How Does It Work?

To start backing up, you need to first install the Mozy software, which is available for both Mac and Windows. Once installed, the easy-to-use interface lets you choose which files you want to backup on the Mozy servers. There are some predefined backup sets that you can choose to let Mozy decide how to do it. For example, if you want your e-mail to be backed up, choose the Outlook or Apple Mail backup set. Other sets include Firefox Favorites, IE Favorites, Word Processing Documents, iCal, Keynote Presentations, and many others. Backup sets make it easy, as Mozy will figure out which files need to be backed up for you.

The backup sets aren't good enough for me, as I want to backup the code for my websites and my database backup files. Mozy lets you choose any files and directories on your computer easily. Click on the screenshot to the left showing my backup configuration on my Mac, where my Ruby on Rails code resides. I checked the "rails" folder and a few of the subfolders underneath.

Once you tell Mozy which files and directories you want backed up, you can set a schedule for how often Mozy will send backups to its servers. Or you can let Mozy perform the backups whenever your computer is idle. Note that Mozy will only backup changes to your files. It won't waste time by uploading files that haven't changed since the last backup. Nice.

Mozy allows you to include more than one computer in your account. I've got my server, which runs Windows, and my laptop, which is a Mac. Mozy backs up the database backups from the server, and my website code from my laptop. Both the Mozy website and the Mozy client software keep track of how much data is being stored from each computer. The website will even tell you when each machine was last backed up, so you don't need to log in to each computer to check the status of your backups. It's a simple feature that's makes the service even more convenient to use!

What Doesn't Mozy Do?

Mozy is not a "file archive" service. It is a remote backup service. What's the difference? A file archive service lets you upload files where they will be stored and never changed unless you change them yourself. A backup service like Mozy will keep backups of the latest versions of your files. If you delete a file from your computer that Mozy had been backing up, then Mozy assumes that you don't need it anymore. From their FAQ: "If you delete the working copy on your machine and then run a backup, Mozy will assume that you no longer need a backup copy, since you got rid of the working copy, and will mark the file to be removed from our system in 30 days. (We keep it on file for 30 days, just in case you change your mind.) After 30 days, you cannot get these files back."

So, you can't upload all your vacation pictures to Mozy and then delete them from your hard drive. If that's the kind of service you're looking for, then Mozy isn't going to help.

Also, you can't share files with others. You can't backup a file to Mozy and tell your friends to download it.

Let Mozy Do What You Should Have Been Doing All Along

Mozy is a backup system for your files. If your computer gets stolen, or your hard drive goes up in smoke, or a meteor crashes into your house, Mozy will be there to restore your files to the way they were a few days or hours before tragedy struck. That's what Mozy does, and it does it automatically. Tell Mozy what to backup, and it will do it all by itself, without asking you to do anything. Set it and forget it.

In my opinion, Mozy does what computers should do for us. Why should I have to worry about such mundane tasks as keeping backups of my files, keeping track of which files have changed recently, and finding a safe place to store my backups? Our computers need to be more autonomous, making decisions for us. Even the most tech savvy computer users make bad decisions when using and maintaining their computers. It's about time that software starts doing these things for us, and Mozy is one of those products that does that for me. MozyHome is free, so give it a try.




Confession: Yes, the links in this article are referral links! I can make a few dimes and nickels by recommending Mozy to you. Nevertheless, my opinions are sincere. Managing data is a nerdy thrill for me, so Mozy is an exciting service because it's an elegant solution to an important problem. Anything that manages data automatically for me is awesome! Mozy was recommended by Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times and PC Magazine, so my glowing praise is hardly original.

An even more famous recent UFO story comes from Chicago, where a UFO was seen (allegedly) by many people at O'Hare airport, including pilots and other airline employees. It's a fascinating story, just like any ghost story you might tell around a campfire. But of all the people who witnessed the craft, we haven't gotten a photo or video. No pictures. No videos. No evidence of any kind, unless you count eye witness accounts as evidence. Ok, some blurry, spotty photos have arrived months after the event, but they aren't accepted even by the most open-minded ufologists.

I can't imagine that all these eye witnesses, if they really exist, collaborated to invent this story and tell it to the world. But I also can't imagine that a government cover-up could be happening. Could the military have surrounded the airport and its surrounding area and confiscated all cameras from all civilians? No, I don't think so. We would like to think that our military is brilliant and organized, but this is a stretch.

So, no pictures, no video, and, come to think of it, no names of the eye witnesses. No names? Read the Chicago Tribune article about it. The witnesses are identified with these phrases: "some United Airlines employees", "the witnesses", "a United ramp worker", "some said", "a United mechanic", "one United employee", "a United manager", and so on. Never a name given to the witnesses.

