Malware analysts have shared new details about the infamous XCSSET malware that targets Mac devices around the world. XCSSET first came into the spotlight in August 2020, when it was spotted inside Apple projects developed using the free Xcode integrated development environment (IDE). A variant of the malware was then discovered designed specifically to target M1-powered Macs. Now, cybersecurity researchers at Trend Micro have once again found an updated version of the malware that’s taken on new features and can target po[CENSORED]r apps including Telegram and Google Chrome. These are the best malware removal software on the market Protect your devices with these best antivirus software Here are the best ransomware protection tools “The changes we’ve encountered in XCSSET do not reflect a fundamental change in its behavior but do constitute refinements in its tactics,” note the researchers in a blog post analyzing XCSSET’s information stealing capabilities. Targeting developers The XCSSET malware is particularly troublesome since its infection mechanism can be used to launch supply-chain-like attacks. The malware works by injecting malicious code into local Xcode projects, which executes every time the project is built. This poses an issue not just for the developers, but also for any downstream users that run the software infected with the malware. Trend Micro has been monitoring the malware since last year and recently learnt how it steals information. Using the examples of Telegram and Google Chrome, the researchers explained how the malware exfiltrates information to its command and control (C2) servers. “Not all executable files are sandboxed on macOS, which means a simple script can steal all the data stored in the sandbox directory,” say the researchers, asking application developers not to store sensitive data, such as login information, in the sandbox directory. Besides Telegram, and Chrome, Trend Micro also found scripts that targeted other po[CENSORED]r apps as well including Opera, Skype, Evernote, WeChat, and more. We've put together a list of the best endpoint protection software

