Are Cyber Attacks something to worry about?

There have been several high-profile cyber attacks in the last few of weeks. Chinese hackers attacked the New York Times and Wall Street Journal; Facebook and Apple were also the targets of malicious software attacks in the past. The question is whether or not this is something that regular consumers should be worried about.

For the most part, cyber attack coverage is FUD

If you aren’t aware FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. For the most part the media blows most of these cyber attack stories way out of proportion. In other words, the media perpetuates FUD. Nothing sells newspapers more than fear.

If companies do their updates and protect their data with backups, cyber attacks are hardly ever as bad as the media makes them out to be. The Apple and Facebook hacks for instance, were the result of employees of the two companies visiting a site with malicious code on it. The code took advantage of a known flaw in Java, and some employee’s computers were infected. No consumer data was affected in either case, but the media went crazy with headlines like “Apple admits to being hacked!!!!!!!!!!” or “Facebook’s data put in jeopardy by hackers!!!!!!!!!!!” Neither one of those headlines is actually helpful nor informative on what actually happened.

The problem is that, like in the old newspaper days, websites have to get clicks in order to make money. So they come up with sensationalist headlines to get people to view their content. If you read a headline about Apple’s data being hacked, you would probably click on it to find out if your data was compromised. What these headlines fail to do is tell the truth. A proper headline for this hack would be “Apple suffers from malware attack, no data lost”. This of course wouldn’t get the attention that a more sensationalistic headline would.

There are problems, however

Just because the media blows these minor hacks out of proportion, doesn’t mean cyber attacks aren’t something we shouldn’t worry about. The United States does need to be on guard for a terrorist or foreign cyber attack. This will be the next type of warfare, and it could actually result in an actual war. Countries, like China, are always trying to gain intelligence on the US, just as the US is always trying to get information on other countries.

Cyber attacks are more dangerous to the entire country than they ever will be to individuals. China doesn’t care about getting US customer information or Facebook data, they want trade secrets and information on their own citizens.

What the average customer has to worry about is the average everyday hacker who is actually trying to steal their data. Whether the hackers are trying to do this by hacking a company or by installing malicious code on users’ computers, they actually want credit card info and other identifying data. Customers need to be on guard for this sort of thing by making sure their computers are up to date, and by turning off Java and Flash when they aren’t absolutely needed.

Read More


How Christmas is Killing Spring

It is getting to the point where if you like new technology you can take the first half of the year off. All the technology companies want to release their products right before the Christmas holiday, which means that the first half of the year is completely ignored. Christmas is killing Spring.

Christmas Doesn’t Really Matter

Sure, Christmas is the biggest buying season, but that is more because that is when all the new stuff comes out than because people give out gifts. If everything was released in March, people would buy just as much of it at XMAS time. They would also buy it in March, so they could get it when it was still cool.

Tech companies mistrust consumer’s ability to buy things any time of the year, but I assure you it is there. Are you trying to tell me that if Apple released the iPhone 5S in March that they would sell less of them than if they released it in October? Come on, get real. People would buy the iPhone even if all you could do with it is look at a steaming pile of dog crap. It is just that simple.

Spring is an Opportunity for Someone

Some energetic company is going to swoop in and realize that there is not a soul in sight when it comes to spring announcements. They will release something then and have the news cycle all to themselves. This is a huge opportunity, because technology is really all about mind share. If they can grab the headlines for the first six months of the year, they win. And they make the rest of the tech industry look like a bunch of Santa Claus loving fools.

Think about it, if Google released their flagship Nexus device in the spring, instead of the fall, they wouldn’t have to compete for news headlines with Apple’s iPhone and iPad announcements. Sure there is room for both, but tech blogs are like sponges. If there is a whole bunch of stuff to soak up, it soaks up a little of everything. But if there is only one thing to soak up, it fills itself up with that one thing. Bad analogy, but hey.


The reason why this is an issue is that I’m bored. We’ve went through 5 months of nothing. CES was boring, and there hasn’t been any other major announcement. Facebook has tried, but Facebook sucks. Now we get into the summer months and there will be a total overload of news and devices as companies ramp up for the holidays. Spread this crap out, it will be better for everyone.

Read More


The Future of Music

Back in the early part of this century, iTunes had just come out of Apple’s ovens. It wasn’t very good, and had a crappy selection of music. Now, almost 15 years later, iTunes is the dominant force not only in digital music, but music as a whole. The future, however, does not include sitting down at your computer to download the latest Adele album. No, the future for most people will include paying a subscription for access to millions of tracks.

