SEO Hosting
Keep These Things In Mind When Buying Hosting
If you are new to web building and development, choosing your first hosting service can be intimidating. New web developers often feel overwhelmed when it comes time to find a hosting provider. There are almost too many options to choose from! How do you know which one is right for you? Thankfully there are a few hints and tricks that you can use to make the process easier and faster.
The process of choosing something online is not all that different than the process of choosing something offline and hosting is no exception. Buying things is pretty much universal. Here are a few hints to think about when you are making your decision.
Do lots of research. There are hundreds of web hosting companies out there that offer wide varieties of web hosting packages. Take your time as you research each of the companies that seems like they might be promising. Use offline research as well as online research to help you narrow your search. Reviews are good. Research their business practice history. Learning “too much” about each of your chosen companies is not an option. This is especially true for a company that will be charging you money on a regular basis and who might have access to private information like your physical address and banking account numbers.
How fast should your site load? It is a well known fact that, the more images a site contains, the slower it will load in a viewer's browser. When you plan on using lots of images or providing downloadable files to your visitors you need hosting that will accommodate those needs. This is usually more expensive than the average hosting plan but it is well worth it for those who have high speed needs. If you have a small site you might not mind that it loads slower.
{What kind of control panel do you need? The less hassle the better when it comes to choosing a control panel for new developers-find something that you can figure out quickly and that does not require a lot of background knowledge to operate. If you have experience with web development you can choose amongst control panels that aren't as extensive Not only does choosing your hosting based on the control panel help you make sure that you'll be able to build your project, it will cut down on the number of providers that you have to sort through! If you are new to web development, choose hosting that offers you programs like Fantastico-a one click installer for a variety of content management systems, guest books, etc. Are you prepared to pay more for ease of access because many hosts charge more for it.|Do you have any strong feelings about advertising? Were you thinking about including your own advertising on your website? Would you mind using space on your site to display someone else's advertising? The answers to these couple of questions will help you narrow down your field of choices for hosting. If you don't mind hosting ads for someone else, you might be best served with a free host-especially if your site will simply be small and personal. When you want to sell your own ads, on the other hand, you should plan on paying for server space with a host company. Most paid hosting plans don't have any rules about selling advertising on websites. Other hosts prohibit ads on sties. Take the time to make sure you choose a host that will allow you to do what you want with your space.|All site owners want to ensure that visitors can easily access their sites whenever they want to. Some site owners spend lots of time worrying about this while others trust that their hosts will make it happen.
For a personal blogger with a small audience, having some site down time might not be too bad. If you hope to earn money through your site you need it to be up and running all day and all night. Down time is terrible! You will want to choose a hosting company that can offer you the highest level of reliability possible.|Try out the companies used by the site developers that you admire. Anybody can put up a glowing review and an affiliate link on a forum so if you want a review you can trust, ask other site owners that you admire or have worked with before. Don't be afraid to ask for help; most website owners are happy to help new site builders decide which hosting options are best for them. {You might even be able to use some of the site owner's server space to give it a try while you figure out which hosting service is right for you.|Some site developers will even let you share their server space while you figure out which hosting options are best for your project.|You might even be offered server space on the site developer's account to help you get started with your project while you figure out which hosting company is best for you.|Some site builders are even generous enough to offer to host your project for you while you investigate other hosting avenues.|You might even be offered space on the site owner's server to help you start building your web project while you do your research on the hosting options that are available…Cheapest SEO Web Hosting
Can it be that American military bases abroad, usually thought of as “stabilizers” in tough neighborhoods, are really the primary cause of radical terrorism against the US and its allies? That is what Robert Pape and James K. Feldman compellingly argue in their new book released this week titled Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It.
Most war planners and geo-strategists conceive of US military bases abroad as if they are anchors of stability in unstable regions. Over the last six decades, while there have been occasional protests, sometimes violent, targeting these foreign bases by rebellious students or groups affiliated with socialist or communist parties in governments hosting these US troops, most of the political system in these respective governments strongly support the American bases, usually as a cheap way to deter aggression from neighbors.
But what once worked in Germany, Japan, Turkey, the Philippines, South Korea, the UK doesn't seem to be working so well in the Middle East or South Asia today and frankly may be eroding even in these traditional base-hosting countries where jihadist terrorism hasn't been a factor.
When terrorist tracker and New America Foundation Counter-Terrorism Initiative director Peter Bergen was invited to interview Osama bin Laden in 1997, bin Laden told Bergen point blank that America had become an arrogant nation in the wake of its victory in the Cold War and that the basing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of the two Holy Mosques, had made the US a target for al Qaeda. It is also true that the Saudi government invited in and agreed to host on a temporary basis US forces in order to help deter Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But after ten years, the phrase “temporary bases” actually shifted in then Defense Secretary William Cohen's remarks to “semi-permanent.”
The shift was noticed by media, government officials, and incensed Islamists throughout the region – though hardly noted at all by American strategists that only saw one side of the cost-benefit ledger.
War planners have tended only to consider the upside opportunities in projecting force through foreign-deployed military bases rather than calculating downsides as well. During the Cold War, the seven hundred plus US military installations abroad helped give the United States unparalleled capacity in intelligence and power projection that no other nation in the world other than the Soviet Union could match. And with the collapse of the USSR, America stood unrivaled, reifying a core belief that this global network of foreign bases had in part been vital to American success and strength.
