T
Timothy Daniels
kony said:No I"m not. I mean, using the best technology mankind has
at it's disposal, sparing NO expense and working on it until
the end of time.
Yes, and it can "maybe" result in a slightly higher success
than random chance. Taken over billions of bytes, that's
not even remotely close to being able to reconstruct data.
Theory about a phenomenon is not same thing as actually
being able to use it fruitfully.
Vague nonsense.
Nope, it's just paranoia.
There are established data-write techniques that are proven
to be unrecoverable, not as a matter of "how easy or
expensive", but rather, UNRECOVERABLE.
You've morphed your argument as you have done in the past.
You've gone from "multi-pass random writes" to "established
data-write techniques". You didn't start out with "established"
techniques, but "multi-pass" techniques. If I were to prove that
3 passes weren't enough, you'd say you were talking about
4 passes. If I then proved there were techniques that can
retrieve data after 4 passes, you'd say you were talking about
5 passes, etc. I maintain that 3 is "multi" - your original thesis -
and the DOD requires about a dozen passes. Obviously, you
and the DOD disagree. Go ahead and scoff and continue to
live in your ignorance, because at your level of importance, one
pass should suffice.
*TimDaniels*