The Future is here.

Streaming subscription services have been around for almost a decade. The first was Rhapsody, which was a relaunched product, and Napster soon followed in a relaunch of its own. Streaming music services didn’t really become popular until Spotify launched in Europe in 2010. By the time that Spotify launched in the US, people were clamoring madly for the service and had reached out to alternatives like Rdio.

What Spotify did that made people really warm to the streaming model was give away the service for free by showing ads. This allowed them to bring in revenue without burdening the customer with a monthly bill. It also got them used to the idea of having access to 15 million songs without owning them.

Now that everyone is used to the idea of a streaming service they are more willing to pay for something they don’t own than ever before. People love having access to all the music they could ever listen to. They also like being able to listen to that music on their smartphones, tablets and computers, which requires them to pay for them.

Pandora’s Model

Then there is the other way of streaming music. Instead of picking the song you listen to, you get access to a radio-style station that plays music based on your preferences. This is great for music discovery and requires the user to do less curation than they do with Spotify and Rdio. Pandora’s model is also great because it doesn’t cost nearly as much as a subscription to Spotify, and you can get it for free no matter what device you use it on. Of course there are ads, but that is a small price to pay.

No matter which model you use, or if you are still the downloading and owning type, the future of music is online. As the cloud becomes more and more entrenched into our daily lives, our personal local storage will decrease in size. This means that we’ll have less space for our gigabytes of music.

The Problem

The problem with streaming services is that it requires constant access to the Internet. Since most people listen to music on their phones or mp3 players, bandwidth and connection issues are a constant worry. If you have a mobile plan that limits the amount of data you get each month, streaming music can quickly eat through your monthly allowance.

Until ubiquitous Internet access without data limits is available to the majority of the market, streaming music services will continue to just be the future, instead of the present that everyone should already have.

Read More

distracted driving

Distracted Driving is too Dumb to Fix

A Little Introduction

If you are a regular viewer of The 3 Cast, then you are most likely aware that on March 27th, I was in a motorcycle accident involving a vehicle. My version on the scene was that a guy pulled out in front of me (which he very much did). The version according to the guy that pulled out in front of me is that someone (other than a cop) waved him to move forward, causing him to pull out in front of me. There was no construction site, no semi in the middle of the road, just as clear as day. I’ll never know what really happened, but something inside me causes me to feel that he was most likely driving distracted. Either way he’s guilty, and I’m happy, despite not being able to walk. The point is, I was most likely a victim of distracted driving, and even if for some reason I wasn’t, many innocent people are each and every day.

What is Distracted Driving?

Now that distracted driving has finally become a legal issue, there are many questions that are brought up as to what exactly distracted driving is. In the 21st century, most people would think of distracted driving as texting while driving, but we all know it’s a much larger problem than that. Even though most of the distracted driving you will be able to point out is distracted driving, you do get the oddities or not so much oddities where someone might be constantly looking at their passenger instead of the road, or trying to put a case on their phone, or even searching for sunglasses (which should be put on before you even start driving).

What Has Happened?

Over the years (some) people have developed a bigger and bigger attraction to their smartphones. With the invention of push notifications, people are getting so much information delivered to them instantly, not just text messages and phone calls. For some reason, people feel that they can safely operate a several thousand pound explosive weapon, without even looking at what they are aiming at. Some people even believe that they are better drivers when they are texting because it actually boosts their response time and makes them better drivers. Yes, I’ve actually had someone make that excuse to me.

Why Can’t it Be Fixed?

I don’t know about where you live, but in the lovely state of Illinois, texting while driving is 100% against the law. Still, I observe cars moving along at intersections, and I’d say 3 out of every 5 cars minimum has someone texting while driving, and paying no attention to the road at all. The end result? Texter 1 hits a pothole, not holding the steering wheel properly texter 1 sideswipes texter 2. You get the idea of what would eventually happen.

Guess what, when there is a motor vehicle accident, even one causing bodily harm, in most states the officer would not be allowed to check the phones of either parties to see if they had sent a text, or opened any new messages, this would constitute as wiretapping. So, in theory, a driver that was texting while driving and caused the bodily harm, would receive a much lesser charge, because there is no proof that they were texting. There are instances where the phone may have been thrown out of the car and the screen is visible, but that’s very rare.

