Digital Scrapbooking – The Great Possibilities to Explore

Have you been asking yourself what great things you can make using digital scrapbooking? Well, it's a normal question, since we keep hearing lots of great things about the versatility of this method these days. And to tell you the truth, you can do everything using the technique. In other words, your digital scrapbook can be as variant, creative and unique as the paper version. And considering the kind of flexibility and ease you get with the digital version, it's much better to do your work digitally on your personal computer.

To give you a better idea of ​​how to get things done well using a digital scrapbooking software application, here are some handy tips. We hope you'll be able to make the most out of these suggestions.

You can craft stickers, creative text overlays, colorful ribbons, eye-catching shadows or even curled edges. Use these techniques to create a unique design.

You can easily cut out various types of shapes without taking measurements time and time again, when you wish to have multiple items in similar shape. Consider making use of dissimilar brushes when you are trying to make a wide array of effects on a digital scrapbooking project.

Also consider adding some pop out effects or outline texts along with vellum shadows. Using reflections makes great sense as well. You'll be able to add some attractive wrinkles onto the paper!

And here comes the "tip off the iceberg"! It's hard to mention all the things that can be done using digital scrapbooking software applications. In other words, sky is the limit when you want to beautify your layouts and make them unique. You can be your friends and family members have never seen something like this before. Just imagine the brilliance of these software solutions. You get to implement all those versatility decorations without even using a paper till your creation is done!

Satellite Internet Bandwidth Providers

Satellite internet connections are great in those regions were there is no access to DSL or cable internet bandwidth. This type of service connection works by the data being sent via satellite. A satellite equipment dish is arranged pointing toward the south. This dish transmits signals to satellites which are in a position about the earth usually stationary and internet access from the Internet provider is provided through this type of connection. Satellite internet bandwidth is available worldwide including ships at sea or mobile vehicles.

Advantages and Disadvantages

This type of bandwidth service makes access to the internet in those areas where other forms of bandwidth are not available. It also eliminates the need to use dial-up – in fact this bandwidth is faster than dial-up. An advantage with this type of bandwidth is that downloading and uploading is much faster. Installation is also fairly rapid.

Since the signal from the computer must travel so many miles in order to reach a satellite and return to the computer this causes a delay or latency between the request for data and receiving that data. The average lag time for satellite internet is often found to be between 500 to 900 milliseconds. This is not acceptable for any applications where real-time access is necessary for instance internet gaming, video conferencing, video chats as well as any VolP telephone calls. Another disadvantage is the weather does affect this satellite feed. Rain does not actually block the signal but it can cause a form of interference that is known as "rain fade" and this can slow the download as well as upload speeds causing a very irregular internet connection.

Initially as Well as Monthly Cost

Satellite internet access is more expensive that other types of broadband access in fact it is 2 to 3 times more expensive than DSL internet access. Not only is the monthly fee more expensive but the initial cost of setup is very expensive since it involves satellite dish and satellite modem. Initial setup may range from between $ 600 to $ 2000.

Major Providers

HughsNet is the number one satellite internet provider with a basic monthly fee of $ 49.99. HughsNet offers uploading and downloading speeds that are fairly fast and have great technical support. But the internet speeds fall off sharply during the evening peak hours and also there is a daily limit on uploading and downloading or bandwidth usage.

The number 2 satellite internet provider is WildBlue with a monthly basic package of $ 69.95. They offer much higher download and upload limits but in exchange for this, the download speed suffers. But if you have a concern with downloading and heavy internet use, this provider would probably be the best for you.

Provider number 3 is the internet provider MyBlueDish which monthly fee is also $ 69.95. They currently work with provider WildBlue in order to provide faster internet and allow for a lot of download bandwidth monthly. But, they are much slower than the other providers. MyBlueDish also has 24/7 tech support that is excellent.

Basically, satellite internet bandwidth usage is great for those living in remote area or who are based on ship or who are constantly mobile or any situation where there is no other option for broadband. Internet access by satellite is extremely better than the next viable option, which is, dial-up and is the only other method of accessing the internet in remote areas.

Why Do People Travel?

Can you imagine what is life without traveling? Is it possible? Whatever your reason is, traveling is a part of people’s life. We all travel. The reason behind that is up to you.

There are different reasons why people travels:.

1.) Most People Travel because they want to see their families and friends who live far away. Invitations from families and friends are seldom so you will decide to travel just to see them.

2.) People Travel because they want to see their soul mates. Some people believe that there is only one person for them and if they haven’t had much luck searching in their area, they figured it out that even though there are millions of people around the world, they can still find it in other place.

3.) People travel to seek for work because they want to experience how to work from another place. We must admit that earning money is hard and some people decide to work abroad because they are looking for greener pasture. Other place pays bigger rates than their own place. We may also say that their expertise is not favorable in their own place. Unfortunately, they have to leave their families for awhile for a job opportunities abroad.

4.) People travel because they want to learn others cultures. They want to see the difference between their culture and other cultures. They want to learn others culture because for them traveling is fun while learning. One particular thing about the culture is the food. They want to know how food is prepared and how it is done. Obviously, we all love to eat.

5.) People travel because they are writers. They want to give the readers relevant article to their readers especially when they are making story in that particular place.

6.) People travel because they want to see all beautiful scenery of different countries. Others would want to take pictures because it serves as souvenirs.

7.) When opportunity arise, it is hard to decide whether to leave your family and open a business far away your place. Some businessmen would rather put up business in other place because they want gain and it is more profitable than staying in their place. Business is nothing without profit.