Rejected ! come back when you will be ready

Our GPU benchmarks hierarchy ranks all the current and previous generation graphics cards by performance, including all of the best graphics cards. Whether it's playing games or doing high-end creative work like 4K video editing, your graphics card typically plays the biggest role in determining performance, and even the best gaming CPUs take a secondary role. The following table sorts everything solely by our performance-based GPU gaming benchmarks. We have a separate article that lists the best graphics cards, which looks at all factors, including price, graphics card power consumption, and overall efficiency. We've now updated the tables and charts with results from the newly launched GeForce RTX 3080 Ti and GeForce RTX 3070 Ti. If you're looking for a good deal on a graphics card right now, unfortunately it's still bad news. Component shortages on GPUs, VRAM, substrates, and other essential parts of modern graphics cards mean you'll be lucky to find the card you want at all, never mind finding it at a good price. Thankfully, the profitability of Ethereum mining has dropped substantially, and with China shutting down crypto miners, used graphics cards are starting to flood overseas markets. Our GPU pricing index covers that topic in more detail, and we saw a 15% drop in eBay prices across all GPUs in our most recent update. Even with prices on their way down, it will take some time before GPU prices and availability approach anything remotely close to normalcy. Best-case is that it could happen in the second half of the year, but more likely the shortages are going to last all year and into 2022. Which graphics card do you need? To help you decide, we've created this GPU benchmarks hierarchy consisting of dozens of GPUs from the past four generations of hardware. Everything is ranked from fastest to slowest, using the results from our test suite consisting of nine games for our GPU benchmarks, running at 'medium' and 'ultra' settings with resolutions of 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. For comparison purposes, the fastest card, based on the combination of all nine GPU benchmarks, three resolutions, and two settings, gets normalized to 100 percent, and all others are graded relative to it. The arrival of Nvidia's Ampere architecture with the GeForce RTX 3090, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, GeForce RTX 3080, GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, GeForce RTX 3070, GeForce RTX 3060 Ti, and GeForce RTX 3060 12GB shook up the top half of the GPU benchmark hierarchy. AMD's Big Navi and the Radeon RX 6800 XT, RX 6800, Radeon RX 6900 XT, and RX 6700 XT caused a similar upheaval in rankings. At present, only one of the ten highest performance GPUs doesn't use either Ampere or RDNA2 — and that's the Titan RTX, which hardly counts. Of course it's not just about playing games. Many applications use the GPU for other work, and we've covered some professional GPU benchmarks in our RTX 3090 review. But a good graphics card for gaming will typically do equally well in complex GPU computational workloads. Buy one of the top cards and you'll can run games at high resolutions and frame rates with the effects turned all the way up, and you'll be able to do content creation work equally well. Drop down to the middle and lower portions of the list and you'll need to start dialing down the settings to get acceptable performance in regular game play and GPU benchmarks. And integrated graphics ... well, we've tested that as well, and the results aren't pretty. (See the very bottom of the list for those entries.) It's important to note that all of the games and settings we're using for testing have to conform to the lowest common denominator. That means ray tracing and proprietary tech like Nvidia's DLSS aren't enabled, even where they're supported. You can check our most recent DXR benchmark results in our AMD vs. Nvidia ray tracing article, and we've also included RT and DLSS results in the 3070 Ti and 3080 Ti reviews, but those scores aren't factored into the rankings for now. The short summary: Nvidia is faster at RT, and DLSS provides a significant boost to performance for a minimal loss in image quality. If your main goal is gaming, you can't forget about the CPU. Getting the best possible gaming GPU won't help you much if your CPU is under-powered and/or out of date. So be sure to check out the Best Gaming CPUs page, as well as our CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to make sure you have the right CPU for the level of gaming you're looking to achieve. GPU Benchmarks: Which Cards Ranked Highest? The Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 takes top honors for raw performance, with a composite score of 152.7 fps across all 54 tests. That's the 100% mark, though it's worth noting that it also scored 98.7 fps at 4K ultra. It's nominally a $1,500 graphics card, which is out of reach of most gamers, but current shortages have rocketed pricing up to the $2,500–$3,000 range. So much for "less than Titan" affordability. Not too far behind the 3090 are the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, Radeon RX 6900 XT, Radeon RX 6800 XT, and GeForce RTX 3080, theoretically priced at $1,200, $1,000, $650 and $700, respectively (good luck finding any of those in stock for anything close to official launch prices). The RTX 3080 Ti lands in an odd spot, with only slightly lower pricing and performance than the 3090. It's basically at the old Titan price of $1,200, but at that point why not just spend the extra $300 for the 3090? Similarly, the 6900 XT is a minor bump in performance for a relatively large bump in price compared to the 6800 XT, and we'd generally recommend sticking with the latter. The 6800 XT is also technically faster (barely, by a basically meaningless amount) than the RTX 3080 by our ranking formula, though as mentioned above, ray tracing and DLSS very much change the picture. Add those in and the 3080 easily beats even the 6900 XT. This is why we continue to rank the RTX 3080 as the best overall graphics card, though that's contingent on actually finding one for a price at least somewhat close to the $700 MSRP. The new GPUs make all of AMD's and Nvidia's previous generation GPUs suddenly look a bit weak. The same goes for the Radeon RX 6800, GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, and GeForce RTX 3070, which match or beat the outgoing RTX 2080 Ti with a theoretical starting price of just $580, $600, or $500, respectively. The RTX 3060 Ti meanwhile leads the old 2080 Super in performance and potentially costs 42% less. Only the RTX 3060 12GB seems a bit lackluster, with performance basically at the level of the old RTX 2070 (non-Super) that launched 2.5 years ago. If the $329 official launch price were anywhere to be found, it would be agreat deal, but it's not. AMD's Navi 21 GPUs, aka Big Navi, finally break into the top three overall, even including Titan cards. That's something AMD hasn't managed since the Vega 64 launch (where it came in third). AMD is also mostly at feature parity with Nvidia now, with both companies supporting ray tracing. Except, Nvidia has Tensor cores that help with other tasks like DLSS, Nvidia Broadcast, RTX Voice, and potentially future applications, plus Nvidia's ray