Author Archives: Nyenius

Why you should never trust Facebook

Source: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4708&tag=nl.e064

Date: November 12th, 2010
Author: Chad Perrin
Category: Internet, News, Privacy, Security, Social Networking
Tags: Facebook, Privacy, Privacy Setting, Security, Chad Perrin

Facebook has a dismal reputation when it comes to privacy issues. This is evidently a problem that starts at the top, with Facebook co-founder, President, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Nick Bilton summed it up neatly in a Tweet:

Off record chat w/ Facebook employee. Me: How does Zuck feel about privacy? Response: [laughter] He doesn’t believe in it.

This does not appear to be a new development, either. In 2003, when Facebook was called “The Facebook” and Zuckerberg operated it from his Harvard dorm room, he said some regrettable things in an IM conversation about users of the fledgling social networking site, according to a SocialMediaNews article:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard.

Just ask. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

(Friend): What? How’d you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it. I don’t know why.

They “trust me”

Dumb f**ks.

This has manifested in a number of ways that show significant negligence, sometimes to the point of appearing to be hostility, toward issues of Facebook users’ privacy. Lifehacker reported that “Facebook ‘Delete’ Can Take 16 Embarrassing Months,” for instance.

It gets bigger than that. The Wall Street Journal reports, in its article, Facebook in Privacy Breach, that many of the most popular Facebook apps have been giving users’ identifying information — and that of their Facebook friends — to advertising and Internet data mining companies:

The issue affects tens of millions of Facebook app users, including people who set their profiles to Facebook’s strictest privacy settings. The practice breaks Facebook’s rules, and renews questions about its ability to keep identifiable information about its users’ activities secure.

It has gotten so bad that, as ClickZ puts it, “Congressmen Question Facebook About Alleged Privacy Breach.”

The way Facebook is insinuating itself into everything else on the Web, from other sites’ login mechanisms to the now-ubiquitous “Like button”, the problem seems destined to grow worse. Arnab Nandi explains that “Deceiving Users with the Facebook Like Button” is easy:

Users can be tricked into “Like”ing pages they’re not at.

He goes on to elaborate on some of the issues with Facebook and its Like buttons in “Reputation, Misrepresentation, Trail Paranoia and other side effects of Liking the World.” He offers some “solutions” to problems he raises. He puts “solutions” in scare quotes to address the fact that some people do not think there is a problem in need of solving; this article does so because his “solutions” do not really address the root of the problem, and are prone to being undermined — and thus do not solve the real problem at all.

Even supposedly improved privacy settings at Facebook are a mixed bag at best. In the EFF’s report of December 2009, “Facebook’s New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” we learned:

Facebook is finally rolling out a new set of revamped privacy settings for its 350 million users. …Unfortunately, several of the claimed privacy “improvements” have created new and serious privacy problems for users of the popular social network service.

The total result of the change was to clarify privacy settings for users so it is more obvious what they are allowing and disallowing, but otherwise to actually reduce the effective privacy that can be achieved. The EFF article takes issue with Facebook’s recommendations for privacy settings as well, correctly pointing out that those recommendations are actually designed to convince people to share more about themselves publicly rather than less. The EFF offers some alternative recommendations that do seem better designed for purposes of protecting user privacy.

Why don’t Zuckerberg and Facebook respect privacy?

All indications are that Zuckerberg is actually on the right side of a lot of issues important to the EFF and the kind of people who like the EFF. He seems to really believe in the importance of openness — open source software, openness about policies, and so on.

At the same time, however, the evidence clearly points to Zuckerberg having a distinct lack of respect for privacy. It seems likely, if one speculates freely, that Zuckerberg simply does not believe in privacy — believes it effectively does not exist, and in some respects may even conflict with an ethical approach to the issues important to him. It would seem, given his reputed interest in openness, that he extends the healthy concern for openness represented by organizations like the EFF to unreasonable extremes, including a complete disregard for anyone’s desires to keep some information private. He may be merely misguided, rather than malicious.

