The 14th season of the Top Chess Engine Championship took place between 17 November 2018 and 24 February 2019. Stockfish was the defending champion, having defeated Komodo in the previous season's superfinal. The season is notable for two things: the emergence of two strong, new engines, the Komodo variant Komodo Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) and the neural network engine Leela Chess Zero, and the dramatic superfinal. Komodo MCTS and Leela fought their way from Division 4 and Division 3 respectively to the Premier Division, with Leela further qualifying for the superfinal against Stockfish. The superfinal was a topsy-turvy affair with the lead changing hands several times. It finished as the closest superfinal TCEC has ever seen, with Stockfish winning by a single game, 50.5–49.5 (+10 =81 -9). == Overview == === Structure === The season comprised five divisions: from the lowest Division 4 to the Premier Division. The top two engines of each division promote to the division above, while the bottom two engines relegate. The top two engines of the Premier Division contest a 100-game superfinal. The lengths of the opening books used increases as the divisions progress. The superfinal itself used a custom opening book designed by Jeroen Noomen. === Rules === The TCEC draw and win rules were slightly modified for Season 14. The game is now adjudicated as drawn if, after move 30, both engines have evals ±0.08 for five consecutive moves, and there are neither pawn moves nor a capture. Win adjudication now occurs if both engines have an eval of ±10 for five consecutive moves. Following the controversy over DeusX's participation last season, the uniqueness rule for neural networks was modified such that at least two of the following three hallmarks must be unique: The code for training the neural network The neural network (and weights file) itself The engine that executes this network This change meant DeusX did not meet the uniqueness criteria and therefore did not participate. Aside from this change, the season used the standard rules of the TCEC. == Results == === Division 4 === New entrant Komodo MCTS dominated Division 4, winning by a clear four points, although it did lose a game to second-place finisher rofChade. Fellow new entrant Scorpio NN performed badly and finished last, drawing only one game and losing the rest. === Division 3 === The neural network engine Leela Chess Zero had just missed promotion to Division 2 in the previous season. Since its relatively weak performance last season was partly due to hardware problems, and since it had shown a lot of improvement in strength, it was the hot favourite in this division. Leela lived up to its billing by comprehensively defeating everyone else. In a portent of future divisions however, Leela surprisingly dropped a game to third-place Arasan. Komodo MCTS was also improving quickly, and an updated version finished second behind Leela. The gap between second and third was 6.5 points, illustrating the gulf in class. === Division 2 === Although Division 2 engines are significantly stronger than Division 3, Leela and Komodo MCTS continued to dominate the competition, and again finished first and second. Komodo MCTS only lost one game to Leela, while Leela's tendency to occasionally lose to weaker engines saw her losing a game to 4th-placed Booot. Third place finisher Xiphos gave Leela and Komodo MCTS a run for their money, and was in the running up until the final rounds when it lost a crucial game to Leela. This loss left it one point behind Komodo MCTS in the final standings. === Division 1 === Leela and Komodo MCTS's rampage through the lower divisions continued, and they again finished first and second. In a demonstration of how much it had improved, Leela scored 20/28 in this division, the same score it had achieved in Division 2. This was also a TCEC points record for this division. However, Leela dropped a game against fourth-place finisher Chiron. Komodo MCTS, which had yet to lose a game in the lower divisions except to Leela, also conceded its first loss to third-place Fizbo. At the other end of the table, former champions Jonny and Fritz, which had not been updated, found themselves outclassed and finished second-last and last respectively; however with fellow competitor Ginkgo crashing five times (and therefore being disqualified), Jonny managed to stay in the division. The penultimate game for this division set a new TCEC moves record for a decisive game: 308 moves before Leela defeated Fritz. === Premier division === This was the strongest premier division ever, with multiple-time champions Stockfish, Komodo, and Houdini in the mix. Right from the start it became clear that Stockfish was in a league of its own, and it dominated the division, scoring wins against every other engine without losing a game. Second place however was a hotly-contested affair, with Leela, Komodo and Houdini neck-and-neck for most of the division. Houdini took the early lead, but Komodo gained second after winning two games by forfeit when its sibling Komodo MCTS crashed. This led to murmurs of a "Konspiracy". However, when both Komodo and Houdini failed to score more wins against the lower half of the field, Leela was able to take the lead. Halfway through the division the race was upended again when Leela went through a bad streak, losing three games in a row to Stockfish, Komodo, and Fire. This led to Komodo regaining second place, only for Komodo MCTS to crash yet again. By TCEC rules this meant Komodo MCTS was disqualified and all its scores were zeroed out, which put Leela back in second place. With three games left, Leela missed a win against Andscacs, which would've more or less secured her a place in the superfinal. Meanwhile, Komodo