tracing performance is definitely still faster in the majority of DXR (DirectX Raytracing) games. The first Navi 22 card, the RX 6700 XT, doesn't even break into the top ten now (though it does if we discount the Titan RTX). If you're in the market for a new sub-$500 graphics card right now, the RTX 3060 Ti is currently the card to get. It's a bit slower than the 3070, but overall it's the best price to performance ratio of all the modern GPUs. The RTX 3060 12GB card has more VRAM, but it's on a 192-bit bus and the drop in GPU cores and memory bandwidth is around 25 percent, leading to real-world performance that's 22 percent lower on average. AMD's RX 6700 XT is another viable option, or would be if you could buy it at its $480 MSRP. It lands between the RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti, closer to the former in both price and performance (provided you're only looking at rasterization modes). Again, whatever GPU you're hoping to buy, it's still a terrible time to buy a graphics card, as all of the most desirable GPUs are either out of stock or seriously overpriced. In the Newegg Shuffle, for example, we routinely see the RX 6700 XT models selling for over $900 for just the GPU, and over $1,000 in bundles with dubious components. At least the non-bundle RTX cards tend to land within 25% of the MSRP. If you can find a reasonable deal on a latest generation GPU right now, great! But don't pay more for a previous gen GPU just because there aren't enough RX 6000-series or RTX 30-series GPUs to meet the current demand. Eventually, supply will catch up, and that will be the right time to buy. If you can't wait, our advice is to just try and find any old GPU that still works to hold you over. Based on current eBay prices, the best FPS per dollar card you can find — used — is the relatively ancient GTX 970. <Sigh> That brings us to the bottom third of the list, the home of budget GPUs like the GTX 1650 Super, RX 5500 XT, and more. These cards give up a lot of performance in order to keep pricing down, and there are older generation GPUs that can perform just as well (or better) if you shop around. But component shortages have affected even these, with $300 and higher prices even on relatively weak cards like the GTX 1650 and RX 5500 XT 4GB — and we can't blame miners, as mining performance on 4GB cards is very poor these days. Theoretically, the GTX 1660 Super, GTX 1650 Super, and RX 5600 XT are the best budget options, or at least they used to be before prices launched into the stratosphere. The higher you go on price, the worse things get, so take a careful look at historical pricing before you buy anything. GTX 1660 Super should cost $250, and GTX 1650 Super should cost around $175. The best prices we can see right now are around $450 and $375, respectively. Hard pass. Unless you already have the hardware, or can get it for cheap, we don't recommend going below the GTX 1650 Super. Wait out the current shortages, and spend some time with indie games that can often run just fine on ... well, practically anything, even Intel's integrated graphics solutions! And you don't even need to buy a graphics card if you go that route. AMD's APUs are an even better option if you're on an extreme budget. If you're looking at something like an RX 550 or GT 1030, you should consider AMD's integrated graphics on its Ryzen APUs as a viable alternative. If you have an older PC and are looking at adding a GPU, a motherboard and CPU upgrade might end up being a better option. Or not, as even a basic motherboard, CPU, and RAM can set you back $200 or more. Plus, the APUs are also sitting at inflated prices now. <Sigh again> We're interested in seeing what happens with the next generation of integrated graphics as well. Tiger Lake laptops sometimes double the performance of Ice Lake graphics, and AMD also has updated Zen 2 APUs with faster graphics as well. (We'll be testing both of these options soon enough for inclusion in the hierarchy.) Okay, maybe buying a basic GPU isn't a bad idea rather than dealing with a full motherboard and CPU upgrade (depending on what sort of CPU you're rocking). Provided you can provide at least a 6-pin PEG power connector, though, we recommend going for at least something at the RX 570 level or above rather than picking up a lesser graphics card. Also worth noting is that the scoring assigned to each GPU uses all six test resolutions and settings, except on integrated graphics where we scale the result — because, come on, no one is going to try and run Borderlands 3 at 4K on an iGPU. (It will probably just crash.) If you want to check performance at just 1080p medium, or one of the other options, you can see the ranking order for the main GPUs in the charts below. Test System for GPU Benchmarks Intel Core i9-9900K Corsair H150i Pro RGB MSI MEG Z390 Ace Corsair 32GB DDR4-3200 (2x 16GB) XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB Windows 10 Pro (1909) Our overall GPU benchmarks scores are based on the geometric mean frames per second (fps) of our testing of Borderlands 3, The Division 2, Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XIV, Forza Horizon 4, Metro Exodus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Strange Brigade. If you want to do your own GPU benchmarking, see our complete list of the best GPU tests, which includes a lot more games and synthetic tests as well. That's nine games, six settings and over 40 cards from the current and previous generations. We have a solid mix of game genres and APIs, plus AMD and Nvidia promoted titles, making this the definitive GPU benchmarks and performance hierarchy for gaming purposes. Due to the mix of various generations of GPUs, note that we don't include ray tracing or DLSS testing in any of the figures. That does penalize Nvidia's RTX cards quite a bit, and the RX 6000 series as well, since previous generation GPUs can't even try to run ray tracing in most games. GPU Benchmarks and Performance Hierarchy Charts Here you can see the average performance charts for our testing at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K (medium and ultra on all three). If you want to see the full suite of individual game tests, check out the charts in our Best Graphics Cards article. We've focused on the 'executive summary' and have omitted individual game charts as well as a few GPUs that don't fully qualify. We've left off the integrated graphics solutions as well as many older GPUs. That gives us 28 GPUs in the charts, color coded for your viewing pleasure. You can find additional charts with the 'retired' GPUs below the main charts. Again, our GPU benchmarks scoring uses the geometric mean of all 54 scores (nine games, three resolutions, two settings). The geomean is a slightly 'better' weighting than a pure average, though it doesn't massively change the results. Either way, including all 54 scores means the fastest cards are somewhat penalized because they run into CPU limitations at 1080p and even 1440p, and the slower GPUs can also end up penalized because they were never intended to run games at 1440p or 4K. If you intend to play at 1440p or 4K, the charts below can help you focus in on just those results. For example, the RTX 3080 overall scored 20.8% higher than the RTX 2080 Ti, but if you only look at 4K ultra performance, it's 33.5% faster.