Until the punishment for texting while driving goes up significantly, and there are actually police out there to make sure it doesn’t happen, people are going to continue to do it. Hands-free devices are a good solution (not perfect solution), but no solution is going to keep people from doing the dangerous act. If someone causes bodily injury because they were texting while driving, the charges should be equivalent to manslaughter. Checking your phone and taking your eyes off the road for any length of time while operating an explosive wrecking machine is not an accident, it’s a dumb choice, just like slaying someone with a knife (aka manslaughter) would be a dumb choice.

Do you text and drive? Do you distract yourself while driving? Consider the true impact that your decisions could have on someone. It’s equivalent to bullying, which I’m sure people who text while driving think is wrong, and if you injure someone while doing it, it’s equivalent to manslaughter. Think about that.

The Extent of My Injuries

I don’t have all the pictures, but I do have two very significant ones to show you. As you can see, the front end of my scooter is completely gone. My left femur broke in half and had to be fixed with a titanium rod through the bone, and my pelvis also separated, requiring 6 screws and a bolt through my side

How Much Does Distracted Driving Cost?

Well let’s put it this way, I had two surgeries and I was in the hospital for a week. The bill was close to $200,000. That doesn’t count the daily home visits for weeks, therapy, return orthopedic visits, medical equipment, and lost work time. So, unless you have a good insurance policy or a good heaping chunk of change to give away, don’t drive distracted.

image credit

Read More

shuffle broken

Why is Shuffle Broken?

I listen to a ton of music. I listen while I’m working, when I’m in the car, while I walk, and a lot of times when I’m at home resting. I really love to just sit and listen to my favorite bands. I’m sure you’re at least partly the same. I also love to sit down and press the shuffle button on Spotify and let it just randomly play music from my collection. Of course, shuffle is broken, so it isn’t really as random as it should be. Why is shuffle broken?

The Problem

If you don’t listen to a ton of music, you may be wondering what I’m going on about. Basically I have a collection of music that contains thousands of tracks. I should be able to listen for days without hearing the same track twice. However, since shuffle sucks, I can hear the same track played at least twice during an eight hour listening session.

How hard can it be to make sure a track that has already been played isn’t played again until the next listening session? It can’t be that hard to mark a song as played, right?

The other problem is that Shuffle isn’t truly random. I have tons of different artists, ranging from Breaking Benjamin and Volbeat to Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald, I shouldn’t ever hear a song by the same artist back to back. Again this isn’t a random problem, it is just a problem the program has of remembering what’s been played recently.

Shuffle is broken everywhere

The problem is that shuffle doesn’t really work on any music application. Even iTunes, which has the best playlist controls, plays the same track within the same listening session. So the question is, why is this a universal problem? Why is shuffle broken everywhere?

shuffle brokenThe answer isn’t a satisfying one. Shuffle is broken because no one knows how to do it right, apparently. Or maybe it can’t be done. It wouldn’t seem like it would be a hard problem to solve. Simply keep a database of what has been played and erase it after ever session. The app would be smart enough to look at the database and not play a song that has already been played.

Maybe it isn’t that simple, I’m no app developer, but it seems like something that could easily be solved.


I want to be able to sit down and just shuffle through my music without having to listen to songs that have already been played. It doesn’t seem like to much to ask. I know that nothing is truly random, but shuffle isn’t even close. Please, someone fix this.

Read More


What Will Web 3.0 Look Like?

If you think about it, web 2.0 was first a thing about a decade ago. It seems an awful long time for the web to have stayed on the same version. Are we on 3.0 yet? If not, what will web 3.0 look like?

A Web of Apps

In web 3.0, web apps will reign supreme. More and more sites you use will cease to be websites and become full fledge applications that live on the web. It is already happening with some sites like news aggregator In a world where the web is apps, each app will have much more functionality than a traditional website. Things like the ability to interact with your computer in new ways, better graphics and speeds, higher resolutions and more.

You will use the apps on the web just like you use apps on your computer or smartphone. You will be able to store the icons in a folder or on your desktop or home screen, and access them individually instead of through a browser.

Apps should also have the added benefit of being more secure. Since Apple, Google and Microsoft are requiring and building in sandboxing into browsers and web apps, things like viruses and malware should, in theory, be less likely to take over your system.

Will Websites be Extinct?