kept the division interesting by winning two of its last three games. Because Komodo had superior tiebreakers to Leela, this meant Komodo would qualify for the superfinal unless Leela managed to hold Stockfish to a draw with Black in the last game of the division. In a tense final game, Stockfish came close to winning, but missed the winning line. Leela managed to draw and qualified for the superfinal. At the other end of the table, it was quickly apparent that Ethereal and Andscacs were the weakest engines and would likely relegate. However, when Komodo MCTS was disqualified (and therefore relegated), it threw both engines a lifeline, since they could now stay in the division by beating the other. Andscacs was able to score a head-to-head win against Ethereal, but was crushed by Stockfish (+0 =2 -4) and Leela (+0 =3 -3). Ethereal didn't manage to score a win in the entire division, but did manage to score more draws than Andscacs, condemning Andscacs to relegation. === Superfinal === Going into the superfinal expectations were high for Leela: she had received a new network and had just won her first major competition when she defeated Houdini in the second TCEC cup. However, she had won the tournament without having played Stockfish (who had been surprisingly eliminated by Houdini in the semifinals). That, plus the fact that Stockfish dominated Premier Division and had never lost a match to Leela, left it unclear which engine was superior, although most spectators favored Stockfish. The superfinal turned out to be a roller-coaster. It began with Stockfish drawing first blood in game 7, and then scoring another win in game 10. Leela hit back with wins in game 11 and 13, but then lost games 20, 21, and 22. This gave Stockfish a 3-point lead. However, in the next 30 games, Leela was the only one to score wins: it first equalized by winning games 25, 27, and 29, and then took the lead by winning games 49 and 53. Stockfish won game 56, but Leela won game 63, maintaining her lead. There followed two dramatic games. In game 65, Leela built up a winning position. Stockfish showed a +153 evaluation, indicating that it had found a forced line leading to an endgame tablebase win; indeed analysis with 7-piece tablebases showed that Leela's position was winning. Under previous seasons' rules, the game would have been adjudicated as a win because Leela's evaluation was above 6.5. However under the new rules, Leela's +8.92 evaluation was not enough to adjudicate. It turned out that Leela could not see the winning line, and shuffled her pieces aimlessly, leading to a 50-move draw. In game 66, Stockfish was given a substantial advantage by the opening, but failed to make the most of it. The evaluations were leveling out to zero when the internet connection to the GPU servers was cut off. By tournament rules, this meant the game was replayed from scratch. After a further internet disconnection and restart, Stockfish handled the opening better and won, leaving Leela with a 1-point lead. In the last third of the superfinal, there followed more drama as Leela often built up strong advantages, but Stockfish showed great resourcefulness in defending inferior positions. Meanwh
2018 Google data breach
The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.
Pridgen v University of Calgary
Pridgen v University of Calgary was freedom of speech case which took place in Alberta, Canada, in 2010. The case deals with two university students, Keith and Steven Pridgen, who were found guilty and punished by the University of Calgary in 2008, on grounds of "non-academic misconduct". The University of Calgary defines "non-academic misconduct" as:(a) conduct which causes injury to a person and/or damage to University property and/or the property of any member of the University community; (b) unauthorized removal and/or unauthorized possession of University property; and (c) conduct which seriously disrupts the lawful educational and related activities of other students and/or University staff.The Court of the Queen's Bench of Alberta found the University of Calgary to be wrong in prosecuting ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, in regards to comments made about a professor on Facebook. The key ruling in this case was that the universities are not exempt from, and that these students were in fact protected under, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is notable as it highlights the jurisdiction of the Charter in terms of both new media technologies and university institutions in Canada. == Background == Keith and Steven Pridgen were undergraduate students at the University of Calgary in 2008. The twin brothers shared a Law and Society class being taught by Aruna Mitra. Professor Mitra was teaching this class for the first time in her career, and many of the students were very critical of her knowledge of the course. A Facebook page entitled “I NO Longer Fear Hell, I Took a Course with Aruna Mitra” was created, and many students began posting comments. In particular, Steven Pridgen's comment on November 13, 2007, read: “Somehow I think she just got lazy and gave everybody a 65....that's what I got. Does anybody know how to apply to have it remarked?” Many students had similar concerns to Pridgen's and after having their work re-marked, a number of them did in fact receive higher grades. Keith Pridgen also commented on August 26, 2008: “Hey fellow LWSO. Homees.. So I am quite sure Mitra is NO LONGER TEACHING ANY COURSES WITH THE U OF C !!!!! Remember when she told us she was a long-term professor? Well, Actually she was only sessional and picked up our class at the last moment because another prof wasn't able to do it ...lucky us. Well, anyways I think we should all congratulate ourselves for leaving