# If you can start the day without caffeine. Funny thought for the day
# If you can get going without pep pills.
# If you can always be cheerful ignoring aches and pains.
# If you can resist complaining and boring people with your troubles.
# If you can eat the same food every day and be grateful for it.
# If you can understand when your loved ones are too busy to give you any time.
# If you can overlook it when those you love take it out on you when through no fault of yours something goes wrong.
# If you can take criticism and blame without resentment.
# If you can ignore a friend's limited education and never correct him.
# If you can resist treating a rich friend better than a poor friend.
# If you can face the world without lies and deceit.
# If you can conquer tension without medical help.
# If you can relax without liquor. thought for day
# If you can sleep without the aid of drugs.
# .....Then You Are Probably The Family Dog! DONT MIND ITS A Funny Thought for the Day
In my recent years in the BitTorrent community, I have learned many things about torrents, and why they are such a target. It seems that there are tempting organizations, who try to create an absurd claim that the BitTorrent Protocol is used specifically to infringe upon copyrighted material.
What they fail to mention, are the heavy advantages of the BitTorrent Protocol, which are used for the intention of spreading knowledge and creativity within the community, for the greater good of expanding the amount of information available to the world. By doing this, we make leaps and bounds which at one point in time, were not possible.
In this case, the amount of knowledge which is shared, only creates a more informed and educated world, on how software works, operates, is commanded, and how to use it. This kind of "evolves" the world at a rapid pace, for what they can use to possibly invent new technologies, or help the human race with advancements that even fifteen years ago we're not thought possible.
These types of benefits, can happen when information is shared at high rates, to places in the world, which normally couldn't access the similar tools needed for their project. So by allowing the world of information available in some places, to reach places where they lack the same advantages, such as libraries, or internet cafe's, or schools with high speed internet, for example, all prove great cases for the BitTorrent Protocol.
That's the goal of those of us whom care, while we share. We truly believe file sharing is a right, and must be defended as such. We can go on about copyrighted material, and how that could be used as a defense that the BitTorrent Protocol is being used to cause some industries, mainly the Entertainment Industry, to lose "potential" financial gain.
Let me debate this case. I feel the urge to explain the audacity of any claim such as that.
Let me begin by winding down what the internet does in a 2010 post Millennium era of technology. It has created so many advancements, for businesses, for corporations, for governments, and for their people, that along with pros of any situation, of course there will be windfall cons as well.
What I mean by this, is by the email, text messaging communications ran through the databases of any network carrier, or ISP, the fax communications, the rapid access to orders, shipment paperwork, legal processing, claims, or any type of information used while a government, business, or industry, are attempting to quickly accomplish their goals, that no person in the world cannot claim that the internet and fast file or information sharing, has gained them the ability to profit very fast, and finalize agreements much quicker. This results in a huge profit gain, by the industry, as result of the internet and file and/or information sharing.
Imagine living still in an era where all paper based information had to travel by postal or delivery service. The amount of time, between when a transaction could complete for example, would come to such a slow pace, businesses, governments, or even people would be set to a slow growth in advancements, which in turn would lead to a smaller profit margin than most see today. I think that's a fair assessment of the situation, and by all means, anyone who thinks otherwise I'd feel free to debate that as well.
Moving on though, what I am trying to explain though, is that with any advancement, such as file or information sharing, will come with a cost as well. Some of the cons, are that some entertainment industry representatives can claim well now that copyrighted material is shared, and that this costs them as businesses of an industry where the selling of information, or data, is essential to their success, cannot afford to lose the "potential" profits that are being lost due to the "alleged" illegal file sharing. Ok, I think that's a fair statement too from the industry, absolutely.
My return to them is this, without the quick spread of material, data, documents, transactions, that they also use upon the internet, then they would be losing much more than they claim to lose just from the "alleged" illegal file sharing. As I said previously, if they were still using "snail" mail to deliver their goods they sell online, and there were no online sharing of information, then their profit margins would be MASSIVELY less than they are now. I believe that's a completely true statement too.
So if they want to use the complaint that file sharing is killing their profits, and want to remove the internet from the world, I suggest to them do this for one month. Due to their huge investments in other worldwide projects, I doubt they would do this. They would probably go bankrupt, without all the profits they receive online.