While Bergen was tracking down bin Laden and taking the pulse of an increasingly restless Middle East, I was watching growing protests and anti-American anger take hold in another part of the world where American bases had long been situated – Japan and South Korea. Believing that the US was impeding normalization efforts between North and South Korea and had been a supporter of military crackdowns against pro-democracy efforts, students directed violent, flame-throwing protests at American military installations in South Korea.
In Japan, the situation was less violent but politically more severe. In September 1995, three American military servicemen brutally raped a 12-year old Okinawan girl. The senior US Commander in the region remarked that the soldiers should have just procured a prostitute triggering the largest anti-American protests in Japan since 1960. Okinawa, Japan's poorest prefecture, nonetheless hosts the majority of America's military capacity in Japan – with 39 distinct U.S. military facilities on the island. During the Cold War, the sacrifice made by Okinawa in “carrying the burden” of hosting these bases and US personnel was more easily justified. Since then, the rationale has shifted from everything from deterring North Korea to being a bulwark against growing Chinese power – anything to keep the huge land assets of the Pentagon in the Pacific in place.
When I spoke to South Koreans and Okinawans at the time, I regularly heard comments that they felt “occupied”. Indeed, before a revision in security guidelines between the US and Japan after the rape incident, the US controlled more than 80% of Okinawa's air space. One senior activist told me that while the protests of the Okinawans would be peaceful for the most part, the US had to worry in the long run about groups self-organizing and possibly beginning to throw Molotov cocktails at US trucks and installations – and threatening personnel and their dependents. This didn't happen, or hasn't happened yet, but counting on docility 'permanently' may be a major blind spot of Pentagon planners.
What was brewing in Okinawa was not suicide terrorism – but the impulse to reject the logic of large-scale, long term basing of US troops on Japanese soil was growing.
In parts of the world less accustomed to US military personnel, the reaction has been more virulent.
Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and the director of the new website mega-data base on suicide terrorism titled the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism (CPOST) and funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, has been putting on a lot of United Airlines miles between DC and Chicago not because progressives and liberals who might have a thing against America's global network of foreign military bases want to hear him – but the highest levels of America's military and intelligence bureaucracies are seeking him out.
The Pentagon's leadership prides itself on hearing not just material that supports its current course but is open to alternative scenarios to consider military threats – and the Pentagon is most easily convinced by solid empirical data.
Pape and his co-author Feldman have broken down every recorded suicide terrorist incident since 1980 and noted an eruption of such incidents since 2004. From 1980-2003, there were 350 suicide attacks in the world, only 15% of which were anti-American.
In the short five-year period since, from 2004-2009, there have been 1,833 suicide attacks, 92% of which were anti-American.
Pape argues that the key factor in determining spikes of suicide terrorism is not the prevalence or profile of radical Islamic clerics or mental sickness but rather the garrisoning of foreign troops, most often US troops or its allies, in these respective countries.
Pape and Feldman show for example that even in war-torn, beleaguered Afghanistan, suicide attacks surged from just a handful a year to more than 100 per year in early 2006 when US and military deployments began to extend to the Pashtun southern and eastern regions of the country beginning in late 2005. Pakistan also deployed forces against Pashtun sections of western Pakistan, which Pape and Feldman note also saw large spikes in suicide attacks.
Pape is not a pacifist and is not calling on the US government and Pentagon to appease dictators and terror masters, but he is making an argument that a new, better strategy is needed. He and his co-author make a compelling case – much like Donald Rumsfeld once pondered in his famous memo on terrorism – that we are creating much of our own problem and animating and feeding fuel to the enemy of America's and its allies' interests.
I once asked Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott whether he thought that America would have problems managing its empire of bases and whether those nations hosting them would feel the burden too heavy in a post-Soviet world. Talbott responded that he believed – as did most of the national security community – that “US bases are anchors of instability in unstable regions.”
This may not be the case any longer — or at least not to the same degree as used to be the case.
Pape and Feldman, in their new book Cutting the Fuse, suggest that the US military would better secure its key foreign policy interests with a posture of “offshore balancing” – relying on military alliances and “offshore air, naval, and rapidly deployable ground forces rather than heavy onshore combat power.”
I bet Pape's first calls were from the Air Force and Navy — but their interests aside, Pape sees that the future needs to be more high flex, smaller footprint, more nimble — and less toxic and anti-body generating than the large-scale, clunky, unsuccessful force deployments that characterize America's deployments to Afghanistan today.
Robert Pape is working from the data upward in formulating a smart strategy for military organization – rather than working from the top down and repeating mistakes made by those whose thinking is conventional, incremental, and who tie what they do tomorrow much by what they did yesterday.
Pape sees a chance to neutralize the forces that could otherwise yield another generation of hardened terrorists, many of whom are willing to engage in suicide attacks.
I know the Pentagon is listening — and this impresses me. Others should be too.
– Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note. Clemons can be followed on Twitter @SCClemons
Tennessee head coach Bruce Pearl admitted to knowingly violating NCAA rules by hosting recruits at his home, and telling them to keep quiet. The cookout cost current Tennessee freshman guard Jordan McRae his eligibility this season. The school terminated Pearl’s previous contract and is offering him a new deal that reflects UT taking $1.5 million from Pearl’s salary. From Vols Xtra: “The revised contract the University of Tennessee has offered men’s basketball coach Bruce Pearl would pay him $1.5 million each of the next two seasons and $10 million over the next five years, according to UT athletic department sources familiar with the situation. Pearl’s previous contract called for him to make $2 million this season, $2.1 million next season and $11.5 over the next five years.”
