1. Archive locally on a NAS or a big disk.
2. Regularly make backups to disk(s) stored locally in a hidden place (prevent casual thieves).
3. Regularly make backups to disk(s) stored at remote sites e.g. family members, friends, bank, whatever (mainly prevent disasters but also thieves).
4. Rotate disk with newer ones every 3-4 years (prevent damages from wearing, they're faster and have more storage).
5. Use parity files (PAR2, quickpar or RAR with Recovery Records. I amazed at sheer number of backup tools that don't have any kind of built-in parity option.
6. Print the best photos

In general don't trust too much DVDs and the Cloud (what happens if they loose your data? we've seen some examples lately...)

As for versioning, sorry I can't give any good advice. I still have to find a good automated solution. Currently my photo workflow relies on directory structures and a naming convention.

I will change a bit the order of quoting

How can say so it's beyond my comprehension. Have a look at this side-by-side picture of Zune V1 and V2: http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune I'm pretty sure everyone can recognize traits of the same design language.

TBH, I think this is simply a common belief coming from Apple marketing department and channeled through Apple fan boys. If anything, I'd say that Microsoft GUIs are exactly what were already under change. Apple simply pushed the changes to happen (far) more quickly.

For example, have a look at these:

1. Zen Portable Media Center (announced 2003, release 2004). This is probably the most stretched example. However, it's the first one I could trace back regarding the shift to typography based GUIs as Metro. Interface example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Media_Center
2. Windows Media Center (around 2006). This is the first clear example of where MS was hading to with GUIs for devices that were not regular PCs. Early interface examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Media_Center_Edition and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn_WwstUIlE
3. Zune device and software (around 2006-2007). The first generation already headed to typography based UI, later generations are clearly Metro styled. Examples of the device OS here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune and here http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/13/zune-2-0-update-ready-for-your-first-generation-zune example of the software here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_Software
4. XBox 360 (around 2008). Again, first generations (of the Dashboard) were only seminal, the new one is clearly Metro. Examples are here http://news.cnet.com/hands-on-with-the-new-xbox-360-dashboard and the new one here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1home30rock0531.JPG
5. Windows Mobile 6.5 (around 2010). With 6.5 you can clearly see similarities with Metro. Then again, the real Metro was around the corner. Still, you can see there's a continuity from the Zune (2007). Examples here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_mobile

Save all pictures somewhere, review the Metro design language article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_(design_language) and then tell me again that Microsoft started changing GUIs after Apple push.

MS was already undertaking changes in various GUIs and I can clearly see the Metro design behind those changes. They may have not spelt out a name for it, and/or formally defined design rules, but I can clearly see the common roots. They already had the grounds and simply came up with the concept of tiles that was new.

and let me take also another quote from your original message:

MS already had several open fronts were they had to re-think GUIs before Apple even started hinting they would release a tablet: Xbox, Zune, Windows Media Center and Windows Phone. They were already working on GUIs for several different devices where the traditional Desktop GUI was not the way to go. It just takes time for a player that is already in the market and have an estabilished developer base (did you see the massive outcry with the new APIs? and the incredible amount of FUD going around? people seems to believe .NET will be dead in a couple of months when in reality even COM is still pretty much alive). Moreover, it sometimes take also technology to advance before you can make some changes (think touch screens of the past, could you really use it without a stylus?).

But with tablets the problem is different: MS simply didn't believe there was a big market except for niches (again, tablets used in production lines or hospitals). They didn't believe so many consumers were prepared to pay for a light-weight OS to do coach surfing, seeing videos etc. Especially at such a high prices. Quite honestly, who could predict it? I'm not even sure whether it was really a need or rather the proverbial "field distrortion" at work once again. But let's simply say it was a mistake from MS. They quickly started catching up on the ground of what was already being done in the UI space.

Don't make the mistake to think that MS is a million pound gorilla sitting on the market just trying to squeeze every single penny from obsolete technologies. MS constantly pushes in a lot of different directions. Just check Microsoft Research site.

For example, they did a lot of research in the field of image reconstruction in both still photography (based on other, similar, photos) and videos (based on other frames). They may not have anything really ready for prime-time, but they are constantly working on new things. Again, as an example, in Windows Live Photo Gallery there's the technology to merge photos in order to replace closed eyes from other photos (photo fuse). It's not as great as it sounds yet, but eventually it will become usefull in future.