Malwarebytes produces two main anti-malware products, Malwarebytes Free and Malwarebytes Premium (there’s a third offering, too, but it’s just the latter with a bundled VPN on top). The good news is that as you might expect given that Malwarebytes is currently the top ranked pick in our best malware removal software, both of these offerings are high-quality efforts in the security arena. However, if you’re stuck trying to choose between these two apps, you may have a number of questions on your mind. Such as how does Malwarebytes Free differ from Malwarebytes Premium exactly? And what extra features do you get with the latter to justify purchasing the paid-for version of the malware removal software? Let’s see how these two products stack up, and which of Malwarebytes Premium vs Malwarebytes Free might be best suited to your needs. Malwarebytes Free: what features does it have? The major difference between these two Malwarebytes products is, of course, that you won’t pay any money for the free version. That’s obviously a major benefit, but on the other hand, Malwarebytes Free is a very barebones security package. What you get with the free version is the ability to run a scan to check your drive(s) for malware... and that’s about it. But don’t underestimate how powerful this functionality can be. As a dedicated anti-malware tool (as opposed to 'regular' antivirus software), Malwarebytes Free is designed to hunt out brand new, more sophisticated or deeply hidden malware on your system; intruders that traditional antivirus might have missed. So, the way to think of this free edition is that it’s an on-demand expert to be called upon when you suspect you have an infection and need to remove malware. And of course you get this bolstered level of protection for nothing, as the app is free. Malwarebytes Premium: what features does it have? Malwarebytes Premium adds a number of features into the mix over and above the basic malware hunting capability that you get with the free edition. The major advance here is the addition of real-time protection from malware, meaning that Malwarebytes Premium keeps watch over your device at all times, shielding it from anything malicious. This works just like a traditional antivirus, and means you can run Malwarebytes Premium as the sole security app policing your PC; there’s no need for a backup antivirus as with Malwarebytes Free. Malwarebytes Premium also offers layers of protection against ransomware and potential exploits hitting your system, plus you get URL filtering. The latter keeps you safe from any dodgy links when browsing the web, and this is solid enough tech as we observed in our Malwarebytes review. While some more advanced settings are certainly offered with Malwarebytes Premium, and the ability to accomplish tasks like running custom scans, it’s mostly designed to be easy to use and just run in the background, defending your device automatically and seamlessly. That means if you’re not particularly confident with computers, you won’t have to worry about doing anything – Malwarebytes Premium will just work under its own steam to keep you safe. As we mentioned at the outset, for a little extra cost, you can also get Malwarebytes Premium with a bundled VPN (called Malwarebytes Privacy) which uses Mullvad VPN. Malwarebytes Premium vs Malwarebytes Free: which should you get? Choosing which Malwarebytes app is more suitable for you naturally depends on your exact situation and requirements. Those who already subscribe to an antivirus plan or fuller internet security suite would be best served by going with Malwarebytes Free, as it’ll provide a very able backup to existing protection at no cost whatsoever. Malwarebytes Free is also a great option for those who suspect they may have a malware infection, and need a good quality scanner to deeply probe their system and attempt to find any such intruder. However, if you haven’t got antivirus software – or more to the point, if you haven’t got a paid antivirus which is a good one, preferably one of our recommended best antivirus apps – then Malwarebytes Premium is a good shout for high quality protection. The latest reports from the independent test labs indicate that Malwarebytes offers an impressive level of protection in terms of its core antivirus engine – although with AV-Comparatives, it did fall a bit short in terms of giving too many false positives (errant detections of issues which aren’t actually a problem). In the past, Malwarebytes has seen somewhat shakier ratings from the independent labs, but the situation has improved a lot in 2021, and these days it’s up towards the top of the rankings. So, there’s no problem on the protection front, but that said, what you are missing with Malwarebytes Premium is a lot of the extra features included with other security suites that can be had for the same kind of outlay. Those features may not matter much to you, however – you may not want a password manager, for example, and perhaps already have one, so again this depends on your exact needs. To sum up, if you need an app for a quick check-up for suspected malware, or a backup to an existing antivirus plan, Malwarebytes Free is a superb option. Or for those who want a full antivirus package, getting Malwarebytes Premium is the choice to go for, offering great core protection at a decent price - with a nicely affordable option for a single device - in a user-friendly, no frills package. Get backed up safely with secure cloud storage solutions The big question...Is free antivirus safe? Get more protection without the cost with a free VPN