Websites won’t go away entirely. There will always be things that simply work better as websites instead of apps. Things like blogs and news sites are likely to stay websites, though you will begin to see some app functionality filter into those sites as well. Photo sites like Flickr will become apps instead of websites. They will have functionality beyond what a website can do, and will feel like a native experience.

The reason why all this will be possible is because of HTML 5, which as the newest web standard, offers web developers more access to system resources, as well as new and exciting ways of coding functionality into sites.

When will it happen?

This is not likely to happen over night, but you are already beginning to see it. Almost all the major browsers have “app stores” which offer users access to web applications. When Web 3.0 takes over you will not even have to install the app, you will just visit it via the URL where the website used to be. At first you might have the choice of the website or the app, but eventually it will just be the default.


The Internet is nowhere near done evolving. While it may seem like websites have been the same for a long time, they are about to change in a dramatic fashion. Thanks to HTML 5, web developers will have the ability to showcase their skills on the web like other developers can do with native code. Some day, HTML apps will take the place of regular apps entirely, though that is many years away.

Image Source

Read More


Do you really want a bigger iPhone?

Yesterday I was reading a Gizmodo post “Battery Life Is the Only Spec That Matters” which had some valid points and others that were assumptions. However there was one good point, we are possibly to blame for the thinner iPhone 5. The reason I bring it up is because it is pretty much a common idea now that most people would have rather had a thicker iPhone 5. But although we say that and think why did Apple make it “Lighter” and “Thinner”? Perhaps we are the ones to blame. So ask yourself “Do you really want a bigger iPhone?”

Confused now well just bear with me and it will all make sense. So the new argument is that the size and heft of the iPhone 4/4s was great. So with the new machining process and materials used for the iPhone 5 having it at the same size and weight would have resulted in more battery. More battery would have resulted in phenomenal battery life and we would have all been over the moon. But would we? have been over the moon that is. It is easy to say it in hindsight but with competitors hot on the heels of the iPhone it’s hard to tell. There are blog posts and articles abound about how Apple is no longer innovating. I am one of the people who would have loved a fatter iPhone 5 with crazy good battery life. However don’t forget that battery life is different for each and every person. I get over 24 hours on each charge of my iPhone 5 so I only charge it once a day. However every user is different in the apps they use, web browsing habits, social media use and those are just a few of the things that make the battery life different in each case.

Now let’s just say Apple did make the iPhone 5 the same size and weight of the iPhone 4/4s and used the extra space to pack in extra battery. Some people, like me would have excellent battery life but still some would still have mediocre battery life. It’s those people who would then complain that even though the design is new the iPhone 5 was still the same size as the iPhone 4/4s and Apple wasn’t innovating. They would point at the competitors and all their “innovations” but most of all Apple would have lost more mind-share of consumers. The Gizmodo post highlights an excellent point, when the iPad 3 debuted with Retina Display it was slightly thicker and heavier than the iPad 2. Did people love the fact that the increased size gave them Retina Display with the same or better battery life? no complaints were all over the place about the increased size and that it was now heavier. So when consumers, blogs, media outlets react like that can we really blame Apple for making devices thinner and lighter instead of giving us more battery?

Read More

working from home

Yahoo Has BANNED Working From Home – Will It Work?

It seems that Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer really wants to make some drastic changes in the company to turn it around, because if you haven’t heard already, she has banned employees from working from home, a practice that is often praised and well accepted at other large corporations. Whether you agree with this or not, the real question is whether or not it will work. Let’s look at some basic pros and cons of working from home.


  • Relaxed environment
  • Snack whenever you want
  • Work in your PJs, or no clothes at all if you want
  • Avoid traffic completely


  • Not in the office
  • Will require more self motivation
  • Conversing with coworkers will require video conference or phone call

Now, those are just some very basic pros and cons that came off the top of my head. I’m sure that you could come up with a few more as well. However, those are the main ones.

A Personal Experience

61790_2675694829185_908938354_nBeing mostly a freelancer/entrepreneur at the moment, I would be considered someone who works from home all the time. A few months ago, I got started on Elance, and I was doing tons of work to the point where I was essentially working a part-time 20 hour per week job. For about a week and a half this worked out fine, just sitting in my house doing the work that needed to be done to bring in the money. However, eventually the initial excitement and drive started to fade away, and I realized that I was actually working. I was working alone, by myself, in a lonely environment. Soon, I just wasn’t working at the pace that I was originally working, and I had a couple of situations where I came very close to not meeting a deadline, simply because I wasn’t motivated to work as well.