GUIs, and mobile devices in general, are no exception. However, MS tend to push things slowly to the market. Partly because it's really a million pound gorilla; partly because they used to be very conservative with disruptive changes (backward compatibility used to be priority number one before Metro/Windows8/Sinofsky). Also, it may sound strange given the common perception as markeeters, but they are not always good at it. Especially with things that can change radically the market. Hell, even with the Kinect: it's a great concept, they sold millions of them, yet I feel as if they are not really pushing it as they could (e.g. few games exploiting it).

Anyway, MS is clearly following right now in the tablets market. However, saying it's copying from Apple it's simply not true. It's not true for GUIs and it's not true for the WinRT APIs (which is the *real* thing in Windows 8). Moreover, I believe that there's still a lot that can happen. There's a good post in another thread here that is quite interesting. Moving forward, we will see if keeping the option to run also desktop software on tablets will be an advantage or not (think docked tablets). It just take a bit more computing power at low energy consuption. Then running both Metro and Windows 7 GUIs will make perfect sense.

Which OS design ideas? Be specific because it can't be the GUI which is completely different and follows completely different principles (yes I'm just talking about Metro, of course the fact that it can still run a Windows 7 alike desktop is completely different).

So what is it? Lower level OS architecture? Can't be. E.g. Apple managed to barely fix ASLR only in Lion. Microsoft has it working since ages.

It must be gestures then. Who would have thought that once touchscreen technology advanced, things could be operated touching a screen. No, it can't be, concepts have been around for a decade and something real was already around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Surface (besides all sort of other tablets, I refer to the surface because from a design concept standpoint has been by far the richest).

Uhm, maybe is the design concept of having a matrix of icons? Pretty looks like my Windows desktop since the last 15 years. Thanks, I'll stay with my Metro tiles that actively display something useful and don't look so Win3.1

Yep, then they invented a time machine and went back to 2006 to release the Zune with an interface that looks like the genesis of Metro. But the point is another one, so, after all, they didn't copied, they were only forced to re-design? And the big part of that re-design of WP7 vs WP6.5 was the interface?

So now you switched from OS design to general tablet design. And the failure was the Windows GUI. Not that batteries lasted nothing. Not the weight (couldn't even be used to make a presentation, your arm would hurt if you had to keep it in hands for 1 hour). Not that they were slow as hell. Not that touchscreen technology was a joke. Nope. Nothing. Just the GUI. Everyone was waiting fur such an inspired GUI from Apple. Just swipes, pokes and tons of small apps.

I tell you what: iPads right now are good for coach surfing, watching some videos, reading books (although I prefer e-ink), playing a limited set of games, casually reading e-mails. That's pretty much it (ok, there are some niches like music composers and such, but I'm talking about the mass. If you want to write something seriously, you need an external keyboard. For some some other stuff, a pen would be very useful. We'll see what happens when MS tablet will be released on different form factors with the best of both worlds (Windows Desktop and Metro). I predict that once Excel and Outlook will ship on Metro, a lot of managers will throw their iPads out of the window.

Because we are talking about who copied who and if we go back to PDAs then even there Apple was not the first one and the Newton was pretty much a failure. MS came later with CE devices and that was a lot more successful. Not even only in the consumer space, all over different devices (warehouses, hospitals etc.)

You struggle to keep focus? We are talking about MS copying Apple, so where is the matrix of icons in Metro? You know, Metro tiles are not just square/rectangular icons. They actively convey information. Yet, in the iOS world a matrix of icons seems to be such an innovation (Apple even put it in Lion). How could MS fail to copy such a fundamental innovation! FWIW the ROTFL was a huge laugh at all the innovation from Apple. Icons. Lots of them.

I agree :(

I have only 155 people in my circles but it's already too much. There are too many of them that are simply using it as FB. For example: if I want to post something funny, or simply not technology related, I have a list of people called "Pub" with people inside that I know that don't mind reading all kind of stuff. When I post something technology related, I post it to some circle where I put people I know are following that technology.

However, if we don't all follow similar rules, if people simply post to either to public or all circles, trying to filter by your circles is useless as you simply get all sort of garbage everywhere :) pretty much like in FB where most people didn't even know about lists.

I hoped that with Goggle+ people would start fresh and start using circles in a proper way, also because it seems there are more geeks than in FB. I stopped hoping.