my vote goes to DH2 , nice song

Name of the game : Control Ultimate Edition Price: 15.99$ After Discount Link Store: Here Offer ends up after X hours: 19 July Requirements: MINIMUM: Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system OS: Windows 7, 64-bit Processor: Intel Core i5-4690 / AMD FX 4350 Memory: 8 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 / AMD Radeon R9 280X DirectX: Version 11 Storage: 42 GB available space Additional Notes: Additional Features: Widescreen support 21:9 / Remappable controls / Uncapped frame-rate / G-Sync / Freesync support RECOMMENDED Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system OS: Windows 10, 64-bit Processor: Intel Core i5-7600K / AMD Ryzen 5 1600X Memory: 16 GB RAM Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660/1060 / AMD Radeon RX 580 AMD | For Ray Tracing: GeForce RTX 2060 DirectX: Version 12 Storage: 42 GB available space Additional Notes: Additional Features: Widescreen support 21:9 / Remappable controls / Uncapped frame-rate / G-Sync / Freesync support

Come back when you're be ready !

Elgato is most well-known for its stream decks and capture cards, but following the release of its Wave series of microphones last year, it’s now moving deeper into the streaming hardware space with the Elgato Facecam. Like the name implies, this is a webcam that aims to become the best webcam for livestreaming. It’s got 1080p @ 60 fps recording, plus unique features like a fixed focus 24mm lens and an app that tells you what your ISO levels are while you stream. But with that specificity of audience comes a lack of features like HDR or 4K, which streamers tend to ignore anyway since platforms like Twitch don’t support them. Still, at $199, it’s priced to compete with rivals like the Razer Kiyo Pro and Dell Ultrasharp Webcam, which do have those features (HDR in the Kiyo Pro’s case, and both HDR and 4K for the Dell Ultrasharp Webcam). Can it stand out enough to justify itself against that kind of competition, or does Elgato still need to work out its first time jitters as a webcam manufacturer? Elgato Facecam Elgato Facecam (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Razer Kiyo Pro Elgato Facecam (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Dell Ultrasharp Webcam At a $199 price point, the Elgato Facecam is equal in price to the Dell Ultrasharp Webcam and Razer Kiyo Pro, so those two cameras formed the basis of my comparisons for this review. Although the Dell Ultrasharp Webcam can capture images at 4K, I used its 1080p mode for these tests, to give a more even comparison with the Elgato Facecam. You’ll also notice that the angles on the test shots are slightly different between the Elgato Facecam and its competitors. This is because I took the Elgato facecam shots on a laptop, as performance wasn’t consistent on my desktop. We’ll talk about this later, when discussing the Elgato Facecam's build and software. The sky was gray on the day I took my test shots, so I wasn’t able to get what I’d call ideal lighting. Nonetheless, with my office in what I’d consider normal conditions, the Elgato Facecam performed well. Color is accurate and texture is detailed enough to really make me consider getting a haircut soon. Background elements also don’t look fuzzy, and while the lighting is brighter than it was in real-life, this only helps the picture. The only exception is my window, which is rendered as a blinding white sheet of light. By comparison, my face is bathed in shadow on shots taken with the Razer Kiyo Pro, and has a more even balance between light and shadow on the Dell Ultrasharp webcam. While I think the Kiyo Pro goes a little overboard on shadow, there is merit to the Dell’s approach. In particular, my face doesn’t look artificially lit , the mild shadow adds some mood to shots that could be desirable if only for accuracy, and you can make out some details outside the window. In general, though, all 3 cameras performed well under normal conditions. Unfortunately, I can’t say that the Elgato Facecam performed well under low light conditions. With my curtains drawn and all light sources turned off except for my computer monitor, the Facecam (set to default settings via its software) depicted me with a reddish, “greasy pizza slice” sheen. Not exactly the vibe I want to be giving off to my coworkers or streaming audience. On the plus side, artifacts were minimal. The Razer Kiyo Pro was a little dark for my tastes, while the Dell Ultrasharp Webcam produced much brighter photos. They’re maybe a little too artificial looking for me, but this lighting is still probably the best balance of the three. I also tested the Elgato Facecam in saturated lighting, which I did by picking it up and pointing it towards my office window. The saturated effect wasn’t as strong as I usually like since it was overcast on the day I tested, but as you can see from the Razer Kiyo Pro, it’s still too much for most webcams to handle. However, the Elgato Facecam and Dell Ultrasharp webcam both excelled here. The Dell Ultrasharp came out just a touch more impressive, since it was able to capture a good bit of the world outside my window rather than rendering most of it as a blinding white void, a la the Elgato Facecam. But both cameras showed a detailed enough look at my face that I could comfortably make video calls in this lighting. The sacrifices I make for these reviews. Maybe it’s a scuffed makeup job or a bad hair day or the weird angle due to shooting with the laptop, but I really do not like how I look on video recorded with the Elgato facecam. Detail is high— maybe a little too high— but my face again looks much redder than I was seeing in the mirror. The light from my window is also bouncing off half my face, which is new for one of these reviews. Fortunately, much of these issues can be fixed by adjusting settings like saturation in the Camera Hub software that comes with the Elgato Facecam. The default settings the software applies even tend to look pretty flattering, and these are the settings I’ve been using for the photos you’ve seen so far in this review, since you can take photos directly from the Camera Hub software. But you can’t shoot video from Camera Hub, which means I had to use the Windows Camera app for my footage. The Windows Camera app likes to make its own adjustments that override much of the changes made in Camera Hub, which means you lose out on that post-processing when shooting video with it. I could have used another app to record video, but at that point, the inconvenience of having to find a new recording method is already impacting the Elgato Facecam’s score. Elgato is aware of this issue, though. Advertisement “We are looking into building a feature into the firmware that would allow for a sort of ‘settings lock,’” an Elgato representative told me over email. “So 3rd party applications can’t change Facecam’s settings.” On the plus side, this issue should not affect streaming software like OBS. I was able to make live adjustments to the Elgato Facecam’s settings with the Camera Hub app while I had OBS open, and they carried over to my video input on OBS with no interference. That makes sense, as OBS shouldn’t override Camera Hub’s settings. Compared to the Logitech C920 At $199, the Elgato Facecam is a premium device with premium features, like being able to record in 1080p @ 60 fps. Still, I want to take a brief aside to compare it to the Logitech C920, a po[CENSORED]r $70 1080p webcam that lacks those features but might be enough for casual users. The Logitech C920’s image quality definitely isn’t as high as what you’ll get from the Elgato Facecam, especially in normal and saturated lighting conditions. Low light also has plenty of artifacts that aren’t in the Elgato’s shots, although it’s arguable that the contrast and saturation are more flattering. In general, though, the Logitech C920 does tend to make shots appear cooler than in real-life, which can give you a not always desirable pale look. Still, when you take into consideration that streaming platforms will compress images anyway, the C920 might still be enough for you, so long as you don’t need 60 fps recording.

