Slashdot Mirror
Affordable and Safe Data Protection Practices?
cfreeze asks: "With the recent fire at the University of Twente, I started to think 'Are the steps I'm taking to backup my home network sufficient?'. The first thing going through my mind was the need to mail a set of recent backup discs to a family member. I feel this is a good first step, but due to the distances involved it may prove to be impractical. The second was a small hidden personal safe that is fireproof. What steps are you taking?" If you are interested in truly protecting your data, you have to realize that making backups is just a start. Next comes protecting those backups from floods, fires, and other catastrophes that might occur. What do you do to protect your backups?
fp
Hopefully I can download my porn soon
From www.dansimmons.com/ds/news.html
Actor Leonardo DiCaprio (Titanic, The Gangs of New York) is interested in the role of "Raul Endymion" in the movie adaptation of Hyperion (proposed in treatment form by Dan Simmons as one film or three), and is currently meeting with directors and studios to discuss the proposal. DiCaprio, who would both star and co-produce the feature, met on July 5 with Martin Scorcese, director of DiCaprio's new film The Gangs of New York
well thats a FIRST
affordable subs at Subway instead?
g to the oatse
c to the izzex
Real men don't need backups, just upload your your files to an ftp server and let everyone else mirror it.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
See? And next you'll whine that you're out of mod points when you see an interesting comment!
I'd mod you up, but I'm all out of mod points!
o|t-s- - -s-t- - s.o /(o)-(o)\ /_)fo /s | / /\ s\ `\ | | /\ | o/ |
|f G O D ||
t |t H A T E S ||
ss| F A G S ||
|| _ _ _ _ o _ _ ||
t ' - o -s. t -t- -s'
t s| | o _|/
o s s | |s t" ".
oo f | f
t s
f o s |s)|s '- o
t \_o|\ '.o_s.' / |\/ft
o f | |f\ \_/ / _|so'/
o t f|_|\ f.t__s/ \f)
f t t \ \_/\_o/\__ o|s=|
fft \ f
o s f \ \\o/ s \| |
s st `\
; || f |\____/
t s o |fs|| |
I'm very offended because I just saw a banner ad on slashdot featuring a coloured man.
133. No social arrangements, whether laws, institutions, customs or ethical codes, can provide permanent protection against technology. History shows that all social arrangements are transitory; they all change or break down eventually. But technological advances are permanent within the context of a given civilization. Suppose for example that it were possible to arrive at some social arrangements that would prevent genetic engineering from being applied to human beings, or prevent it from being applied in such a ways as to threaten freedom and dignity. Still, the technology would remain waiting. Sooner or later the social arrangement would break down. Probably sooner, given that pace of change in our society. Then genetic engineering would begin to invade our sphere of freedom, and this invasion would be irreversible (short of a breakdown of technological civilization itself). Any illusions about achieving anything permanent through social arrangements should be dispelled by what is currently happening with environmental legislation. A few years ago it seemed that there were secure legal barriers preventing at least SOME of the worst forms of environmental degradation. A change in the political wind, and those barriers begin to crumble.
134. For all of the foregoing reasons, technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom. But this statement requires an important qualification. It appears that during the next several decades the industrial-technological system will be undergoing severe stresses due to economic and environmental problems, and especially due to problems of human behavior (alienation, rebellion, hostility, a variety of social and psychological difficulties). We hope that the stresses through which the system is likely to pass will cause it to break down, or at least weaken it sufficiently so that a revolution occurs and is successful, then at that particular moment the aspiration for freedom will have proved more powerful than technology.
135. In paragraph 125 we used an analogy of a weak neighbor who is left destitute by a strong neighbor who takes all his land by forcing on him a series of compromises. But suppose now that the strong neighbor gets sick, so that he is unable to defend himself. The weak neighbor can force the strong one to give him his land back, or he can kill him. If he lets the strong man survive and only forces him to give his land back, he is a fool, because when the strong man gets well he will again take all the land for himself. The only sensible alternative for the weaker man is to kill the strong one while he has the chance. In the same way, while the industrial system is sick we must destroy it. If we compromise with it and let it recover from its sickness, it will eventually wipe out all of our freedom.