Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Shoeboxes (Score 1) 120 120

What critical data? Personal? Business?

At what point is it critical enough to go out of your way to store terabytes of data on CD/DVDs? Isn't an offline HD good enough?

I have done the following for a long time and I believe this is more than enough for most businesses
1. Backup to NAS (or equivalent)
2. Backup to offline disk (done monthly but could be done more often depending on business requirements)
3. Offsite Backup on the west coast (We are on the east coast)

At what point are you spending too much money securing data?
At what point are you being paranoid?

Those are all questions that will have different answers depending on the company and it's IT/Ownership.

Comment: Re:Amazing (Score 2, Insightful) 120 120

Pointless arrogant comment.

Nobody claimed it was new or that they had reinvented anything. They just applied modern technology to a well know strategy to solve a known problem. In the modern age of storage and data centers I have yet to see this (not to say that nobody has done it).

When someone shows you an electric car do you tell them cars have had 4 wheels since before 1903? I assume you do.

Comment: Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 288 288

I agree. All I'm saying is that these other forms of energy aren't as obsolete as they appear. As you said there's progress to be had (especially with solar and energy storage) and if we get an affordable replacement for coal all efforts towards these technologies will be immediately dropped as there will be no real interest in them anymore.

Comment: Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 288 288

when the truth of the matter is that any problems with it have been through mismanagement and poor planning

And what's going to change that? It's already heavily regulated. As long as humans and corporations are involved it will be dangerous. History has proven us irresponsible with this technology and the damage it does is very hard to reverse and in some cases impossible.

Wind and solar, while nice and clean, probably aren't going to ever be capable of delivering all the power the world needs/wants

Wind in Ontario, Canada accounts for 6% of it's yearly production. That's more than I would have expected from a place not known for high wind speeds. Here's a chart for renewable energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The fact is that as we invest in these technologies we improve them and make them more affordable. The newest is solar shingles. Redoing your roof? Why not invest in your own future? Many states/provinces encourage this with incentives. With the coming of EVs energy storage will improve significantly allowing for storage of said energy.

I'm not suggesting that we don't build Nuclear to keep us going especially with EVs becoming quickly popular but I'll be damned if we once again lean on that tech just because it's easy. We can't stop being innovative.

Comment: Re: Makes sense (Score 2) 272 272

I second that. The clause was there for this exact reason. The protected themselves legally by allowing anything to go. Our world, our rules...

BTW Jack, I want to apologize for stepping to a new low when I ask if you were 16 years old in a different subject. I'm usually in tune with what you write (I've seen lots of your comments over the years) and I just forgot to accept that it was your opinion.

Comment: Re:Never belonged to you (Score 1) 272 272

I agree that people being cynical is part of it. Combine the two and you've got yourself a "mission impossible" scenario.

I know people that although they hate aspects of something aren't willing to stop doing it because they like it. To me that's a lack of will power but in this particular case being cynical definitively plays a big role.

Comment: Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap (Score 1) 371 371

The tax should be on the consumables. Tax the consumer. The bigger the consumer the bigger the tax paid.

Bananas would have $0 if not pre-packaged
Canned goods: $0.05 (Metal is a desired material)
Television: $30 (that's already in place where I live)
K-CUP: $0.15 per cup
Water bottle: $0.15 per bottle

These are just suggestions with the exception of the Television.

There are many ways to tackle this but forcing consumers to pay up front is the best way to deal with it. We could get into deposits and other but that's a logistical nightmare.

Comment: Re:The problem is that landfills are too cheap (Score 1) 371 371

Then have them pay up front. You want to buy a TV. Here's a $30 charge on top of the cost of the television for disposal. You buy a box of K-CUP, here's a $0.15 per cup eco fee. Same goes for any consumables.

Consuming isn't a right, it's a privilege and if we want to keep it we have to invest in the cycle of life for these materials or we can do like we also do and wait until it's a much more difficult problem to resolve.

I think charging upfront is probably the easiest means to solving the budgeting issue and cause consumer/manufacturer to adjust.

Asking people to sort materials is pointless. It didn't work before and it won't work now. A better strategy would be to entice manufacturers to find better packaging solutions. I look at the K-CUP shit and it makes me mad. Same goes for water bottles. Most people I see are just to damn lazy to carry around a reusable water bottle (it's too inconvenient). Well guess what, double the price of water bottles and all of sudden there's an incentive to use the reusable bottles.

At the end of the day the only way to change consumer behavior is to have it impact their pocket book. This usually causes people to adjust their ways and companies to become more innovative.

Comment: Re:Makes sense (Score 1) 272 272


IMHO the only time a company should reassign a URL or name is when the original taker was doing it to ransom the large company. Most large companies are reasonable and will offer compensation within reason. Maybe I'm old school but I've never been fan of those who hold people/companies ransom.

Comment: Re:Patent 9,053,591 (Score 1) 142 142

Out with the honor system and in with factual data. This is what has happened to our society. We are ok with this because we don't trust anybody and it will only get worst.

I personally hate where this is all going but too many people aren't honorable anymore.

No accountability = no honor = nobody is trust worthy. That simple!

Comment: Re:Equality (Score 1) 490 490

Great write-up. I have a boy and girl. I was raised in a house with 3 male and 1 female (mom).

For me the most important thing I can teach my daughter is not that she can/can't do boy things but rather that she should not let others influence choices she is clear about. I don't want my daughter to think she can't do something but she also needs to use her smarts and figure out what is best for her.

I think our society has grown significantly in regards to where women can go and I don't believe women avoid IT because of the male dominance but rather because they aren't interested. Don't forget that they are wired differently hence their different interest. I didn't teach my daughter to like princesses and dancing, yet that's what she prefers over super hero and cars. Question is: "is that influence coming from other girls at school?"

As long as we punish harassment and include both genders in all activities we will provide equality regardless of gender specific preferences.

"I don't believe in sweeping social change being manifested by one person, unless he has an atomic weapon." -- Howard Chaykin