One night, I got the idea of going to a coffee shop down the street to work. I grabbed my $4 coffee and went to work. I sat there until the coffee shop was closed for the night, and I was more productive than even in the beginning. Just being in a busy environment with other people gave me a similar feeling to being in an office, and I was motivated again.

However, soon it didn’t last for long. Yes, I still do my big freelance work in a public place where I can at least be out of the house, but I still have to keep myself self motivated, and I have no one else to collaborate with. Because of this, I do believe there are strong advantages to not working from home.

This Ban Already Works

If you know anything about Google, you probably know that they have a globally recognized headquarters called the GooglePlex. The GooglePlex essentially creates an environment in which you don’t feel the need to work from home. There are 3 meals a day with many choices, many different sports including beach volleyball courts, massage lounges, bean bag chairs, coffee shops, napping areas, you name it. Oh, and forget about having to worry about doing your laundry when you get home, because at the GooglePlex, it’s done for you. Other Google offices operate off of this same model, just to different scales. I’m not sure if Google has a work from home policy in place or not, but if I was a Google employee, I wouldn’t want to work from home.

Companies simply need to make the office a fun place where people actually want to come, because working at the office is the best option if you can. There are situations such as extremely heavy snow and ice in which working from home would be needed, but just working from home once a week because you want to should not need to be an option if the company makes the office fun. The companies that are succeeding have taken cubicles out of the equation and made fun open office layouts where you can see from corner to corner.

So will this ban help Yahoo in particular? It should help increase productivity, that’s for sure.

Image Source 

Read More


Is the iWatch the Future or just a Fad?

Apple rumors are always around us. Even when there is a ton happening elsewhere in the technology industry (like Mobile World Congress), Apple rumors are there to keep the tech press occupied. For a while now we’ve been hearing rumblings of an Apple smartwatch, which we’ve started calling the iWatch. Is a watch something that we really want, or is it just the next Apple flop?

Who would wear an iWatch?

Render by Brett Jordan

I don’t know about you but I stopped wearing a watch years ago. I don’t even know if I could go back to wearing a watch again, it would just seem to weird. Though I suppose I would get used to it. My question when people start freaking out about how awesome an iWatch would be is to ask what is it for?

The main rumor regarding the iWatch is that it will be able to receive notifications from your iDevices. If this is the main purpose of the iWatch, frankly I can’t see the point in it. How freakin hard is it to pull out your phone when it vibrates? I don’t think it’s that hard. So really who the iWatch is for lazy people.

I can understand not wanting to be distracted by your phone. That is a great goal. I just don’t think an iWatch solves that problem. You will still be looking at your wrist every time a Twitter mention comes in or you get an SMS message. Instead of looking at a screen where you can actually take care of the business at hand, you will be looking  at a screen that will tell you that you need to take your phone out. It seems that it is actually adding a step to the process. If you had just taken out the phone in the first place, you’d be on your way by now.

Why Apple Probably Won’t do an iWatch

I think it is very unlikely that we actually see an iWatch from Apple this year or ever. It just seems too much like an accessory instead of a flagship product. It seems like something that is sold with an iPhone instead of a stand alone product. Apple doesn’t make their money on accesories, no matter how cool. They make it on the big things, the iPads and iPhones. The iWatch seems too much like a niche accessory than a product that Apple would consider adding to their lineup.

The only way I could see an iWatch coming to market is if Apple came up with something awesome for it to do. I don’t know what that would be, maybe complete Siri integration or something. It’d have to be something that would make consumers think “WOW, I really want that iWatch”.

What do you think about the iWatch idea? Will you buy one? Leave your thoughts in the comments below!



Image Source

Read More


War on Piracy: Soon to Be the Most Expensive War

According to an article from the New Zealand Herald, The Recording Industry Assocation of New Zealand has spent $250,000 trying to chase down music pirates, but has only been able to collect $616.57 in damages, and that was only from one person, might I add. If you do the math however, that’s a profit of -$249,383.43.The article goes on to state that there is a 3 strike policy for copyright notices, and after a third strike the association can order an offender to pay up to $15,000, which has yet to actually happen.

Why has the Assocation spent so much money on chasing down pirates which usually won’t be able to pay the outrageous fees anyhow? According to the Rianz, they must pay $25 for each copyright notice they have an ISP send out. Rianz lastly goes on to say that they have tried to convince the government to lower the fee down to $2 a piece and would be sending around 5000 notices a month if they fee was lowered.