That is cold comfort for those of us who care about our privacy, however. Someone with such a dismissive attitude toward privacy as to believe it simply does not exist as a meaningful, valid concept is likely to do things that violate privacy expectations in an underhanded manner. So, too, is a company that person controls. This is, at it turns out, exactly what happens with Facebook; marketing rhetoric suggests that the social networking corporation respects privacy while its policies in practice directly contradict that image.

With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that Facebook has developed a reputation for resetting privacy settings to more-open configurations, on the sly. A number of times, people have discovered that after they have tightened up their privacy settings, Facebook reset them to a less protective configuration. It has gotten bad enough that there is now a Facebook group called “Facebook reset my privacy settings.”

Are Zuckerberg and Facebook misguided? Perhaps.

Is Facebook’s handling of privacy issues underhanded, deceptive, and generally bad? Certainly.

If Facebook was simply more forthcoming about its effective attitude toward privacy — that it is an illusion, or at least an unimportant concern that the company will do its best to circumvent — things would not be so bad. If there were no privacy settings at all, and Facebook very clearly and obviously conveyed to its users that it would share their information with any and all, the situation would not appear so dire.

It is not so much the fact that Facebook does not provide effective privacy to its users that gives it the image of a seedy, deceitful back-alley dealer in private information, worthy of the hate it attracts. It is the fact that Facebook implies concern for the privacy and security of its users in policies, in the presentation of configuration options and marketing rhetoric, then undermines those expectations with a will. Even if privacy itself is not “real”, the violated trust placed in Facebook is very real.

What should I do about it?

There are a number of software tools one can use to monitor and manage privacy settings at Facebook. That such tools are needed — that they exist at all — is indicative of the breadth and depth of the problem.

The EFF’s recommendations for privacy settings may help, in conjunction with some of those third-party tools. The end result is still of running the risk of information you wish to keep private being passed on to parties you would not want to see it, however. That Facebook allows people (your Facebook “friends”) who can see your private information to automatically share that information with others is a significant problem with the idea that the right privacy settings on Facebook can ever solve its privacy problems for you. There is no reasonable option for changing your mind in the Facebook world, either; “deleting” something from Facebook, in reality, often results in nothing more than hiding from you the fact that it is still on Facebook and publicly accessible.

There are, in essence, only two ways to ensure any real privacy on Facebook:

Never use Facebook. Never create an account in the first place. If you must use a social networking Web application similar to Facebook, use a competitor — maybe even use a new service called Diaspora that is currently in development, whenever it becomes fully usable. Unfortunately, for those of us who have already created Facebook accounts, the best we can do in this regard is delete the account, which Facebook tries to discourage, and hope that the deletion actually works. It may be a vain hope.
Never share anything with Facebook that divulges any information at all that you would prefer to keep private. This includes email addresses as part of your supposedly private account data that you would not want shared with spammers, or authentication information (usernames and passwords) you use anywhere else. There are cases where Facebook provides a significant benefit to companies and other organizations that need to be able to reach out to members and customers in social networks, but using an email address created solely for a Facebook account is a reasonable step. Similarly obscuring any actually private, or otherwise sensitive, data is only good sense when dealing with something like Facebook.

This is good advice not only for Facebook, but for any Website that is in a position to abuse your trust. That means most of them. We all tend to make some decisions to try trusting people who we do not actually know well enough to trust. Are you using an email address you use for anything else to log in here at TechRepublic? Have you ever sent anyone (including me) a peer mail here at TechRepublic that included any information you would not want shared with others?

The majority of such people and Websites we trust to some minor degree like that may not violate our expectations of privacy, but it is difficult to be sure that we are selecting the right people to trust. This is why, of those we choose to trust, only the majority do not violate it; those who do end up violating our trust represent the cases where we guessed wrong.

It is not reasonable to never trust anyone at all, but there are times when we should definitely not give someone our trust. One of those times is the case of Facebook and privacy. The corporation has proven over and over again that it does not care about our privacy, and is in some respects actively hostile to it. When its founder, president, and CEO has stated his complete disregard for issues of privacy, too, the evidence that Facebook should not be trusted for reasons of privacy only grows.

