10Mbps SSH - works beautifully.

In our situation 3 drives would have to fail to lose the data. We're each responsible for our own backups, I'm pretty bad for testing them (read: never) but the last time I needed it everything worked perfectly. We both had secure remote networks setup for other reasons so it seemed sensible to backup each others data. The way I've setup mine is that the main drive is backed up on drive 1 on Mon/Wed/Fri/Sun and drive 2 is updated on the other days. We do it between 2am to 8am so that the data transfer isn't counted against our monthly caps.

Internal drive does not mean that drive is located in the same place as my main drive. See my other post about where it's located.

No, because the 2nd drive provides redundancy - if drive 1 fails then you restore from drive 2. There's a slight possibility that both drives fail at the same time but that's a very remote chance.

Aside from the fact that I have 2 such drives that I carry around with me, the ones I was referring to are setup on home servers accessible from anywhere.

I have a server and my brother-in-law has a server. 10Mbps pipes on either end (upload), offsite automated backup (basic software handles this) with built in redundancy (again, software creates an image of the main backup drive) for both of us. We'd both have to be robbed/have fires at the same time.

Works pretty damn well and the only costs are the drives themselves and a little bit of electricity.

I can pickup a 1 TB drive right now for ~$60 which means I could afford 2 of them at Google's prices. Instead of 1 year of service I can expect 5 years out of a SATA drive typically. So if nothing goes wrong, I've saved myself $480, if something does go wrong with both drives, I've saved myself $360.

Seriously. This "article" reads more like an ad. $120/year for 1 TB is more than 9 times what I'd pay for 5 years of a 1 TB internal SATA.

They did finance a couple of the ones involved in the suit (some crappy one with Segal and one other random one)

The parent posted the text of the law and while likely isn't quoting exact %s the gist of what he says is supported by other sources. http://www.torys.com/Publicati... - see "Recovery of Legal Fees" and http://www-personal.umich.edu/... and http://millsandmills.ca/2011/0... and... I could go on but you probably won't read any of those links.

The conservatives (Canadian Republicans) *ASKED* to be put on the US shitlist - they would never have been on there otherwise.

In Canada the loser generally pays fees so it's still viable, just delays when they get their money. Many are just in it for the quick buck (just like movies, first 45 days of release are where the money is - they have little interest in the long tail) but big studios may see this as a long term cashcow.

I actually did the reverse, I had to unpatch Steam's patches to be able to get GFWL back. Not that I like the DRM, but I stick to Xbox achievements. Steam's lack of value (arbitrary as gamerscore is) and lack of limits on the number/type of achievements makes them less interesting for me. Just like I have zero interest in Xbox challenges - it's no fun to have time limited crap - I've got way too many games and too much to do in my life to add that kind of hassle.

I also don't really have interest in gamerscore so much as I do TrueAchievements. The ratio (rarity) of an achievement relative to it's gamerscore assigns a more meaningful value and a layer of statistical interest beyond "1king a game".

see my post below about correcting facts.

I had no point other than to correct the facts. Bush signed 36.25/year during his two terms (averaged out), Obama 33.8 or 41.5 depending on whether you include 2014s orders since the year isn't over. I should have included Regan's data as well:

Regan: 380 or 47.5 per year.