Think about it, ringtones which a percentage are given to the record companies, games which can be mailed and processed online, movies which can be legally mailed online, albums that can be paid for to download, or mail to them, there is just so much, that they gain, by using the internet, that it's created an "industry within the industry", in my eyes. They could not possibly ignore this.
They first, before claiming that the file sharing information digital age is harming them, need to consider the gains in which it also benefits them. The war against file sharing, is a war against themselves, a war against the world.
I believe we all know very well, that if the entertainment industry, used certain forms of file sharing to their advantage, in example, the BitTorrent Protocol, they would realize the potential gains they would receive would magnificently increase their profits. Let me give them examples. If they would optimize file sharing, using high speed servers, to transfer movies, or music, for pay per download services, they could reach a HUGE range of peers, paying peers, fast, whom would be customers to them.
There is an amazing market out there for this, and a simple programming of a high speed 1-10GBPS server with massive bandwidth, would be able to allow 10,000-50,000 minimum paying customers to receive a movie, or music album each day, per server, @ for example one dollar per download, that's $50,000 per day, per server. 20 servers, would be a million dollars per day.
Wow. Why they are failing to recognize this, and use it to it's potential, is beyond me. I still cannot imagine, why the industries of entertainment, would claim that they maybe have a billion dollars per year in losses, but do not use this method, that with only 20 servers, would make around $356 million per year.
Add it up. BitTorrent has more than 150 million users worldwide. If more than 150 million users per year, are using BitTorrent, and file sharing, then it's the laws which need to change, not the users.
Maybe the industry is failing to see that, not only along with what their companies can do using the information technology for fast processing, that if they would capitalize upon the potential that remains, they would be gaining at least $356 million per year, per one million users. There are an estimated 150 million users currently, in these types of networks.
That's a one dollar per download, of a movie, and an album. Of course I made an extremely inexpensive number, just as example, of their potential earnings. At five dollars per movie, and five per album, they would make $1.78 billion dollars per year, from twenty servers. Wow. That's simply amazing. We're talking only one million people per day, downloading a movie or album, each day. There is an estimated 150 million users who use the networks, and at that rate, that's less than one percent of them downloading each day.
At that ratio, they would make a fortune, and of course, it would probably be more like fifty times that amount of users per day, I would say fifty million downloads a day, that they could reach. That would multiply their total again, from $1.78 billion per year to $89 billion per year.
According to a 2006 study by the internet consultancy Envisional, file sharing networks account for at least 60 per cent of all internet traffic. So if even a large majority of those users leaped upon the legal service. the entertainment industry would gain such massive increases, that the potential earnings would be astounding. An "industry, within an industry", which is something I say time, and time again.
This is my counter to any claim, that the file sharing networks of the world and the information age as we know it are harming the entertainment industry, and copyright protections. The fact they they continue to not monopolize this industry, which right now sits as an untapped diamond mine, only shows their own ignorance.
The US Supreme Court reached this decision, here is a copy of the text theyonce wrote, about file sharing software.
The United States Supreme Court wrote:
On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court decided to hold companies that make file sharing software responsible for copyright infringements perpetrated by the software’s users. Everyone expected that they would rule as they did when Universal City Studios sued Sony over the Betamax in 1984: there were legitimate uses of the technology, and it shouldn't be held responsible simply because it can be used unlawfully. Instead, however, they ruled that file sharing software actively encourages piracy and the makers should be held accountable.
The Supreme Court's action has done the exact opposite of what MGM and the other content distributors who brought the suit hoped it would. File sharing software will become open-source and public domain. File sharing will continue to grow ever more popular, but now there will be no one to sue. The Supreme Court's ruling hasn't even delayed the inevitable; it has actually brought it closer. They could encrypt and compress the information which is being shared, for a fee, and reduce network traffic. This would also solve, the current disputes, that networks cannot handle the massive peer to peer file sharing that is going on today.
We can kill two birds, with one stone. Everyone enjoys doing that right? (Sorry PETA) Someone is going to completely capitalize on this opportunity, my question to the industry, is will it be them? Or will it become independent record labels, movie production companies, game designers, or software companies, which break the walls down, so to speak? As of now, they are the ones making new ground, and creating a movement of the masses, which is backing file sharing.
