You mean a Google division?
You mean a Google division?
If Apple continues their trend with the Mac mini, the 2016 model will be a single-core CPU clocked at around 800MHz with 512MB of RAM and a 4200RPM, 250GB hard drive connected via IDE.
Please point to a reputable source that substantiates your claim. Just putting it in ALL CAPS does not make it true.
How would it not be reliable? Over the last two years I've spot checked multiple times I can could recover any file I wanted.
How is it not secure? I have a locally generated key that they are not given... even if they are breached there is no way to decrypt the data.
Like I said: I do use local backup as well for peace of mind (and ease of recovery) but I haven't seen any reason not to put faith in Crashplan.
Reading comprehension: "In addition to that I also use TimeMachine on my Mac so I have a local backup of everything."
Not too mention... your backup provider getting shut down does not instantly delete all of your local data. It would be a freak incident for them to get shut down the day you need a backup.
And finally: Crashplan is nothing like Megaupload....
"The first flaw is the inability to specify folders to INCLUDE instead of exclude."
That was my problem with Backblaze. In my case I ONLY wanted to backup my photos (I backup everything else in other ways).
Crashplan lets you choose exactly which directories to backup.
Better to get it offsite. One fire/flood/etc. and your data is toast. Not too mention that RAID IS NOT BACKUP (RINB).
I'm a "serious amateur" photographer (about 1TB of photos currently) and I've been using CrashPlan for the last two years and I'm happy with it. They allow you to create a local encryption key that even they don't know so it seems pretty secure. The first upload can take a while (depending on your internet service) but everything is quick after that point.
In addition to that I also use TimeMachine on my Mac so I have a local backup of everything.
And we know Ned Ryerson also uses Bing!.
There's a much easier way to get steam. Details are available here.
Let's be pragmatic here. She didn't decide the logistics of her email server and how to secure it or delete emails. Her IT intern did this.
Let's be realistic here. She didn't tell her IT guy what tools to use. She didn't have to. Someone -- and it doesn't take too much intelligence to guess who -- gave a directive to make that server and all its contents disappear Jimmy Hoffa style. That directive was given only after the existence of the server became public knowledge and its contents were requested. Can guilt be proven by such an action? No. But can anyone make any remotely plausible, intelligent, cohesive argument as to why someone running for POTUS would knowingly put themselves in such an awkward, damaging position?
Clinton is no fool. She knew wiping the server after it was discovered would leave her open to charges of hiding things. The most plausible explanation of why she'd do this was because there were things on the server that were even more awkward and damaging.
Whether the secure wipe was used as a simple matter of Best Practice, or was done for Nefarious reasons, is not known. So when the article makes judgements such as "When you're using BleachBit, it is something you really do not want the world to see." it becomes a political mudslinging story.
What exactly is the purpose of BleachBit? As described on its own web page, BleachBit "tirelessly guards your privacy." It doesn't matter if it was wiped because of "best practices" (something rather laughable given that Sec. Clinton was violating the "best practices" of the very department she was head of according to the head of IT at SecState) or to hide nefarious activities. The main purpose of BleachBit is to preserve privacy by "obfuscating forensic evidence." The OP's statement was completely correct and made no judgments whatsoever about the guilt or innocence of Sec. Clinton. You're calling it mudslinging because you don't like the idea of people questioning her motives and wish to deflect attention.
How does 10 years count as "archiving"? Go back to 1916 and tell me how your backups are faring.
Does *this* explain why alien races all die out before they contact us?
Either that or they've seen us and decided to not contact.
Webvan was great. So was Pets.com. So is Uber.
Unfortunately, none of those companies had/have a chance without investor money to subsidize their services. Once forced to actually pay their costs, they will have no choice but to raise their rates or go out of business. With Webvan and Pets.com, customers left when the rates went up. Same will happen with Uber.
That said, I'm happy to spend investor's money to save a buck. Use it while it's there!
Okay, but what exactly is Uber spending $1.2B on? I ask this seriously. I understand a pets.com scenario where you have to build up inventory and all that - it takes capital up front and you won't get it back quickly. But Uber? They have a $100K app and some rented servers? I mean, I'm missing something *really* big somewhere. I don't see how they can blow that much cash with nothing to show for it.
And don't forget to sue Intel and AMD for running all the software involved, every step of the way from the server to the end user.
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater