Kim Dotcom’s new online cloud storage serive “MEGA” is putting the direct competition to the major companies, Including Google (Drive), Microsoft (SkyDrive), DropBox, FileSonic, Box etc. Just after the launch last day, MEGA is getting a great bunch of followers.
Website faced serious downtime and servers couldn’t keep up with the demands and traffic consumptions. Webiste was revealed at an insane press release, and it is now open for public.
When the major online cloud storage service providers charge a decent amount of money, Mega fits into the regular budget of average users.
Those looking for more than 50GB of free storage will be able to select from three paid tiers — €9.99 ($13.29), €19.99 ($26.59), and €29.99 ($39.90) per month for the respective 500GB storage/1 terabyte bandwidth, 2TB/4TB, and 4TB/8TB.
On the other hand, 50GB is not too bad a deal, considering players like Dropbox, Google Drive and SkyDrive do not offer anything more than 5GB for storage. The only other competing service will be MediaFire, which offers the same 50GB limit upload space for free.
We won’t go into too much detail about this, but Mega’s prices destroy the competition. Google Drive’s 2 TB plan goes for $99.99, 5 times the price Dotcom is offering. In comparison, Dropbox’ price for the 500 GB plan costs $49.99 a month. Again, 5 times more expensive than Mega. And by the way, there are no file size limitations.
MediaFire is available for desktop, iOS and has recently launched an Android version of the app. As is the norm with most cloud storage apps available in the market, MediaFire for Android will give users a built-in file browser and the facility to view images and videos in the gallery mode. The app will also allow online collaboration with other users to edit and share documents, presentations and spreadsheets. Sharing files over Facebook, Twitter and email is also an important function MediaFire can offer.
It may sound like a regular work at home and earn thousands of dollars at home, but to be surprising it is a fair deal. Andrew Sullivan earned $333,000 within 24 hours after asking its followers and regular readers to pay for the subscriptions.
The Daily Dish, is brewed by Andrew since the last decade or so and it is now turned to be a potent mixture of serious moral analysis, must-read aggregation and plate-cleansing videos (the “mental health break”).
Currently Adnrew’s blog is sponsored by “The daily Beast” but he has now decided to work independently, cutting advertisements and adding the subscription based options (“fremium-based-meter).
You’ll be able to read any story on the site for free if you get there via a link or social media. In fact, you’ll still be able to read most of the content on the Dish even if you go straight there.
Sullivan is merely blocking you from clicking “Read More” halfway down his longer stories. Well, actually, you’ll get a certain number of “Read More”s per month for free anyway.
Despite the lack of any real restriction in that setup, 12,000 readers have already ponied up $19.99 or more for a year of content. Some 2,000 chose to kick in an extra $5, though they didn’t need to, and nearly a thousand have contributed $50.
“On average, readers paid $8 more than we asked them to,” writes a stunned Sullivan.
Sullivan and his team expects to achieve their funding goal of $900,000 fir the first year. The new blogger has lots of new aspects to be learned from this scenario. You should not depend on the advertisement on the website and reach out the new possibilities to keep you going on the mission.
Google is well known for its great innovative tools which helps millions of people every month to actually reap something beneficial or useful for them. They recently released another useful tool on the internet which can basically be helpful for the people who might seek knowledge on internet.
The open source course builder project lets anyone make their own learning resources, complete with scheduled activities and lessons. It is another very interesting and effective tools which gets “power searching with Google” to the next level.
The power-searching course “was a strong success and also generated some technology that we thought would be useful to share with the world,” says Norvig.
There are many websites, such as Udemy, that have long offered services for individual users to create (and get paid) for their own classes. Universities, however, are looking for an in-house solution, and a common code-base to evolve custom courses could be helpful.
Google Wrote on their research blog:
The Course Builder open source project is an experimental early step for us in the world of online education. It is a snapshot of an approach we found useful and an indication of our future direction.
Stanford University, Indiana University, UC San Diego, saylor.org, LearningByGivingFoundation.org, Swiss Federal Institure of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), and a group of universities in spain led by Universia, CRUE and Banco Santander-Universidades are considering how this experimental technology might work for some of their online courses.
There will be an option which will help educators to connect to the Google team working on the code directly via Google Hangouts.
Is A link Of a link Of A Torrent Of A Torrent Of Copyrighted Material Copyrighted? To be honest, every person involved in p2p transmission and internet downloads ask this question to themselves a thousand of times. Even they sometimes discuss about it with others.
Many of us know what the answer is, and successfully ignores the importance of it, even if you know what it means.
“Yes” anything linked to or anywhere, which points to the copyrighted material in any manner is illegal, said DigitFreak CEO and co-Founder Timamir.
Tim suggested that we should not forget the system we are part of, and the way it evolves around us.
Even further when we talked to other Crew Member Maverick, he said:
“There is nothing to confirm here, If you link to any copyrighted material anywhere (doesn’t matter if it should constitute online or offline environment) in any form, it is considered as illegal, atleast that’s what the law says. One should be aware that you can’t get things right if you are doing it wrong already. but i am not against any system (specially pointing to the p2p and bittorrent stream, laughing)and i don’t quite agree with the current law and the way it governs the online community.”
When further queried we found the similar reactions from all of our crew members and few of them (won’t be named) accepted that they use bittorrent system to transfer files.
Pirate Bay (.se) user allisfine just recently uploaded a torrent to the site that is a collection of all the magnet identifiers for the entire site (actually, only about a quarter of the site, but all the publicly visible ones). That is to say, it is a list of the unique identifiers, cryptographic hashes, of every .torrent file on the site.
In a way, this torrent file, or indeed its magnet identifier (938802790a385c49307f34cca4c30f80b03df59c), contains millions or billions of dollars worth of pirated content. Or does it?
It’s more a philosophical question than a technical one, which is why folks like the MPAA and RIAA will always be able to stay on one side of it. Yes, linking to copyrighted content is a crime. And linking to a link is a crime (as we’ve seen in Twitter DMCA takedowns). That’s a link to a link to a file that lets you download the file. What about a link to a link to a link? You can’t fool me, young man, it’s copyright violations all the way down.
That’s absurd, of course, yet like many absurd things, it makes a certain amount of sense. It doesn’t matter how many steps you take, if your destination is copyrighted, then you’re in trouble. But there’s just as much absurd ammo on the other side as well.
Consider the magnet identifier for this meta-torrent (or the DeCSS code, or a secure piece of electronics’ “master key,” or the like). Encode it as a series of integers. Is that series of integers a copyright violation?
What about ?(pie), an irrational number calculable by anybody that contains that series of integers if you look long enough? What about an image file that has three pixels of black, then five pixels of white, then two pixels of red, and so on? Is that pattern a violation? What if I think it’s beautiful and I put it on the wall, and have no idea it’s actually a visual representation of a hash of a hash of a torrent containing a compressed file containing the hashes of files that act as pointers to copyrighted information?
Naturally, there must be cap put on such hijinx. It will likely be clear when someone intended information to be a distributive mechanism for copyrighted or sensitive content. The nature of the container is to some extent irrelevant. But some of these issues need to be hashed out, so to speak, so that it’s not just a logical but a legal reality that no one can be charged with a billion in statutory damages for writing a short series of numbers on a napkin. It sounds silly until it’s being decided by the Supreme Court.
The nature and legal status of data in its many strange forms is a process we likely will never be done with. But small quandaries like this are worth savoring, before their solutions are etched in stone and gradually become the status quo. People talk about the web as if its “Wild West” days are behind it. These people lack imagination.