Facebook's ambitions to provide mobile internet using satellites have now officially come to an end as the social network has sold off its internet satellite team to Amazon. As first reported by The Information, Amazon has acquired a team of more than a dozen wireless internet experts from Facebook that were developing the technology necessary to offer broadband services in the US and around the world using satellites. We've put together a list of the best business smartphones These are the best business SIM deals available Also check out our roundup of the best business broadband Now these experts will instead be working on the ecommerce giant's Project Kuiper satellite network that shares many similarities with SpaceX's Starlink. Project Kuiper Just last year Amazon received approval from the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch more than 3,000 internet satellites into Earth's orbit. Once complete in 2029, the Kuiper Satellite Constellation will feature a total of 3,236 satellites though it will cost approximately $10bn to launch the satellites and develop the technology to bring Project Kuiper to life. Amazon is currently in the process of launching half of the satellites the project will need by 2026 while the remaining satellites will be launched into orbit during Kuiper's final three years. In order for these satellites to be able to send data back and forth between Earth and space, the company will also build 12 ground stations around the world. In addition to acquiring Facebook's internet satellite team, Amazon has ramped up its hiring efforts for Project Kuiper and there are currently 200 open positions that still need to be filled. There are already 500 employees working on the project but with the help from Facebook's former wireless experts, Amazon could potentially be able to move up its timeline for Kuiper's official launch.

Nickname : Revo Tag your opponent : @The GodFather Music genre : rap Number of votes ( max 10 ) : 7 Tag one leader to post your songs List: @Shyloo

my vote goes to DH1 , i liked the sound

my vote goes to DH2 , i liked it