It's time to get with the program for the industry of big entertainment, or give up the battle. We can dispute you on any ground, and we are already showing you what you are missing. People require efficiency, reliability, and speed, and that's what the peer to peer networks give them. A friend calls and says "I'll be over in two hours, you wanna check out a classic slasher film tonight?" You would probably be so busy, with your situation, that instead of just going to make a trip to buy the movie, or rent it, you'd just set your PC to grab it, and know it will be done when your friend gets there.
Why is this not being capitalized? Something only they can answer I'm sure. I just hope when it's all said and done, that the audacity of some to realize what's in front of their faces, does not over-rule those who intend to implement it. When something such as the world of file sharing, can only evolve and revolutionize the entire world, if it was used to it's potential.
Just my thoughts on the situation. Yet whomever does actually seize the opportunity before them, will be in complete control once they reap huge profits, and will be able to compete with the big business that runs things now, if in fact, big business fails to use this chance they have now. Only time will tell I presume. Until then, the situation will remain as it is.
A war, against a positive file sharing potential pool of great profits and rewards for mankind, being attacked with audacity, instead of being used to it's advantages. Tisk tisk, to the entertainment industry.
At the beginning of this decade, Microsoft represented a cybercriminal's dream target: universally-used software, brimming with bugs ready to be exploited to hijack users' PCs. But as the software giant has slowly cleaned up its security flaws, hackers are looking toward another vendor whose products are nearly as ubiquitous and whose bounty of vulnerabilities are just being discovered: Adobe.
According to Verisign's bug tracking division iDefense, 45 bugs in Adobe's Reader software were found by either cybersecurity researchers or malicious hackers this year and patched. In 2008, iDefense found 14 Reader bugs, double the number in 2007
Apple and its adherents like to boast that their machines are immune from malicious software. But that relative security comes from low market share, not careful coding. Quicktime's bugs show that Apple's coders have no silver bullet for writing secure browser plugins; 26 bugs were found in Quicktime this year. That's down from the 36 found last year, but still far more than the three found in Windows Media Player.
Microsoft Office
Cybersecurity researchers warn that targeted attacks, aimed at specific companies or individuals rather than an indiscriminate trawl of the Web, are on the rise. While Adobe Reader remains the widest avenue for those attacks, many use Microsoft Office applications--an infected PowerPoint, Excel or Word document attached to an e-mail can seem trustworthy and exploit a bug to plant malicious software on whoever opens the file. IDefense tracked 41 bugs found in Microsoft Office this year, down from 44 last year.
Despite hackers' attention shifting largely to browsers and browser plugins, the operating system is still a major target. That's partly because Windows vulnerabilities can be exploited without the user actually doing anything. The Conficker worm, for instance, spread to 7 million PCs at last count in October without requiring a user to visit a Web site, open an attachment or do anything else other than leave their computer running. Qualys chief technology officer Wolfgang Kandek says that "wormable" quality to Windows bugs means they remain his top priority.
Adobe Flash
Less exploited than Adobe Reader, but still high on cybersecurity researchers' lists of most-often hacked programs this year, was Adobe's Flash. Eleven vulnerabilities were found in the program this year, down from 19 last year. Those vulnerabilities have the potential to be dangerous, given that a flash animation or video playing on a Web site requires no interaction with the user to infect and compromise his or her machine with malicious software.
As Firefox has gained market share--now nearly 25% of users browse the Web with the open-source program--it's also gained attention from hackers, both the friendly and unfriendly kind. Researchers and cybercriminals found 102 bugs in Firefox this year, up from 90 last year. That high number shouldn't be compared directly with the 30 bugs found in 2009 in IE, given that Firefox is an open-source program and Mozilla publicly reveals all its bug finds. But the trend toward more vulnerabilities rather than less doesn't bode well
Internet Explorer
With around 65% market share and a complex code base with no shortage of bugs, IE remains a huge target for hackers. A browser bug can allow so-called "drive-by downloads," putting malicious software on the machine of a user who merely visits a site set to infect them. But Microsoft has conscientiously improved its security procedures to minimize publicly known bugs. Hackers and security researchers found 30 bugs in IE this year, the same number as last year and down dramatically from the 49 found in 2007.