So, by process of elimination, I would have to say that only one person is telling this story. Somehow, the media got it wrong and is saying that lots of people witnessed something. Great hoax, and I admire whoever pulled it off. But there is zero evidence to support it.

I have to look back at the case against the undercover police at Montebello that I wrote about yesterday. When a crowd of people witnesses an important event that would be unbelievable to those who were not there, they take pictures, video, and anything else they can. Then they present it without anonymity to the media immediately, as CUPE did at a press conference within the same week. In the case of the O'Hare UFO, the event was not revealed until long after it allegedly happened, without any photos or videos. It's false, I'm sad to say.

I have the same problems with the Disclosure Project, which features testimony by many impressive people with unbeatable credentials. Nevertheless, all they can present us with are campfire ghost stories. No evidence except the words that come out of their mouths. Please go and watch the two hour presentation and come back to tell me I'm wrong. Tell me I've become too jaded and skeptical. Tell me that the aliens are here! I'm ready to be convinced!

But when I see a case where evidence is presented so clearly, it makes me doubt all the things that I believed without evidence. Information can be disseminated without barriers on the Internet, so there is no reason why people can't disclose their evidence anymore. Ghost stories are obsolete.

Come on, aliens! Upload your home movies to YouTube already!

Have you seen any evidence of UFOs that convinced you?

This was clearly a botched police operation. Soon after the dirty cops were identified and called out by the protesters, they approached the line of riot cops seeking help. They were taken to the other side of the riot cops' shields, and gently arrested. They remained masked the entire time. As if it wasn't clear enough that they were cops, the riot cops made the mistake of putting them on the ground, which allowed all the digital cameras to get high resolution images of the pigs' boots and the riot cops boots. All the boots had identical Vibram soles. The failed instigators clumsily put duct tape on their boots to try to disguise them, but didn't cover the bottoms where the boots can be identified.

Thanks to social news sites like digg, the story is not just causing a stir in Canada. (Can Canadians be stirred by anything?) The story, pictures, and video are being viewed worldwide. This certainly isn't the first time that police have been accused of inciting violence to defame protesters, but the evidence here is incontrovertible, in my opinion: The way the dirty cops fled from the protesters, practically begging the riot cops to rescue them. There were no arrests made or charges laid. The identities of the three men has not been released. Their masks were never removed. The standard issue Vibram police boots. The dissemination of information across the internet was swift. It's too late for a government cover-up this time.

It's disgusting and outrageous. Where did the orders come from for this repulsive mission? To know for certain that our police are using violent tactics against peaceful civilians is hard to accept. It's the worst kind of abuse of power.

Sadly, I think this event will be forgotten by next week.

Update Aug. 24, 2007

Looks like the issue got enough attention that it got a response from the federal government. Time to see some legislation to keep the police in check.

Time to "police the police"

After watching the video, it seems to me like a conference call, except that you get to see some insane cartoon characters. Is a Second Life event more immersive than a conference call, or a recorded phone interview? For the very few players who attended the event, it probably was. Still, I’m not convinced there’s much value in such Second Life events, except to promote Second Life itself.

Other events held in Second Life: an interview with the cast and crew of Transformers, an interview with Bruce Willis (in which he looks horrifying), and a party with Fatboy Slim (attended by many drag queen avatars).

I think someone told businesses that the internet was on the way out and virtual worlds would take their place. Build your virtual stores now, or miss out on virtual reality! No one will want to shop on web sites in the future. They’ll want to use their virtual selves instead to shop in virtual malls!

Just imagine it: instead of shopping for books using a boring search engine on Amazon, you can walk your virtual avatar to the Amazon mall, then walk your character to different sections of the store using the mouse and WSAD keys, find the books you want, right-click to put them in your inventory, then walk your avatar into line at the cashiers, buy the books, and carry them back to your virtual estate. Yes, in the future we will want things to take a long time, be more difficult to use, and require good graphics cards. And companies will have to hire 3D modelers, texture artists, animators, and script-writers to build their virtual stores.

I’d like to say that it ain’t gonna happen, but I’m not so sure. It would be a great way for big companies to cut out a lot of competition. It’s far too easy to build a website today. Any company and individual can create a website and sell their products to millions of potential customers around the world. Creating a virtual, 3D, interactive store is a much bigger technical challenge that small companies would not all be able to afford. Like mainstream TV and film today, only the biggest players would be able to profit.

One thing Second Life proves: big businesses are interested. Second Life is being used as a testing ground for virtual world sales and marketing. It might be ugly and awkward today, but it’s just the ancestor to future non-game virtual worlds that will evolve and grow into something that everyone might want to join, like the internet, and where big businesses can use their muscle against the little guy. Or maybe this is just my cynical opinion as a modest blogger.

Long live the world wide web!