a Mitra-free legacy for future students!” On September 4, 2008, Aruna Mitra complained about the Facebook page to the Interim Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. Dean Tettey called a meeting for the ten students who posted material about Mitra on the Facebook page. The meeting took place on September 18, 2008, and included four professors from the department as well as the Dean. At this meeting, all ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, were found guilty of non-academic misconduct. On November 20, 2008, the Appellant's received a letter from Dean Tettey advising them that their comments “clearly caused unwarranted professional and personal injury to Prof. Mitra and clearly meets the criteria for non-academic misconduct as outlined in the University of Calgary Calendar”. Keith Pridgen was put on probation for 24 months, and both brothers were required to write a letter of apology to Prof. Mitra and refrain from posting or circulating defamatory material regarding any faculty members of the University of Calgary. The Pridgen brothers appealed the decision to the University of Calgary Review Committee and later to the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary however neither of these attempts succeeded in having the decision overturned. == Opinion of the Court == Eight main issues to be determined were laid out by the Honourable Madam Justice J. Strekaf: (a) Does the Charter apply to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Respondent; (b) If, so were the Applicants' Charter rights infringed; (c) Were the actions taken by the University ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta; (d) Did the Board of Governors err in refusing to hear the Applicants appeals; (e) Were the Applicants' denied a fair hearing; (f) Did the Review Committee provide adequate reasons for its decisions; (g) Did the Review Committee err in concluding that the activities of the Applicants constituted non-academic misconduct; and (h) What, if any, remedy should be granted to the Applicants. The Court determined from previous cases that "a non-government entity may still be subject to the Charter of Rights and freedoms when implementing a specific government policy or program". Justice Strekaf distinguished that the University was acting as agent of the provincial government in providing accessible post-secondary education services to students in Alberta pursuant to the provisions of the PSL Act. Justice Strekaf felt there was sufficient evidence to show that universities in Alberta have some level of reliance on government funds and therefore they are not a "Charter free zone". Justice Strekaf concluded that comments made by Keith and Steven Pridgen, regarding Professor Mitra, on Facebook did not constitute academic misconduct and the Pridgen brothers' right to freedom of expression, under section 2(b) of the Charter, was infringed by the University of Calgary Review Committee.
Vue.js
Vue.js (commonly referred to as Vue; pronounced "view") is an open-source model–view–viewmodel front end JavaScript framework for building user interfaces and single-page applications. It was created by Evan You and is maintained by him and the rest of the active core team members. == Overview == Vue.js features an incrementally adaptable architecture that focuses on declarative rendering and component composition. The core library is focused on the view layer only. Advanced features required for complex applications such as routing, state management and build tooling are offered via officially maintained supporting libraries and packages. Vue.js allows for extending HTML with HTML attributes called directives. The directives offer functionality to HTML applications, and come as either built-in or user defined directives. == History == Vue was created by Evan You after working for Google using AngularJS in several projects. He later summed up his thought process: "I figured, what if I could just extract the part that I really liked about Angular and build something really lightweight." The first source code commit to the project was dated July 2013, at which time it was originally named "Seed". Vue was first publicly announced the following February, in 2014. Version names are often derived from manga and anime series, with the first letters arranged in alphabetical order. === Versions === When a new major is released i.e. v3.y.z, the last minor i.e. 2.x.y will become a LTS release for 18 months (bug fixes and security patches) and for the following 18 months will be in maintenance mode (security patches only). Vue 3 was officially released in September 2020. According to the State of Vue.js Report 2025, 96% of surveyed developers reported having used Vue 3.x. However, 35% also indicated that they used Vue 2.7.x in the past year, reflecting continued reliance on Vue 2 despite its end of support. The report also noted that more than a quarter of respondents encountered challenges when migrating from Vue 2 to Vue 3. === State management evolution === 2015 - Vuex introduced as official state management solution 2021 - Pinia development begins as Vuex 5 experiment 2022 - Pinia becomes officially recommended for new projects 2023 - Vue team announces Vuex maintenance mode transition According to the State of Vue.js Report 2025, the Vue's core team recommendation is reflected in developer adoption–over 80% of surveyed developers reported using Pinia while Vuex still had 38.4% usage, indicating ongoing reliance on the older library. == Features == === Components === Vue components extend basic HTML elements to encapsulate reusable code. At a high level, components are custom elements to which the Vue's compiler attaches behavior. In Vue, a component is essentially a Vue instance