be inaccessible for nearly 24 hours.

February 23, 2015 · School Academy · (No comments)

“Base Data Entry Home Opportunities”

by

Earl

The United States Small Business Administration has estimated that over fifty percent of small businesses fail within the first year. An even more alarming statistic is that ninety-five percent of small businesses fail in five years. These statistics are the reason why many people are afraid of putting their hard earned money into a business that might be closed in just a few years.

YouTube Preview Image

A digital business or an online business is perfect for any one who dreams of owning their own business but does not want to invest their life savings. An online business can be built up either slowly or quickly depending on how many hours the business owner invests.

One of the fastest growing online businesses is data entry work performed from home. There are hundreds, even thousands of employers that are now subcontracting home-based workers to perform data entry work. The company is able to save thousands of dollars by hiring subcontractors and the home worker is given the opportunity to earn large sums of money on a weekly basis from home.

Base data entry home work does not require any previous experience or a college degree. The only requirements of a home-based data entry worker is good writing skills, proof reading abilities and editing skills. The base data entry home worker only needs to have access to the Internet, a computer and a printer.

This is an amazing job opportunity that allows a home-based worker to earn between three-hundred and five-hundred dollars a week. As business on the Internet continues to grow a whole new ‘at-home’ job market has opened up. This is an excellent way for people to make money from the convenience of home.

Read FREE mini courses on

base data entry home

, work at home jobs and more! Also get a FREE subscription to stay up to date for all the New mini courses added. Just visit

CareerJobs

.

Article Source:

“Base Data Entry Home Opportunities”

February 23, 2015 · Uncategorized · (No comments)

The following 4 pages are in this category, out of 4 total.