Now here’s the deal. Why would any company or organization continue to spend that kind of money when they aren’t getting results. Do the math and so far the Recording Industry Assocation of New Zealand has only made 0.24% of their investment back, and you can bet that they are going to continue pursuing these copyright claims as all the recording industries have been lately.

The reason the recording industry can claim that they are loosing money is because they really are. No one in their right mind would continue to spend money when the return on investment has been so low. Yes, piracy is a problem and I 100% agree with and understand that. However, the approach to it might not be that great. How can it be properly approached in order to stop it? If I knew the answer to that, I’d be a billionaire right now.

What has Caused Piracy?

It’s simple really, people no longer believe in paying for digital content. Who is to blame for this? I think a lot of it probably has to do with Google. They have created a business model where you provide the content and service for free, and then support it and make a profit through ads. Here’s where the problem comes in. Some people get so greedy that they don’t even want to see those ads, even though they are getting a service (we’ll use Gmail as an example) for free that they could easily be paying $5 – $10 a month for. If you block ads (and we’re talking about sidebar ads, not popups) then you are in essence stealing, because every ad impression on a site drives up cpm, and if that website is using an ad publisher that operates off of cost-per-click system (such as AdSense) then that means more revenue for the website once someone clicks on it just because you saw that ad.

Another thing that could potentially have caused piracy is the big boom in free software. Originally when large companies started to adopt the free software model it was to offer you a lighter version of a full program for free, and if you liked it you could buy the full suite if you needed all of that. This model also came to smartphones, and eventually we began seeing single developers developing applications for free just for the heck of it. People are no longer used to paying for what something is worth. I can name about 5 applications on my phone that I would be willing to pay $5 for and have since donated to those developers, because it does cost money and time to develop an application.

You Can’t Ignore History

No matter which way you look at it and however many times you try to justify it, piracy is steeling. Whether it’s legal or ethical is for you to decide, but either way it’s a form of steeling. Steeling has been around even since the common dollar, because in all reality no matter how much money a person might have, they still don’t like spending money on someone until they truly see a reason for spending that much money on someone. A millionaire might spend $250,000 on a new Ferarri simply to impress his friends that all drive $100,000 Mercedes. However, that same millionaire might not see any value in paying to have their pool professionally treated when they can just as well buy a $50 kit from the store and do it themselves in minutes. Ever hear the assumption that if someone says they don’t have money, they might just mean they don’t see the value in spending their money on whatever it is that someone is recommending to them or trying to offer them? People aren’t going to spend money on something if they don’t see it worth the money or don’t truly want it.

And Lastly… Anti-Piracy Methods That Work

There have already been some great anti-piracy measures that have truly worked. One of them is Adobe Creative Cloud. As we all know, Adobe software is extremely expensive. The full Adobe software suite can run you over $1000. Adobe knows very well that a lot of individuals can’t afford that, so they introduced Adobe Creative Cloud, which is essentially a software leasing program. For $20 a month you get access to a single app as well as online storage. When Adobe updates their app to a new version, you will get to use that new version at no additional charge. For $50 a month you can get access to the entire Adobe Creative Suite, as well as online storage. That’s pretty good, because even though with the full suite option of $50 per month you’ll be spending a total of $600 over the course of a year, the full software suite costs nearly twice that, and you have to pay another couple hundred when a new version come out.

Another anti-piracy method that I believe has worked very well is Spotify. Spotify allows you to search for any song on your computer and listen to it for free. For free users there is a limit and ads are played occasionally, but these ads help pay for the rights to play the songs. For $9 a month you can get unlimited listening on your computer and phone. That’s a pretty good deal, and the free option is especially great for those who don’t want to pay anything for their music. Sure, you don’t get to own a copy of the song, but you get all the music you want for free, so who’s complaining?

Will piracy ever end? Probably not. However, these efforts made by Adobe and Spotify, and many others that weren’t mentioned should help to keep it down to a minimum. People are never going to stop shoplifting, which means people are never going to stop pirating. We live in a materialistic society driven by the need, want, and desire for material things that should make us happy as well as make us look good to the other people around us. However, we all die eventually. Most of us will waste away 30 to 40 to even 50 years in some cases earning money to buy the house we want and the car we want, and once we die what we have left will be given to our loved ones or charities, to continue the endless cycle of earning to achieve our wants and desires.

image source

Read More