It has been said that to keep certain information private, one should never post it to the Internet. That seems obvious — but even people who believe that do not effectively live by it. The truth of the matter is that to be sure something remains private you should not even include it in your login information, let alone in your public profile, or even a “private” profile.

Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac informed us that three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. That may seem a bit extreme at first glance, but it is worth keeping in mind when considering whether you can trust any Website to protect your private information. Even worse, Facebook has effectively declared that it will never respect your privacy.

Chad Perrin is an IT consultant, developer, and freelance professional writer. He holds both Microsoft and CompTIA certifications and is a graduate of two IT industry trade schools. Read his full bio and profile.

30 Ways to Shock Yourself

1 Reply

Source: http://funniez.net/Funny-Pictures/30-ways-to-shock-yourself.html

Maybe a bit disturbing, but here are 30 pictures from the 1931 book “Elektroschutz in 132 Bildern”.

Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook

Leave a reply

Source: http://www.interestings.net/?p=167

Facebook privacy policies keep going down the drain. That’s enough reason for many to abandon it. Here you will find nine more:

After some reflection, I’ve decided to delete my account on Facebook. I’d like to encourage you to do the same. This is part altruism and part selfish. The altruism part is that I think Facebook, as a company, is unethical. The selfish part is that I’d like my own social network to migrate away from Facebook so that I’m not missing anything. In any event, here’s my “Top Ten” reasons for why you should join me and many others and delete your account.

10. Facebook’s Terms Of Service are completely one-sided

Let’s start with the basics. Facebook’s Terms Of Service state that not only do they own your data (section 2.1), but if you don’t keep it up to date and accurate (section 4.6), they can terminate your account (section 14). You could argue that the terms are just protecting Facebook’s interests, and are not in practice enforced, but in the context of their other activities, this defense is pretty weak. As you’ll see, there’s no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, they see their customers as unpaid employees for crowd-sourcing ad-targeting data.

9. Facebook’s CEO has a documented history of unethical behavior

From the very beginning of Facebook’s existence, there are questions about Zuckerberg’s ethics. According to BusinessInsider.com, he used Facebook user data to guess email passwords and read personal email in order to discredit his rivals. These allegations, albeit unproven and somewhat dated, nonetheless raise troubling questions about the ethics of the CEO of the world’s largest social network. They’re particularly compelling given that Facebook chose to fork over $65M to settle a related lawsuit alleging that Zuckerberg had actually stolen the idea for Facebook.

8. Facebook has flat out declared war on privacy

Founder and CEO of Facebook, in defense of Facebook’s privacy changes last January: “People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people. That social norm is just something that has evolved over time.” More recently, in introducing the Open Graph API: “… the default is now social.” Essentially, this means Facebook not only wants to know everything about you, and own that data, but to make it available to everybody. Which would not, by itself, necessarily be unethical, except that …

7. Facebook is pulling a classic bait-and-switch

At the same time that they’re telling developers how to access your data with new APIs, they are relatively quiet about explaining the implications of that to members. What this amounts to is a bait-and-switch. Facebook gets you to share information that you might not otherwise share, and then they make it publicly available. Since they are in the business of monetizing information about you for advertising purposes, this amounts to tricking their users into giving advertisers information about themselves. This is why Facebook is so much worse than Twitter in this regard: Twitter has made only the simplest (and thus, more credible) privacy claims and their customers know up front that all their tweets are public. It’s also why the FTC is getting involved, and people are suing them (and winning).

Check out this excellent timeline from the EFF documenting the changes to Facebook’s privacy policy.

6. Facebook is a bully

When Pete Warden demonstrated just how this bait-and-switch works (by crawling all the data that Facebook’s privacy settings changes had inadvertently made public) they sued him. Keep in mind, this happened just before they announced the Open Graph API and stated that the “default is now social.” So why sue an independent software developer and fledgling entrepreneur for making data publicly available when you’re actually already planning to do that yourself? Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don’t want their membership to know how much data is really available. It’s one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.