That's true: the select can be skipped and the regular expression can be directly injected in the insert command. I didn't really wanted to fiddle also with the escapes :) Also, in the above code the named capturing group was stripped away by Slashdot, but it was not really needed as we can simply use a numbered capturing group. If we also drop filtering for only successful matches, it all boils to simply the following code:

Get-EventLog -LogName "Security" | ? { $_.InstanceID -eq 4648 } | % { Invoke-Sqlcmd -Query "INSERT INTO tempdb.dbo.FailedLogons VALUES ($($_.Index), '$($_.TimeGenerated)', '$($_.MachineName)', '$([regex]::match($_.Message, `"Account Name:\s*(.*)\x0d\x0a`").Groups[1].Value)');" }

Just as a reality check, here's a single command line that:

- gets the Windows security Event Log
- filters for failed logon events (4648)
- extracts some fields from the events, in some cases these are exposed as simple properties of the streaming objects, in one other it's using RexEx, with a named capturing group, to find the user name in the message
- inserts the data in a SQL RDBMS

Get-EventLog -LogName "Security" | ? { $_.InstanceID -eq 4648 } | Select Index, TimeGenerated, MachineName, @{Name="AccountName"; Expression={(([regex]"Account Name:\s*(?.*)\x0d\x0a").Match($_.Message) | ? {$_.Success}).Groups['AccountName'].Value}} | % { Invoke-Sqlcmd -Query "INSERT INTO tempdb.dbo.FailedLogons VALUES ($($_.Index), '$($_.TimeGenerated)', '$($_.MachineName)', '$($_.AccountName)');" }

I'm no genius either, have no MCSE, been into Xenix last century, but oddly enough I ended up with a completely different opinion of the people in Redmond.

Just to be sure I'm not making up things, this is the database schema to test it with SQL Server:
CREATE TABLE tempdb.dbo.FailedLogons ( LogIndex int NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY , TimeGenerated datetime NOT NULL , MachineName nvarchar(16) NOT NULL , AccountName nvarchar(256) NOT NULL )
Oh, and you need to make sure SQL Server PowerShell provider is loaded in your environment for the Invoke-Sqlcmd commandlet to be available.

Don't worry, we are also lazy:
Get-Alias -Definition Get-Content

Alias cat Get-Content
Alias gc Get-Content
Alias type Get-Content

;-)

Adding another one to the list which is free, has command completion and debugging: PowerGui Editor for Quest http://www.powergui.org/

I never played the original TF (just seen it) but I think Q3F and later ETF were awesome. Much better than TF2 for gameplay and overall fun.

First of all, please not that I'm not suggesting they where right or anything.

I said they were obliged to investigate because people filed accusations. During investigations, prosecutors come to a point where they formulate concrete indictments against people and usually continue to investigate. At the end they file everything and a trial can begin. This is very roughly how it works and how it supposedly worked it this case (I'm basing my comments on different articles from the press here in Italy).

Not only that. People should understand some basics of the Italian law system before jumping to conclusions, making comparisons and pretending everyone is an idiot (I'm not referring to you).

When authorities are notified or simply become aware of crimes, they are obliged to investigate. In this case there were several accusations made by people and prosecutors were obliged to investigate. Just to give some more perspective, charges are for homicide and other related crimes. The researcher that was investigated in the past for saying there would have been an earthquake, was charged (if I remember correctly) for procured alarm to authorities (still a crime).

Beside the obligation to investigate, I also agree with you that is not necessarily unreasonable to investigate further. I'm pretty sure these guys will be discharged and the outcome of the trial may be helpful in future to prevent similar things to happen (both geologist trying to be less conservative and people being discouraged to make criminal accusations for nothing).

This helps to understand the technical part of it, but of course there's more: the political part.

Lately the civil protection department has gone through several scandals related to rebuilding activities of the area and it's close to the current government. Part of the population is pissed off because: they lost relatives, rebuilding is happening slowly and lot of promises remained just promises. The judiciary bench is often accused by the right wing (current government) to have the majority of judges being close to the left wing and to try to overcome the government.

So, depending on the political orientation, people think either that prosecutors are just doing their jobs, or that they are trying to put pressure on the government accusing the civil protection. You may feel a bit puzzled at this point asking yourself what's the problem if, after all, they are simply following the law that obliges them to investigate. A common argument by right wing people is that there are simply too many notifications of crimes and accusations to investigate on all of them and the judiciary bench selects them (or better give priorities) based on a political agenda.

So, don't think this is only a matter that has to do with science. It has more to do with the judiciary system and politics.

Now people can feel free to think everyone here is an idiot :)