When we asked cybersecurity researchers to name the most hacked software of 2009, many said Adobe has in many ways replaced Microsoft as the top target for hackers and the top concern for cybersecurity. Security firm iDefense tracked 45 bugs in the Adobe Reader program this year, up from 14 in 2008 and seven in 2007. That's because Reader is a universally used program with a wide base of potential victims. But it's also because the program's code-base is complex: Reader can run Javascript to enable animations and dynamic charts in PDFs. That means plenty of bugs, and the access to local memory necessary to exploit them and compromise a victim's PC.
The cybersecurity industry often puts the blame for malicious software infection on users who open suspicious attachments or don't use antivirus software. But there's another factor in practically every cyber attack: The buggy software whose vulnerability allows an attacker to compromise the user's computer. We polled researchers at Qualys, Tipping Point, iDefense and Veracode to create a list of the software they consider the most often hacked this year.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, it's not what you don't know that can come back to bite you; it's what you know for sure that ain't true. When it comes to maintaining your car, misconceptions abound. And even the best intentions can lead you to spend more money than necessary or even compromise your safety. Here are common myths that can do more harm than good:
Myth: Engine oil should be changed every 3,000 miles.
Reality: Despite what oil companies and quick-lube shops often claim, it's usually not necessary. Stick to the service intervals in your car's owner's manual. Under normal driving conditions, most vehicles are designed to go 7,500 miles or more between oil changes. Changing oil more often doesn't hurt the engine, but it can cost you a lot of extra money. Automakers often recommend 3,000-mile intervals for severe driving conditions, such as constant stop-and-go driving, frequent trailer-towing, mountainous terrain, or dusty conditions.
Myth: Inflate tires to the pressure shown on the tire's sidewall.
Reality: The pounds-per-square-inch figure on the side of the tire is the maximum pressure that the tire can safely hold, not the automaker's recommended pressure, which provides the best balance of braking, handling, gas mileage, and ride comfort. That figure is usually found on a doorjamb sticker, in the glove box, or on the fuel-filler door. Perform a monthly pressure check when tires are cold or after the car has been parked for a few hours.
Myth: If the brake fluid is low, topping it off will fix the problem.
Reality: As brake pads wear, the level in the brake-fluid reservoir drops a bit. That helps you monitor brake wear. If the fluid level drops to or below the Low mark on the reservoir, then either your brakes are worn out or fluid is leaking. Either way, get the brake system serviced immediately. You should also get a routine brake inspection when you rotate the tires, about every 6,000 to 7,000 miles.
Myth: If regular-grade fuel is good, premium must be better.
Reality: Most vehicles run just fine on regular-grade (87 octane) fuel. Using premium in these cars won't hurt, but it won't improve performance, either. A higher-octane number simply means that the fuel is less prone to pre-ignition problems, so it's often specified for hotter running, high-compression engines. So if your car is designed for 87-octane fuel, don't waste money on premium.
Myth: Flush the coolant with every oil change.
Reality: Radiator coolant doesn't need to be replaced very often. Most owner's manuals recommend changing the coolant every five years or 60,000 miles. Of course, if the level in the coolant reservoir is chronically low, check for a leak and get service as soon as possible.
Myth: After a jump-start, your car will soon recharge the battery.
Reality: It could take hours of driving to restore a battery's full charge, especially in the winter. That's because power accessories, such as heated seats, draw so much electricity that in some cars the alternator has little left over to recharge a run-down battery. A "load test" at a service station can determine whether the battery can still hold a charge. If so, some hours on a battery charger might be needed to revive the battery to its full potential.
Myth: Let your engine warm up for several minutes before driving.
Reality: That might have been good advice for yesteryear's cars but is less so today. Modern engines warm up more quickly when they're driven. And the sooner they warm up, the sooner they reach maximum efficiency and deliver the best fuel economy and performance. But don't rev the engine high over the first few miles while it's warming up.
Myth: A dealership must perform regular maintenance to keep your car's factory warranty valid.
Reality: As long as the maintenance items specified in the vehicle owner's manual are performed on schedule, the work can be done at any auto-repair shop. If you're knowledgeable, you can even do the work yourself. Just keep accurate records and receipts to back you up in case of a warranty dispute on a future repair.
Myth: Dishwashing and laundry detergents make a good car wash.
Reality: Detergent can strip off a car's wax finish. Instead, use a car-wash liquid, which is formulated to clean without removing wax.
the words of the wise and virtuous."