5. Even your private data is shared with applications

At this point, all your data is shared with applications that you install. Which means now you’re not only trusting Facebook, but the application developers, too, many of whom are too small to worry much about keeping your data secure. And some of whom might be even more ethically challenged than Facebook. In practice, what this means is that all your data – all of it – must be effectively considered public, unless you simply never use any Facebook applications at all. Coupled with the OpenGraph API, you are no longer trusting Facebook, but the Facebook ecosystem.

4. Facebook is not technically competent enough to be trusted

Even if we weren’t talking about ethical issues here, I can’t trust Facebook’s technical competence to make sure my data isn’t hijacked. For example, their recent introduction of their “Like” button makes it rather easy for spammers to gain access to my feed and spam my social network. Or how about this gem for harvesting profile data? These are just the latest of a series of Keystone Kops mistakes, such as accidentally making users’ profiles completely public, or the cross-site scripting hole that took them over two weeks to fix. They either don’t care too much about your privacy or don’t really have very good engineers, or perhaps both.

3. Facebook makes it incredibly difficult to truly delete your account

It’s one thing to make data public or even mislead users about doing so; but where I really draw the line is that, once you decide you’ve had enough, it’s pretty tricky to really delete your account. They make no promises about deleting your data and every application you’ve used may keep it as well. On top of that, account deletion is incredibly (and intentionally) confusing. When you go to your account settings, you’re given an option to deactivate your account, which turns out not to be the same thing as deleting it. Deactivating means you can still be tagged in photos and be spammed by Facebook (you actually have to opt out of getting emails as part of the deactivation, an incredibly easy detail to overlook, since you think you’re deleting your account). Finally, the moment you log back in, you’re back like nothing ever happened! In fact, it’s really not much different from not logging in for awhile. To actually delete your account, you have to find a link buried in the on-line help (by “buried” I mean it takes five clicks to get there). Or you can just click here. Basically, Facebook is trying to trick their users into allowing them to keep their data even after they’ve “deleted” their account.

2. Facebook doesn’t (really) support the Open Web

The so-called Open Graph API is named so as to disguise its fundamentally closed nature. It’s bad enough that the idea here is that we all pitch in and make it easier than ever to help Facebook collect more data about you. It’s bad enough that most consumers will have no idea that this data is basically public. It’s bad enough that they claim to own this data and are aiming to be the one source for accessing it. But then they are disingenuous enough to call it “open,” when, in fact, it is completely proprietary to Facebook. You can’t use this feature unless you’re on Facebook. A truly open implementation would work with whichever social network we prefer, and it would look something like OpenLike. Similarly, they implement just enough of OpenID to claim they support it, while aggressively promoting a proprietary alternative, Facebook Connect.

1. The Facebook application itself s

Between the farms and the mafia wars and the “top news” (which always guesses wrong – is that configurable somehow?) and the myriad privacy settings and the annoying ads (with all that data about me, the best they can apparently do is promote dating sites, because, uh, I’m single) and the thousands upon thousands of crappy applications, Facebook is almost completely useless to me at this point. Yes, I could probably customize it better, but the navigation is ridiculous, so I don’t bother. (And, yet, somehow, I can’t even change colors or apply themes or do anything to make my page look personalized.) Let’s not even get into how slowly your feed page loads. Basically, at this point, Facebook is more annoying than anything else.

Facebook is clearly determined to add every feature of every competing social network in an attempt to take over the Web (this is a never-ending quest that goes back to AOL and those damn CDs that were practically falling out of the sky). While Twitter isn’t the most usable thing in the world, at least they’ve tried to stay focused and aren’t trying to be everything to everyone.

