Perhaps you are wondering what dedicated servers are and why you need one. Dedicated server refers to the type of web hosting provider for a web site. If you have a web site, you must need a host. There are several types of hosting options available on the internet. One is to rent a shared server. With a shared hosting also called “Virtual hosting” your website shares server space with other websites. Shared servers are relatively cheaper and require basic skill as all the server administration is done by the host. This type of hosting is ideal for entry level website owners and for those who don’t have high traffic volumes.

On the other hand there is dedicated hosting. Dedicated hosting is different from other normal hosting because it actually allows you to have the authority to control your own server and upload your files to the server. It also gives you the admin access to the server where you have all the space and bandwidth on the server so you can expand your website as much as you want like including database such as shopping carts and forums which usually requires quite a bit of space. It gives you more control over the safety of your server and website. You also have the authority to add some more security enhancing features on you site. But dedicated servers are more expensive than shared servers and require higher level of technical know how to operate. However for big companies with big websites that attracts heavy volume of traffic, dedicated server is the best choice because you don’t want to lose thousand of dollars you are earning a day if your server went down.

Dedicated hosting allows you to have unlimited access to the operating system and application softwares. You can also have the flexibility to run advanced customized e-commerce applications on your server. As your site grown you tend to attract more traffic and it becomes more demanding for the server. Dedicated servers allow you to upgrade your hard drive, Ram processor, software applications yourself with no limitations as compared to shared hosting. Dedicated server also provides you with your own firewall for the storage of sensitive and classified information on your server.

Dedicated Servers are available in different sizes as well as services. When pursuing different hosting option, when it comes to dedicated server, you can generally find anything from large servers to budget dedicated servers.

Sales of the United States Mint’s 2010 Gold and Silver Eagle bullion coins are off to a fast start. Sales levels for the one ounce silver coins have already eclipsed the levels achieved in the year ago period. The one ounce gold coin sales were also strong.

After going on sale January 19, the 2010 Silver Eagles recorded sales of 2.44 million coins on the first day of availability. Earlier in the month, the US Mint had sold 367,500 coins, representing the remnants of the inventory of 2009-dated coins.

The month to date total for Silver Eagle bullion coin sales has now reached 3,592,500. By comparison, in January 2009, the US Mint had sold 1,900,000 coins. The high monthly sales total is made even more impressive by the fact that the one ounce silver bullion coins were completely unavailable for six days during the month between the sell out of 2009 coins and the start of sales for 2010 coins.

The 2010 Gold Eagles, which also went on sale January 19, recorded sales of 30,500 on the first day of availability. The US Mint additionally sold 18,500 of the 2009-dated coins on the same day, since authorized purchasers were required to take a certain amount of the old dated coins for each 2010-dated coins ordered.

For the month to date, gold eagle sales have reached 85,000 of the one ounce coins. This compares to 92,000 sold in the year ago period.

The Senate last night passed its long-awaited version of financial system regulatory reform legislation, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. In the coming weeks, each congressional chamber will select a group of lawmakers to negotiate a final bill. That bill will then need to be voted on again in both chambers before going to the President for his signature or veto. The process is expected to take at least a month.

The following are a handful of the more significant amendments considered by the Senate.

• Federal Preemption – As written, the bill would have allowed states to enact consumer protection laws more strict than their federal counterparts. By amendment, the Senate preserved federal preemption of state consumer financial protection laws, with preemption standards being determined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and reported to Congress. Also per this amendment, state attorneys general would be permitted to file civil lawsuits against state-charted institutions to enforce consumer financial protections.

• Definitions of Non-bank Institutions – The Senate passed an amendment without opposition that revises important definitions of non-bank financial institutions. This amendment seeks to limit the reach of the new consumer protection regulator with regard to non-bank financial companies to those companies that are “predominantly engaged” in providing financial services. In contrast, the underlying bill included broad language that would have allowed for regulation of nearly any company engaged in financial activities. In the Senate version, the new consumer regulator would only have authority over non-bank firms that receive at least 85 percent of their revenue from financial activities.

• ATM Fee Cap – The proposed amendment to limit the fees banks could charge on ATM transactions (discussed in an earlier post) did not receive a vote and therefore is not included in the final Senate bill.

• Interchange Fee Cap – The Senate adopted an amendment to allow the Federal Reserve to set limits on the fees charged to retailers by credit card companies for the processing of credit card transactions. The specific language, if included in a final bill, would allow the Federal Reserve to set “reasonable and proportionate” interchange charges – a threshold sure to provoke additional future battles. Institutions with less than $10 billion in assets would be exempt from such limits.

• Auto-dealer Exemption – An amendment proposed to exempt auto-dealers from the jurisdiction of the Senate’s proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strongly opposed by the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and the White House did not receive a vote before adoption of the bill.

• FTC Authority Preservation – The Senate passed without opposition the proposed amendment to revise the Consumer Protection Bureau provisions to allow the FTC to retain its existing rulemaking authority, carving it out of the new consumer protection regulator.

• Derivatives – The proposed provisions in the underlying bill that would require banks to spin off their derivative operations, strongly opposed by banks and the FDIC, was not taken up.

• Mortgage underwriting – This amendment, which would bar mortgage brokers and loan originators from receiving payments based on the terms of the loans they sell, was added to the bill. Under this amendment, lenders would be required to verify a borrower’s ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home’s value. Assessment of the ability to repay would have to be based on the maximum interest rate allowed in the first five years of the loan.

