Long term data storage (was: Disasters and Recovery

From: Don Maslin <donm_at_cts.com>
Date: Mon Jan 18 22:42:44 1999

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Joe wrote:

> At 03:58 PM 1/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >A recent program on Stonehenge on the Discovery channel said the RAF
> wanted to
> >level Stonehenge with explosives, but the person who owned the land they were
> >on refused to let them. *boggle* Is it just me, or does all this suggest
> >that in the 1930s and early 40s good maps were much harder to come by than
> >today? I know the advent of satelite mapping has improved it, but you'd
> think
> >anyone planning to invade England would have gone there in 1938 and just
> >BOUGHT maps.
> >
> The problem wasn't the maps, it was the fact that if you were in a plane
> and caught above the cloads and then came down you had NO idea where you
> where since the winds could have pushed you in ANY direction away from your
> predicted location. One bridge, railroad, road, church steeple looks
> pretty much like another but Stonehenge is an ABSOULUTELY unique landmark!
>
> Joe

Well, except perhaps for the concrete replica in the Columbia River Valley.

                                                 - don

 
>
> >
> >
> >> I've never heard that one. Plenty of things like that were done in WW2,
> >> mostly to impress upon the public that 'there's a war on'.
> >>
> >> Both my parents (who lived through the war) assure me that Stonehenge was
> >> not moved, laid flat, or anything else in the war.
> >>
> >> Of course some things (stained glass windows, for example) were moved to
> >> protect them in the event of bombing.
> >>
> >> Anyway, stones lying flat in a field would also be a good landmark IMHO.
> >> Possibly even more visible.
> >>
> >> -tony
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Jim Strickland
> >jim_at_DIESPAMMERSCUMcalico.litterbox.com
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Vote Meadocrat! Bill and Opus in 2000 - Who ELSE is there?
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 18 1999 - 22:42:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:07 BST