The things I care about a lot I copy to a hard drive once a year or so and place them in my safety deposit box at the bank. Some things I also re-copy to DVD's.
It's affordable and easy to access long-term storage. It's also about as fire-proof as you can get, and I suspect that it would be about as EMP proof as you can reasonably expect outside of a mountain. There is near zero chance of flooding where my bank is, but that may be a concern in other locations.

You are interested in long-term reliable storage of this data, no?
After digitizing your videos, use uuencode and print the resulting files on acid-free paper.

Summary says: "It logs the non-clinical information on 80 million people in Britain"

Well, yes it does hold clinical information. That is a big deal.

From the UK's HSCIC web site there's more (and authoritative) information on SPINE
http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/sp...
"The Summary Care Record:
SCRs provide emergency and out-of-hours healthcare professionals with faster access to key clinical information, including details of allergies, current prescriptions and bad reactions to medicines. The Summary Care Record helps to ensure continuity of care across a variety of care settings, and is provided by the Spine."

Having or losing corrupt information in a clinical record is a good way to kill some random person. However, it is a summary, so if a physician suspects a problem in the summary, they can go to the patient's main record. Getting prescriptions crossed can also be problematic for the patient.

Ignoring the NOSQL issue, I wish we had something like SPINE here in the USA.

If it weren't for scientists coming to a consensus, that frozen shitball, Pluto, would still be a planet.

Umm, I don't let my dog do that to me.

True, you're right about that and it's supposed to work that way.

Sarbanes/Oxley and RICO cases against corporations are a good example (all two or three cases). But in practice incorporating works out to protect the owners/officers from almost anything they do that would have quickly resulted in an indictment had they done it as an individual.
The need for passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley shows how corporate officers had historically dodged responsibility for their malfeasance.
That is, with the exception of one unforgivable crime in the USA: making insufficient campaign donations.

My first thought when I heard he had the bloody shawl was that he was the Jack the Ripper. Who else would have such a gruesome souvenir? But, then I saw that he was only 48 and not 148, so I now know it wasn't Edwards after all.
That little fact saved me a lot of time from writing a "I know who Jack is" book. Unless the 48 not 148 was a typo.

Almost the entire point of forming corporations is to remove the owners from having personal liability for the actions of the corporation.
It doesn't always work, but usually it does.

My neighbor down the road had, or rather used to have, an outhouse.
This outhouse was last seen perhaps 50 feet in the air. It appeared to have been rapidly disassembled by whatever caused the ascent..
Unfortunately, whoever did it had approached the outhouse through the woods, and had not taken the trouble to notice that aforesaid neighbor appeared to be having a family reunion in the back yard that day. I truly hope that none of the outhouse parts landed on the tables they had setup with food.
I still cannot believe how fast and how far those old geezers could run.
Sadly, they weren't fast enough to catch certain 16-year olds who remain unidentified. And alive.

As far as I can tell, HB819 was ok, then got worse, and then got better. That's how it works in committee.
The difference is that I got mine from the North Carolina legislature's web site.
nccoast is a cool web site, but their postings are not law. What you are looknig at is "PROPOSED SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE H819-CSLH-38"
Observe the word "Proposed". I haven't been able to figure out how far the -38 proposal got. I know for certain it ain't law.

Thanks for the link to the committee bill. The outrage makes more sense now. Did that version actually get out of committee and onto the floor?
I ask because the stuff that happens in committee versions of bills is indeed often ludicrous.
I still can't find the "linear interpolation" language in any bill that was placed on the floor when I go to the state of North Carolina's legislature's web site for HR 819.

However, what you linked to was NOT passed into law.
I posted links to what was ACTUALLY passed into law.

This is the statement I'm responding to:

"illegal there to predict sea level rises" is wrong, and the various news articles implying that N.C. passed a law saying that are wrong.

In answer to your questions, I still say as I said before:
I don't have a problem with the legislature requiring both historical and peer-reviewed data for predictions of sea-level rise, and I cannot imagine any scientist having a problem with that.

Think about it. If you don't require peer-reviewed data, then what are you allowing? Would you allow coastal N.C. communities to base funding requests on Huffington Post? That's what they are trying to prevent.

Total bullshit on the part of the media.
You've got to learn to not believe what reporters say. Read the actual bill.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/...

"The Commission shall direct the Science Panel to include in its five-year updated assessment a
comprehensive review and summary of peer-reviewed scientific literature that address the full
range of global, regional, and North Carolina-specific sea-level change data and hypotheses,
including sea-level fall, no movement in sea level, deceleration of sea-level rise, and
acceleration of sea-level rise. When summarizing research dealing with sea level, the
Commission and the Science Panel shall define the assumptions and limitations of predictive
modeling used to predict future sea-level scenarios. "

The first version of the bill was the one that the news picked up and, well, just plain made up bald-faced lies about.
Here it is:
"Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios
of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant,
peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be
one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and
estuarine shorelines."

See the part about not including 'acccelerated rates of sea-level rise"? That's the controversial part of the bill. By taking the most extreme sea-level rise predictions, some sea-side community was announcing a need for huge sums of money to prepare for the "predicted rise". The bill was simply saying that you had to use peer-reviewed data and historical trends.

I don't have a problem with the legislature requiring both historical and peer-reviewed data for predictions of sea-level rise, and I cannot imagine any scientist having a problem with that.

bugnuts said:

and then AC said:

So, AC, are you saying that you think there are no unscrupulous legislators? Or are you saying that there are no legislators involved in saddling solar generators with other costs? Or is it that you have no understandin of what you're responding to so you just throw up a cute phrase?

I must be one of the idiots because I cannot find your 178 TWh/yr production either.
However, I can get close to that. Looking here:
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/e...
I see this:
"The first half of 2014 was marked by mild temperatures and high electricity production from wind and
solar energy. Solar power plants have increased their production compared to the first half of 2013 by
28%, while wind power grew about 19%. In June solar systems have produced twice as much electricity
as wind turbines. In the first half of the year solar and wind power plants together produced more than
45 TWh or approximately 17% of the net electricity generation. The renewable energy sources solar,
wind, hydro and biomass produced a total of about 81 TWh and accounted for approximately 31% of
the net electricity production. The renewable share of the gross electricity production including the
industrial power plants is approx. 28%."

That's the first half of 2014, so twice that is 162 TWh.

However, tis statement of yours is wrong "Germany can now meet demand without any nuclear and without additional gas imports."
They can't do that this year or the next.

By way of comparision, in the USA during 2013, we produced 522 TWh with renewables
http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

ooo, look, I included links for my assertions instead of just pulling numbers out of my hat.

So again, we ask: where did you get your number of 178 TWh?

And then you continue attributing it to the single cause of bureaucracy.