I’ve actually been anticipating this two-part, four-hour program with glee since it was first announced that CNN would follow up it’s controversial Black in America this summer. But what interested me most about the Docs is what bloggers are saying.

As a Canadian, I believe that because of the Immigration debate, y’all Yanks will have a different perspective on the program, so it is Wednesday night, and I’m searching to see what bloggers are saying. And it didn’t take me too long.

Immigration Impact raises an important question, one that I have certainly thought about, since I hate his guts: How can you show a program on Latinos in America on the same station that employs Lou Dobbs?

…….(B)ut how exactly does CNN intend its viewers to interpret CNN’s inherently contradictory message? CNN advertises Latinos in America (which airs in two parts October 21-22 at 9 p.m. EST) as a “documentary that discusses immigration and discrimination issues.” If CNN’s documentary discusses discrimination issues, shouldn’t it also discuss the role media plays in propagating discrimination against immigrants? It’s dishonest to suggest that Latinos in America, the majority of whom are first or second generation immigrants, are not adversely affected by viewers who support Lou Dobbs—whose inflammatory rhetoric is televised nationally on their own network.

The Associated Press also raised this issue and noted the organization Basta Dobbs (which unlike my initial thought…’Basta’ isn’t short for ‘Bastard’ it means ‘enough’) which has gathered up an impressive list of activists and bloggers to try and get Dobbs off the air (and strangely enough, Dobbs’ wife is Latina and her parents live with them. I’d love to be around the dinner table and eavesdrop on the conversation that MUST have happened when this program was announced…..).

Melissa Morales, a Stanford University graduate who was born in the United States but grew up mostly in the Mexican border town of Juarez, said she’s pleased CNN is airing the documentary and hopes as many people as possible will watch it.

But Morales, who works at a nonprofit group promoting emerging women leaders, said CNN is trying to have it both ways by airing a nuanced view of the Latino community at the same time it provides a nightly platform for Dobbs.

“Lou Dobbs creates a venomous atmosphere for all immigrants, particularly Latinos,” she said. “His sources are questionable at best, unquestionably racist at worst.”

Dobbs, on his radio show, has called Lovato delusional and “one of my fleas.”

“You’re trying to deny my rights while turning over this country to those who have no regard for our laws, our rules, our customs, the legal foundation of our country,” he said.

Pontealdia not only questions the legitimacy of the program – is it just a trap to get more Hispanic viewers? Are the Latino CNN anchors really Uncle Tom’s?

The use of Latino journalists and Latino stories (Soledad O’Obrien, Rick Sanchez, Juan Carlos Lopez) as a convenient prop will not change the fact that “Latinos In America” is a daring attempt by CNN and Time Warner to feed Hispanics with one hand,while abetting the hatred of xenophobes through Dobb’s daily rant.

Under the guise of interest in Hispanics, now CNN shows a belated concern for them and decries Latinos in America “have been misreported or, in some cases, neglected by the media,” in words of its vice president and senior executive producer Mark Nelson.  When asked, Mr. Nelson was unclear on whether “Latinos In America” would even be translated into Spanish.

“We’re in the business of weighing the important issues of our time and the fascinating people and stories that impact those issues,” claimed the same spokesperson while selling “In America,” which turns out to be one of many CNN franchises featuring minorities.

Guanabee takes my Afro/Cuban/Irish sista to task for this:

“We don’t do Afro Latinos, at all. We don’t do gay Latinos. It’s only four hours.”

Having an anchor (whose job it is to deliver the news and not push his personal agenda / opinions) on a major news network and have a program on the same people that he is critisizes ( even though he says otherwise) is indicative of the issue we have in even discussing race and racism in larger society: Hidden under the guise of ‘Freedom of Speech’  – which seems to be okay for some but unacceptable for others – the network doesn’t seem to want to do anything about this. You cannot let someone insut someone and then celebrate and investigate their experinces at the same time.

(Update: Thurs, Oct 22) I’ve been watching Dobbs since like, forever, and I think he is an intelligent, seasoned journalist, but I cannot accept his attitude about immigration and while he probably brings CNN a lot of money, his attitude about this issue is disgusting and offensive. I really enjoyed the first part of the program, but I still have to question whether the execs seen the contradicition. Or do they simply not care?

It’s as fascinating to compare artists’ interpretation of the resurrection of Christ as those of the crucifiction; though, as I pointed out in my post on Rogier ven der Wyden’s Miraflores Altarpiece, the resurrection has been much less frequently depicted in the history of art, despite its importance as a Christian observance.

Here, in a polyptych (multi-panel) for Santi Nazaro e Celso in Brescia, the great Venetian painter Tiziano Vecellio, commonly known as Titian, has applied his mastery to a heroic depiction of Christ, almost appearing to physically stand on the clouds above Brescia, the town in which the painting resides (at the request of Titian’s patron, who is depicted in the lower left panel).

The foreground figures of those witnessing the event are cast in shadow, their reactions downplayed in relation to the figure of Christ against a dramatic sky.

It’s interesting to compare this work to Ruben’s similarly heroic triptych, Albrecht Altdorfer’s wonderfully dramatic sky and Matthias Gruenwald’s stunningly presented event, all of which make the reaction of the observers a major component of the drama.

My favorite panel in this work, however, is Titian’s portrayal of the Archangel Gabriel (image above, bottom).