I often hear people talking about Facebook as though they were some sort of monopoly or public trust. Well, they aren’t. They owe us nothing. They can do whatever they want, within the bounds of the laws. (And keep in mind, even those criteria are pretty murky when it comes to social networking.) But that doesn’t mean we have to actually put up with them. Furthermore, their long-term success is by no means guaranteed – have we all forgotten MySpace? Oh, right, we have. Regardless of the hype, the fact remains that Sergei Brin or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett could personally acquire a majority stake in Facebook without even straining their bank account. And Facebook’s revenue remains more or less a rounding error for more established tech companies.

While social networking is a fun new application category enjoying remarkable growth, Facebook isn’t the only game in town. I don’t like their application nor how they do business and so I’ve made my choice to use other providers. And so can you.

5 Unconquerable Fortresses in Human History

Leave a reply

Source: http://urbantitan.com/5-unconquerable-fortresses-in-human-history/

Throughout the history we have always seen and learned that there is no end to human achievement and that every impossible task can be made possible if you have the courage and determination to overcome it. History is packed with loads of historical wars and fights that have changed the course of history and have affected millions of people. If we go back into time, we find almost the same kind of human ideology that exists today where people ruling the country or states would come up with structures that would defend their kingdom and allow them to overcome the mighty power of their enemies.

Castles and fortresses have played a very important role in defending a particular kingdom or a state and therefore most of the mighty warriors and rulers have made sure that they capture or build a king of magnificent structure that would allow their army to keep a watch on their enemies from a distance. Though, there are many fortifications and fortresses that have been captured and overthrown by the rival army, there are still many such fortresses that are not only difficult to capture because of their unique location but almost impossible to conquer. Let’s checkout some of the famous fortresses that have still remained unconquerable and have stood the test of time.

1. Masada – Israel

Since we are talking about some of the unconquerable castles and fortresses in the world than we cannot miss out this awesome structure that has really stood the test of time. Masada is the name of site where you will find various fortifications and palaces. The site is built on top of an isolated rock plateau in Israel and is very near to the Dead Sea. Masada sits on the eastern edge of the cliff which is 1300 feet high which makes it one of the most difficult fortresses to conquer.

In fact, there were only a few people who were able to make it to the top because the elevation of the cliff is very steep and does not provide any support to the people who are climbing up. The plateau has many other towers and storehouses that were used for the accommodation of the people on the top. Apart from that, Masada also has a place for keeping the weapons and cisterns which would be filled by rainwater. As per the history, Masada was used by Jewish rebels to fight and harass Romans.

2. Alamut – Iran

Another such fortress that have remained unconquerable throughout its history is Alamut which also means Eagle’s Nest.
The fortress is built on a high mountain which was almost impossible to climb and even if attempts were made to climb the Alamut, it would take enough time for the person to make it to the top which means that the soldiers on the top have enough time to lock and kill their targets.
Alamut in Northern Iran
Alamut is located in the central Alborz Mountains near Kazvin Province which is just hundred kilometers from today’s Tehran in Iran. The fortress was built by Hamdollah Mostowfi at the height of 2100 meters and there was only one way up to the fortress which was heavily guarded by the soldiers and warriors which makes that route impossible to penetrate. The other sides of Alamut was naturally protected because it has steep gravel slope which means that soldiers going through that route would fall into the valley if they miss a step. The fortress was well maintained and had a superb network of water supply and food storage for the entire army. In 1090 the fortress was occupied by powerful Hashshashins (Assassins) who were able to win many other historic fights and battles because of Alamut.

3. Janjira – India

India is the land of kings and emperors and therefore you will find loads of palaces, forts and fortress here.

imgsource wikipedia

Though, there are many such fortifications in India that have played a significant role in the development of a particular kingdom or a state but Murud-Janjira remains on top of the list when it comes to undefeated fortress in India. Though, on the first look the fortress looks like a very common fortress that can be conquered easily but that is not the case because of its unique location. The fortress is like an island surrounded by water from all sides and therefore it gives a clear picture to the army inside the fort of any intruders coming through the sea. This fortress was originally built by Fisherman Kings of Konkan to combat against the Muslim rulers in 1490. However, the word Janjira comes from Arabic word Jazeera which means an island. The fort was later captured by Shivaji and it became one of the headquarters for the Maratha Empire.