with pre-defined options. The code snippet below contains an example of a Vue component. The component presents a button and prints the number of times the button is clicked: === Templates === Vue uses an HTML-based template syntax that allows binding the rendered DOM to the underlying Vue instance's data. All Vue templates are valid HTML that can be parsed by specification-compliant browsers and HTML parsers. Vue compiles the templates into virtual DOM render functions. A virtual Document Object Model (or "DOM") allows Vue to render components in its memory before updating the browser. Combined with the reactivity system, Vue can calculate the minimal number of components to re-render and apply the minimal amount of DOM manipulations when the app state changes. Vue users can use template syntax or choose to directly write render functions using hyperscript either through function calls or JSX. Render functions allow applications to be built from software components. === Reactivity === Vue features a reactivity system that uses plain JavaScript objects and optimized re-rendering. Each component keeps track of its reactive dependencies during its render, so the system knows precisely when to re-render, and which components to re-render. === Transitions === Vue provides a variety of ways to apply transition effects when items are inserted, updated, or removed from the DOM. This includes tools to: Automatically apply classes for CSS transitions and animations Integrate third-party CSS animation libraries, such as Animate.css Use JavaScript to directly manipulate the DOM during transition hooks Integrate third-party JavaScript animation libraries, such as Velocity.js When an element wrapped in a transition component is inserted or removed, this is what happens: Vue will automatically sniff whether the target element has CSS transitions or animations applied. If it does, CSS transition classes will be added/removed at appropriate timings. If the transition component provided JavaScript hooks, these hooks will be called at appropriate timings. If no CSS transitions/animations are detected and no JavaScript hooks are provided, the DOM operations for insertion and/or removal will be executed immediately on next frame. === Routing === A traditional disadvantage of single-page applications (SPAs) is the inability to share links to the exact "sub" page within a specific web page. Because SPAs serve their users only one URL-based response from the server (it typically serves index.html or index.vue), bookmarking certain screens or sharing links to specific sections is normally difficult if not impossible. To solve this problem, many client-side routers delimit their dynamic URLs with a "hashbang" (#!), e.g. page.com/#!/. However, with HTML5 most modern browsers support routing without hashbangs. Vue provides an interface to change what is displayed on the page based on the current URL path – regardless of how it was changed (whether by emailed link, refresh, or in-page links). Additionally, using a front-end router allows for the intentional transition of the browser path when certain browser events (i.e. clicks) occur on buttons or links. Vue itself doesn't come with front-end hashed routing. But the open-source "vue-router" package provides an API to update the application's URL, supports the back button (navigating history), and email password resets or email verification links with authentication URL parameters. It supports mapping nested routes to nested components and offers fine-grained transition control. With Vue, developers are already composing applications with small building blocks building larger components. With vue-router added to the mix, components must merely be mapped to the routes they belong to, and parent/root routes must indicate where children should render. The code above: Sets a front-end route at websitename.com/user/
Style sheet (web development)
A web style sheet is a form of separation of content and presentation for web design in which the markup (i.e., HTML or XHTML) of a webpage contains the page's semantic content and structure, but does not define its visual layout (style). Instead, the style is defined in an external style sheet file using a style sheet language such as CSS or XSLT. This design approach is identified as a "separation" because it largely supersedes the antecedent methodology in which a page's markup defined both style and structure. The philosophy underlying this methodology is a specific case of separation of concerns. == Benefits == Separation of style and content has advantages, but has only become practical after improvements in popular web browsers' CSS implementations. === Speed === Overall, users experience of a site utilising style sheets will generally be quicker than sites that do not use the technology. ‘Overall’ as the first page will probably load more slowly – because the style sheet AND the content will need to be transferred. Subsequent pages will load faster because no style information will need to be downloaded – the CSS file will already be in the browser’s cache. === Maintainability === Holding all the presentation styles in one file can reduce the maintenance time and reduces the chance of error, thereby improving presentation consistency. For example, the font color associated with a type of text element may be specified — and therefore easily modified — throughout an entire website simply by changing one short string of characters in a single file. The alternative approach, using styles embedded in each individual page, would require a cumbersome, time consuming, and error-prone edit of every file. === Accessibility === Sites that use CSS with either XHTML or HTML are easier to tweak so that they appear similar in different browsers (Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.). Sites using CSS "degrade gracefully" in browsers unable to display graphical content, such as Lynx, or those so very old that they cannot use CSS. Browsers ignore CSS that they do not understand, such as CSS 3 statements. This enables a wide variety of user agents to be able to access the content of a site even if they cannot render the style sheet or are not designed with graphical capability in mind. For example, a browser using a refreshable braille display for output could disregard layout information entirely, and the user would still have access to all page content. === Customization === If a page's layout information is stored externally, a user can decide to disable the layout information entirely, leaving the site's bare content still in a readable form. Site authors may also offer multiple style sheets, which can be used to completely change the appearance of the site without altering any of its content. Most modern web browsers also allow the user to define their own style sheet, which can include rules that override the author's layout rules. This allows users, for example, to bold every hyperlink on every page they visit. Browser extensions like Stylish and Stylus have been created to facilitate management of such user style sheets. === Consistency === Because the semantic file contains only the meanings an author intends to convey, the styling of the various elements of the document's content is very consistent. For example, headings, emphasized text, lists and mathematical expressions all receive consistently applied style properties from the external style sheet. Authors need not concern themselves with the style properties at the time of composition. These presentational details can be deferred until the moment of presentation. === Portability === The deferment of presentational details until the time of presentation means that a document can be easily re-purposed for an entirely different presentation medium with merely the application of a new style sheet already prepared for the new medium and consistent with elemental or structural vocabulary of the semantic document. A carefully authored document for a web page can easily be printed to a hard-bound volume complete with headers and footers, page numbers and a generated table of contents simply by applying a new style sheet.
IruSoft
IruSoft (Arabic: آيروسوفت) is an insurance regulatory platform designated for licensing, supervision and inspection of the insurance sector within a country. The platform introduced unique supervision-technology (suptech), insurance-technology (insurtech) and regulatory-technology (regtech) automated modules by which a regulator requires less resources to ensure fairness, transparency and competition and to prevent conflicts of interest in the sector. IruSoft was founded by Abdullah Al-Salloum and owned by the Insurance Regulatory Unit in Kuwait. The Insurance Regulatory Unit optimized processing insurance-sector's customer complaints by issuing Resolution No. (1) of 2022 that introduced IruSoft's complaints public module; an automated resolution center, by which the process of receiving submitted complaints, passing them on to the platforms of licensed insurance companies, tracking matter-related discussions and updates and getting them escalated if unresolved to be discussed by a committee assigned by the unit is integrally automated and analyzed for better key performance indicators.
Digital media service
A digital media service (DMS) is an online service provider that sells access to digital library of content such as films, software, games, images, literature, etc. While no transfer of property is made, a nearly perfect duplicate of the data (song movie, etc.) is made on a customer's computer. Content is either primarily hosted on a dedicated server, which is owned by the service provider, or it is hosted primarily on the hard drives of its customers using a P2P protocol with, perhaps, a dedicated server to supplement. == History == One example of the older business model is the iTunes Store, which still markets and prices data as individual retail products. There are no examples of the latter business model in operation yet, but one is currently in development by Global Gaming Factory X and expected to begin operation some time after they acquire The Pirate Bay domain on August 27, 2009. A key difference between the two models is that the model which relies on its customer base for offering their bandwidth for other customers to access customer hosted data can operate at significantly lower costs than a company that seeks to limit data access to a per-download fee in order to supplement the cost of using its own hosting and bandwidth. The P2P model holds the potential for companies to offer unlimited access to the largest data library in the history of the internet to its customers for a reasonably low membership rate that is relevant to the cost of operation. While the market is virtually untouched, the P2P supplemented model will need entrepreneurs who are able to overcome a series of challenges in order to compete with the older business model as well as that which is offered for free (and often against the wishes of copyright holders) by hundreds of P2P communities on the internet. These challenges include, but are not limited to: Offering better data quality, speed, convenience and ease of use, protocol, sense of security, indexing and search organization, site up time, data library size, customer support, advertising, artist/copyright holder incentives and compensation, incentives and compensation for customers hosting data and providing bandwidth, guaranteed seeding (available access to indexed data at all times), than competitors.