Traveling is not only for rich people. Whether you are poor or in the middle class, you can travel as long as it fits your budget. Some travel for their goals, some travel for fun and relaxation and some travel for experience.

Education: The Military's First and Best Line of Defense

The idea now prevalent among some defense officials that formal classroom-based education is either expendable or unnecessary flies in the face of millennia of historical precedent. Brilliant strategists and military leaders not only tend to have had excellent education, but most acknowledge the value and influence of their mentors. The roll call of the intellectual warriors is sometimes the best argument in support of training armies to think: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommel, George Patton, Chester Nimitz.

In stark contrast we can cite familiar military leaders whose educations were, we say, lackluster: the Duke of Wellington (he beat Napoleon – barely – after a slugging 7-year campaign), Ulysses Grant, George Custer, Adolph Hitler, Hermann Goering, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Manuel Noriega. For these men, military victories were often a matter of luck over tactics, overwhelming force over innovative planning, and soldiers more fearful than their masters than of the enemy.

I am a moderate, neither "red" nor "blue," with leanings in both camps. I firmly resist a draft, but support (and was once part of) ROTC. When I read that Columbia University had voted overwhelmingly to ban the Officer Officer Training Corps from returning to the campus, I felt that the concept of academic freedom itself had been violated. It is not the university's place to impute value judgments or decision on moral issues. Instead, universities were intended to be places where minds could visit among a broad range of viewpoints, hopefully to pick and choose the best parts from among them. By banning a campus ROTC contingent, Columbia has denied students that choice, and as an academic I am ashamed for them.

ROTC has much to offer university students, including (sometimes especially) those not enrolled as officer candidates. As a thirty-something graduate student working on my master's degree, I enrolled and participated in two ROTC history classes being taught by a multi-decorated Marine colonel, himself a holder of a master's degree in history. The things I learned about military implications of the battles we studied, the social effects of each decision, and the pains taken by most leaders to secure better materiel and intelligence for their troops far exceeded anything taught in the history department's coverage of the same incidents. It was from that extraordinarily patriotic US Marine career officer that I learned, for example, that during the War of 1812 the US invaded Canada and, when it discovered it could not succeed, burned the national Parliament buildings. It was for that last action that British soldiers later pressed on to Washington and set fire to the US Capitol and White House.

Does any of that make a difference? Indeed, I think it is crucial to national survival that soldiers and the public know the big picture behind events that becoming rallying later later. After 9/11, a precious few people asked the loaded question, "what have we done to incur this attack?" The overwhelming response was to stifle such questions – the US were the good guys, and those religious fanatics were angry because they were jealous of our luxury and wealth – and simply treat the attackers as nameless, inhuman enemies. There was no question allowed as to what the real problem might be, only that the US must attack them and annihilate aggression. But what competent physician, I ask, treats only a symptom but ignores the cause of the disease? According to numerous studies mandated by the UN and other agencies, the most important change that would most work towards eliminating poverty and war would be the universal access of women to an education.

We may "Remember the Alamo," but how many recall that Texas was either part of the US then, nor was it trying to become a state. It was seeking independence as a nation so it could maintain slavery, which Mexico had outlawed. When we "Remember the Maine," do we also recall that the ship was probably sunk by an engineering problem, and not from Spanish sabotage? That the war was pushed by US hawks and newspaper magnate William Randolph Hurst, knowing that a war would greatly boost newspaper sales? We must learn from history, because we are already doomed to repeating it. The 9/11 attack was carried out out predominately by Saudi Arabs, but the US response was to attack Iraq. Despite a preponderance of evidence that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the American public still preferred the fabrications about anthrax attacks, WMDs, and terrorist training camps.

So what of military plans to merely enlarge the distance learning programs to replace classroom instruction? As a career teacher, I risk sounding like a ludite when I disparage distance learning. In my experience, there can be no substitute for a human-to-human interaction, where ideas can be immediately sorted, argued, and revised. Seeing the emotional expression of classmates when one discusses controversies ranging from "just wars" to the use of nuclear weapons to the pros and cons of a given policy simply can not be part of an electronic lesson. There is simply no substitution, for example, to having a combat veteran point out "I was there" in a class when another student has presented the sanitized version of a controversial event. That level of emotion will not come through a cable modem. We are already becoming extremely dependent upon the impersonal Internet, so how much more non-human contact can possibly be good for our psychological, especially empathic, development.

Historically, one of the first tragedies of war – after truth and diversity of opinion – is basic humanity. In wars, our soldiers do not kill Germans, French, British, Indians, Japanese, or Vietnamese people. Almost from the beginning, they instead fight krauts, frogs, limeys, savages, nips, or gooks. How much more difficult is it for a poorly educated soldier to understand the enemy when the enemy has been made subhuman? How, perfectly, can the war be won and, more important, peace maintained if we can not understand (but not necessarily agree with) the enemy?
It is unfortunate that the senior military officers so often bring the brunt of public hostility for actions made by civil authorities. The present administration is among the most academically impoverished in US history, while the senior officers are among the most highly educated. While it is true that some soldiers actually enjoy combat, the vast majority would welcome, nay embrace, a career of unbroken peace. The intelligent career soldier trains to protect that which he or she most values, knowing that wars are inevitable. Most pray that they need never fight, but stand ready to put their lives on the line should the rest of us need protection. Rather than reduce, compromise, or restrict education to these defenders, I would argue instead that they all receive free access to our universities and colleges. The academic world needs to get behind a unified message: education is not a privilege; It is the first and best line of defense.