4. Malbork Castle – Poland

imgsource-wikipedia

Castle Teutonic Order in Malbork is next on the list of unconquerable fortress in human history.

The castle now is better known as Malbork Castle because it is situated in Malbork. However, the castle was built by the Teutonic Order who were knights interested in helping sick and injured Catholics in Poland. The castle remains as one of the classic examples of medieval castle and today it has been named as UNESCO World Heritage Site in Poland. The castle also holds the record of world’s largest brick gothic castle. The castle was built in 1274 and was named as Marienburg after the Virgin Mary. The castle remains undefeated till date because of its unique location. The surrounding areas near the castle are very flat and does not give any chance to the enemy to hide and therefore the warriors have ample of time to get ready and prepare the war before the enemy approaches from distance.

5. Palanok Castle – Ukraine

The Palanok Castle is also known as Mukachevo Castle and it also stands still proudly today as one of the fortress that have remained undefeated and unconquerable.

imgsource-wapediea

The castle is intelligently designed and is located on a volcanic hill which gives this castle a unique location to safeguard itself from intruders and enemies. The castle was built by French engineers and has also remained the residential place of the Royal family. The castle has also been used as a political prison. The castle is divided into low, medium and high castle where the high castle is lavishly decorated for the Royal family. Today, this impregnable castle has been turned into a museum for the people to see.

Remove Background from Photos using Microsoft Office

Leave a reply

Source: http://www.riyaz.net/blog/erase-background-picture-without-photoshop/technology/1945/

Now you can use Microsoft Office to easily remove background from digital photographs. Microsoft Office 2010 has intelligent image editing tools that can help you extract images from complex or cluttered backgrounds.

Remove background without Photoshop

Adobe Photoshop and other popular image editing software like GIMP have tools like background eraser or extract filters that allow you to erase complicated background images from digital photos. However, now Microsoft Office has in-built image editing features that include background removal options. Thus you can do some of the advanced image editing stuff without having to use Photoshop.

Tutorial: How to Remove Background from Photos Without Photoshop

Background Removal options in Microsoft Office 2010

Simply drag and drop the image you wish to edit into Word, Excel, PowerPoint or Outlook. Click on Picture Tools or Format tab and choose Remove Background. The unwanted portions of the image like background and other distracting details can be automatically removed.

remove-background-picture You can use the automatic background removal or you can further refine the areas to remove by drawing lines to indicate what portions to keep and what portions to remove.

Once you have chosen the areas to remove, click on Keep Changes to remove background. To save the new image, simply right-click on the image and choose Save as Picture and you can save the edited image as JPG or PNG to your hard drive. To save multiple images from Office documents to your hard disk at once check out the article on extracting multiple images from Word documents.

Thus we have learned the simplest way to remove background from images without having to use digital image editing software like Photoshop.

Source:

5 ways we think the world is going to end.

Leave a reply

Source: http://www.thecaptainsmemos.com/issues/5-ways-we-think-the-world-is-going-to-end/

December 12, 2012 is a date that has people scratching your heads. According to ancient Mayan calendars, that is the end of the world as we know it. (Cut it out R.E.M.) Who the bloody hell knows what is going to happen when that date comes around. Will people all over the world go bonkers thinking, “Oh my God, the world is going to end!?” Maybe. Just maybe.

The only true person who knows what happens on that day is John Cusack. As we have seen in the film, 2012, he gets into several near death experiences while the world is ending but somehow miraculously escapes them all and as we’ve seen in Hot Tub Time Machine, he can travel through time. So what better person to ask than John Cusack himself. After several attempts to call, one black eye from his security guard and a restraining order against TCM we are unable to truly find out what will happen. So, we will turn to the next best thing; figuring this shit out for ourselves.

