Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment 3 Separate Places (Score 1) 446

If your data is not backed up in 3 separate places, it's not backed up.

So to answer your question, you should have it on your drive where you access it. Stored on an external HD (or CD/DVD/ETC) in a fire proof safe and in the cloud (preferrably in an encrypted container). So if your house burns up and your fireproof backup fails, you'll have the cloud. If the cloud provider goes bust, you'll have your backups that you can restore to a different cloud provider.

If you don't want to store it "in the cloud" have a trusted friend store a backup drive at their house or put one in a safe deposit box somewhere. But the bottom line is, one backup of your primary data is not enough and never will be.

Comment Re:Told you so (Score 1) 106

Oh, so the US Government can be trusted to not fuck up a monetary system? I mean, it's worked so well with USD, why wouldn't it work with another version of it?

You are the reason there is a problem. You don't even understand what the problem is, so how can you be expected to form an viable opinion on it?

Comment Re:Told you so (Score 1) 106

You do realize that it takes much more energy to create and distribute the US dollar than it does to create and distribute bitcoins, right? So if Bitcoin is anti-environment, then the US Dollar is super-anti-I-fucking-hate-all-living-things environment.

So why are you using USD, since that is so anti-environment?

Comment Switching is too hard? (Score 1) 145

Logged in to say this, but see you already got to it. This monopoly crap is what needs to be fixed. Right now, I would gladly take a difficult (and expensive) to terminate service over the choice I have now: Take Comcast or take nothing reasonable (satellite? Riiight...)

We need someone to bust up these monopolies and let other companies in to compete. This "we are locking in this neighborhood" crap has got to stop and I think it's the biggest hurdle to any sort of competitive broadband in this country (compared to other countries).

Comment Encryption (Score 2) 92

A more important question is why are you using a cloud provider without using encryption? No one should be storing any sort of sensetive file on a cloud service without first encrypting it. I use Boxcryptor on all of my cloud services... Truecrypt also works well for that sort of thing... anything. Use something to protect yourself instead of giving unfettered access to the cloud provider and their (lack of) security.

They have little reason to protect you.

Comment Re:Bad for stability (Score 2) 320

The ASIC era will aim to fix the 51% attack problem... or at least make it extremely costly. The farther we get into the ASIC era, the less and less likely and more costly it will be for someone to subvert the network.

1 year ago, it would have taken less than 1 million dollars to wreck the bitcoin network. 1 year from now it will take at least $100 million, if not more, assuming the price of BTC doesn't tank or something.

Granted, $100 million is pocket change for some large corporations and of course governments, so the threat is still there. But as time goes on, the cost starts to rise further and further out of reach of all but richest of entities, until it gets so costly as to be unfeasible. At that point, it's cheaper to wage a legal or physical war, but that's another problem entirely.

Comment Re:Um? (Score 1) 320

Like I said - "...last I heard." When they first started taking pre-orders, it was bitcoin only. I'm buying bitcoin outright these days, so I haven't followed the saga.

mmmph. Recaptcha: "outright"

But again, that is incorrect. BFL has always taken Bankwire along with bitcoins. There has never been a time BFL only took BTC for payment, ever.

Comment Re:Um? (Score 1) 320

"If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?"

They ARE mining bitcoin for themselves. The biggest player in the space - Butterfly Labs - is only accepting payment for their ASICs in bitcoin, last I heard. So their production line is just another bitcoin mining operation: and likely somewhat more profitable than outright mining over time.

This is, of course, false. BFL accepts payment via Paypal and bankwire as well.

Comment Re:Um? (Score 4, Insightful) 320

If mining Bitcoins was so profitable why would they want to sell the chips? Wouldn't they be better off keeping these chips and mining the Bitcoins for themselves?

If BFL were to mine instead of selling the chips, they would quickly have more than 51% of the network hashrate and the confidence in the bitcoin network would erode and the value would drop. It doesn't make any sense for one entity to mine all the bitcoin and devalue the currency... then it's worth nothing and it was for naught. No, it's far better to distribute the hardware far and wide, making it impossible for any single entity to gain a controlling portion of the network.

No, it doesn't make any sense for BFL to mine with their own hardware, it makes much more sense to grow the bitcoin network and for BFL to supply the hardware to do so.

Comment Hah (Score 1) 423

prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells

AH-HAHAHA... yeah! Right! I guess we can chalk Braben up as one of those idiots that are good in one area that think they know what the fuck they are talking about in other areas. What a clueless fuckstick to make a comment like that.

Cause that line worked with CDs and all other media that preceded games and continues to be sold today. Oh wait.. not it hasn't. It has never worked, ever with any industry. The prices will remain high as long as people continue to pay the prices. They will only drop when people stop paying prices. Claiming otherwise is just idiotic. Making that claim and the used game market is utterly laughable and makes my opinion of Draben go straight to the toilet (yeah, like he cares, I know). What a dumb ass.

Comment Umm.. disbarment? (Score 1) 271

Uhh, isn't that grounds for disbarment? I thought it was basically illegal to represent both parties within the same lawfirm, it being a conflict of interest and all. It was my impression that it was grounds for disbarment if a lawyer knowingly did that. I would find it incredibly hard to believe that the firm did not know they were representing Google and also suing them... that just seems virtually impossible.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop