The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Rip that CD to an ISO while you still can. Then stop worrying about whether you'll be able to read a 20+ year old disc.
I went through the process of copying everything I still had only on discs to a hard drive (now part of my regular backup set) a few years ago. There's no going back. I haven't had the need to touch a CD or DVD since.
I am in the process of doing the same thing. CDs was essentially completed several years ago, but I was too much of a movie collector during the DVD/BD age. One thing is that you need a subscription with WD to have a new disk delivered every month... Especially newer Blu-rays may up to 50 Gigabytes, and you can fit only 20 of them per TByte of hard disk space. (Luckily, disk is cheap nowadays; the problem is fitting them in your PC cabinet - I don't have a NAS.) My first 64 GB USB stick was bought to hold a single BD movie; I was taking it to a party for watching it with friends.
The other problem is that the DVD/BD manufacturers make new copyright protections all the time. With some of the newer movies I haven't succeeded in e.g. getting the play menu to work properly; I have to drag the correct video file onto the player with the mouse, and I can't play it on a TV set with a USB socket - they require a proper menu structure file for navigating.
Still there are movies I want to see and preserve, so I must buy them on an physical medium - because they are not available for preserving in any other format. Same with music: I do buy CDs when I discover new and exciting music. So I will keep my CD/DVD/BD player in my PC for all foreseeable future.
Commercial videos on discs, especially blu-rays, are a pain. I haven't ripped my own collection because of the space required, and I only have a few hundreds of them, with blu-rays being a tiny part of that. I'm very much against streaming as my connection barely registers above 5mbps. In my situation, you'd think I'd be all about backing up my purchased media.
Windows 7 was really good...not surprised it still works. I've had 10 since it was released and consider it to be a worthy successor. (forced updates aside)
A couple of weeks ago a colleague needed a laptop for an assistant...mostly web browsing, document editing, nothing heavy. I dusted off the predecessor of my current laptop. (2015) When I bought that laptop it came with Vista and has been upgraded to 10 pro. It is painfully slow (still using a spinner) but still works fine for the task at hand. When I get it back, it'll likely get an SSD and it should be better than new.
In a an informal chat with my boss today, he pointed out that in this country (Norway), every year almost a thousand people die from the regular flu. Corona is not getting really serious until it gets up do that level. We currently have a death count of seven, so for now, we really shouldn't be too munch in a panic.
I agreed, and for the sake of staying calm: This country has around sixty thousand deaths every year, no matter from which angle you see it, and we have no way of preventing that. Deaths from ordinary flu are almost exclusively elderly people. Today, you always die from one thing or another. One out of sixty deaths is from the flu. The flu is just one of many possible ways of dying. Corona is another. Mortality rate is invariably one per person.
My boss was silent for so long that I suspect that he had never before looked at it from that angle.
(You could make another comparison: As long as fewer people are killed by Corona than by car accidents, then it isn't that bad.)
This isn't about death rates now: it's about what happens when the number of cases that need serious medical intervention exceeds the medical facilities available.
When that happens, the situation is radically out of control, and the death rate doesn't rise - it skyrockets. Flue is a relatively innocuous disease: it kills 0.01% of people it infects. This, the number suggest kills 3.5% - probably more once it starts to run away with itself.
For Britain, the population is 60M, so 3% is 2.4M. If 2.4M people needed serious medical intervention at the same time, there isn't a country in the world that could provide it, and most if not all (or more!) would not survive.
This is about reducing the number of serious cases to manageable levels, while ramping up medical resources as much as possible and keeping them manageable to prevent the infection rate going ballistic.
If car accidents were infectious, your analogy would work...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
modified 20-Mar-20 14:30pm.
Last Visit: 12-Jul-20 0:42 Last Update: 12-Jul-20 0:42