We sat down one Sunday afternoon over some tea and biscuits and had a very intellectual conversation about how we think the world will end in 2012. It was surprising enough with what we came up with even though no one walked away with any broken bones as that’s usually what happens during one of our “discussions”. So sit back, grab a bag of beer and a can of chips and ponder how your semi-awesome life will end. Hell, who knows one of these could actually be the Earth’s fate.

How it happens: A Comet
What will happen: Your probably thinking an asteroid will come and destroy earth on that fateful day. That’s too obvious if you ask me. So we went for the next best thing, a comet. Comets are those large glowing rocket looking thingies (That’s a scientific term!) you see in the sky every several some odd years. Usually they are far enough away from Earth not to be worried but close enough to see with the nude eye. It truly is a fantastic spectacle. Almost exactly like watching a bum beat up a dog to get that last piece of meat from a steak that was thrown out only to have a bird come by and swipe it out of his hands forcing him to throw rocks and yell like a caveman. It’s ok Dad, you’ll get another chance.
What is most scary about a comet is that it is unpredictable. It is made of mostly ice, rocks and urine which just so happens to be the same ingredients for crack cocaine. It is unpredictable because of the random movements that occur because of the ice shooting out bursts of air. A comet could be traveling one direction one minute, then bam a complete 90 degree change the next. Comets travel at roughly 30 miles per second which to say the least is fucking fast as shit. They can be up to 6 miles in circumference as well. So, if a 6 mile rock hits the earth at 30 mp/s just imagine having sex with Christina Hendricks, now picture the complete opposite. Yea, something like that.
How to prevent it: Fly a Viking atop a T-Rex atop a shark with a laser beam on it’s head into outer space, shoot it with the said laser making a hole in the comet, knocking it off course saving everyone on Earth from certain death. Well, almost everyone.
Percentage of likeliness that this will actually happen: 87.2%

How it happens: The Plague which in turn becomes a Zombie Apocalypse (Sort of)
What will happen: Remember Bird Flu? Remember Swine Flu? Those are just appetizers as to what’s next. 2012 will be the year of the Grizzly Bear Flu which is more popularly known around these parts as, Beastman AIDS. It is much more dangerous than the past 2 influenza’s. What the Grizzly Bear Flu does to a person is nothing like we’ve seen before. The virus attacks the brain making the person think they actually are a Grizzly Bear and injects a massive amount of testosterone into their system. The first few days it is a slow progression towards full blown Beastman AIDS. Your appetite for honey and fish becomes greater, after every few words spoken you start to growl and you start to grow an amazing beard, regardless of gender. After the first week, you pretty much are completely infected. You lose all human thoughts and actions. You shit while walking (Which I’ve always wanted to do, FYI), you sleep in trees and you become extremely extremely protective of your personal space, such as a Grizzly Bear would. That is how the human race will come to an end, everyone who is infected will attack those who are infected essentially killing them and making them infected. Eventually all humans will be wiped out and the ones left infected will kill off each other since there is nothing else to kill. The only animal remaining on earth will be this. His plan had finally worked.
How to prevent it: Don’t have sex with Grizzly Bear’s or anyone who has had sex with a Grizzly Bear as for it is too late for them and you will become infected. Plus no one should be fucking Grizzly Bears, that’s got to be illegal or something.
Percentage of likeliness that this will actually happen: 23.1%

How it happens: A Black Hole
What will happen: So there are these things in outer space called black holes. What they are, no one truly knows. Well, extremely smart people know what they are and I’m sure if you go look it up you too can find out what they are but for the sake of this post, no one knows what they truly are. They apparently can suck entire planets and sun’s into it sending them to God knows where. Presumably a place much like a soup kitchen right after it has run out of soup and there is still a line. A very dark place. Not even light can escape a black hole’s grasp. Our planet is located in the Milky Way Galaxy and in the past 2 years there has been confirmation of a black hole in our galaxy. Our theory is that the black hole one day is gonna be all like, “I’m so depressed, I have no friends and everyone hates me.” Then it’s going to go into a state of deep depression. The issue here is this black hole eats when it is depressed. So it starts to eat and eat and eat all the planets and suns around it and eventually becomes a supermassive black hole. This can be compared to an obese person. There are no upsides and you have to roll them in flour just to find where they are wet. So what does an obese person like to do besides lounge on the couch, breathing heavily while salivating over the deep fried cheesecakePaula Dean just made? They like to eat. Same applies to a supermassive black hole. They like to eat…a lot. There is nothing more dangerous than a depressed, obese supermassive black hole. So pretty much Earth eventually gets eaten by this black hole and we all become it’s poop.
How to prevent it: Become friends with the black hole so it doesn’t go into depression therefore eating everything in it’s path. Or you could just pay for a stomach bypass surgery, but you’re probably better off becoming it’s friend.
Percentage of likeliness that this will actually happen: 57.7%

How it happens: Dinosaurs will initially take over, then Aliens will domesticate the Dino’s and become ultimate rulers
What will happen: If John Hammond was real, I’m pretty sure he would have figured out how to make Dinosaurs real again much like he did in the 1993 epic motion picture, Jurassic Park. And much like the motion picture, the Dinosaurs would break free and start eating humans. It’s inevitable. The current theory floating around the TCM office is that John Hammond was in fact an alien; as in an extraterrestrial. Don’t you think that if it was possible to make Dinosaurs in the real world, that it would have been done already? Dr. Hammond used his superior brain quality to figure out a way to install living, breathing Dinosaurs into present day 1993. We think his ulterior motive was to have the Dinosaurs take over the world. He would then call his alien brothers and sisters to come down to earth and ride the Dinosaurs killing any remaining human in their path shooting red and blue lasers. Sound familiar at all? Well it should. There was a little TV show called Dino-Riders back in the 80s. An alien race teleported to Earth training the Dinosaurs to become their weapons trying to kill off the human population. Funny, who knew that a little old 14 episode cartoon series would predict Earth’s fate? I did.
How to prevent it: Kill John Hammond.
Percentage of likeliness that this will actually happen: 8.5%

How it happens: Someone wakes up from a drunken stupor and realizes Earth was all a dream
What will happen: Here’s an example. You get very drunk, pass out and have a very weird but vivid dream about you being a hot dog street vendor. You go by the name of JoJo’s Hot Dogs. You have many different types of hot dogs that the public loves and you are raking in the dough. There is no recollection of your other life though. You are so happy in your dream that you pee yourself in your sleep state. You wake up moist and drunk thinking, what was that? Was that me dreaming about JoJo and his fantastic hot dogs or is it JoJo dreaming about me urinating myself? Some mind bending shit right there. Still can’t grasp it? Think about the movie the Matrix staring the greatest actor ever, Keanu Reeves. He sleeps and becomes this super ninja kicking ass all over a world that doesn’t exist. When he wakes up he is in some shit-tastic world that pretty much sucks. Same applies to this drunk who is asleep dreaming all of us. In your dream, it may seem like hours go by but in reality maybe 30 seconds goes by. If this were true though, I’m sure this guy would have woken up by now and not allow Michael Jackson to touch all those little boys. It is an interesting thing to ponder, not MJ being a pedder ass, but the fact that this could all be one big dream.
How to prevent it: Somehow keep feeding drunkie a steady supply of sleeping pills. Not too much or he dies, not enough and we die.
Percentage of likeliness that this will actually happen: 2%

What girls really think?!

2 Replies

Source: http://lolsnaps.com/?p=home&media_id=255&utm_source=wahoha.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wahoha

Remarkable Images of Horoscope Signs

Leave a reply

Source: http://www.dumage.com/remarkable-images-of-horoscope-signs/

Fantastic artwork by H.P. Kolb about one of the most mysterious believes in human history. 12 different zodiac signs – 12 various human personalities and characters. Is there anything true in the divine from the stars? Is it possible to really assess someone’s personality only by his date of birth? One thing is for sure – horoscopes and theory of “look at the stars”, has a very long tradition and admirers throughout the world.