Well, depending on your application (and I'm assuming here it's not too demanding if you're using a mini as a server), you could always stick an external HDD and schedule Carbon Copy Cloner to dupe the boot drive over every now and then and the data portion rather more often. That'll give you a bootable volume in case of primary failure. It's not a raid 1 but for home or small office purposes it would probably do the trick just fine.

"Ordinarily you'd think that the user had a poor password..." Actually we can, you know, look it up. It's in the news. And no it wasn't a poor password and I didn't think that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.
"And what is precisely why you don't get this." Is this a question? It looks more like a statement.
"This is an either/or case." Why in the world couldn't it be both? Why can't we have a vendor vulnerability and users with bad password discipline? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?

Is it really "stolen" when they're actually just copied from an improperly secured repository?

No, not really. There are various ways to poll weather "most people approve of what R&D are doing" but Congressional approval at 14% and presidential approval around 50% (with some pretty significant drops), I don't know that you could safely take the approval of the majority as a foregone conclusion. The general tone I'm seeing is that people are getting increasingly discontented(sp?) with their government, Occupy style. There are two realistic choices, and I think the argument could be made they are both similar enough to be considered functionally equivalent (think Bush / Obama actions). To a large degree, they are also not what the people want.

Absolutely!
When I go "shipping" online though, there are fairly rigorous security measures in place to assure both me and, say, Amazon that everything is on the up-and-up. If something goes south, Visa will step in and kick someone's hindquarters. Regardless, I as the end-user don't end up assuming liability for, say, someone getting my CC# and making purchases on my behalf. In this case, the security was plainly not sufficient to the task and JL has no intermediary to run interference for her. You're right, same tubes, but the implementation is what makes the difference.

News flash: vendors may stretch the truth just a bit when telling you how great their services are!
Fact: the services in question had a weakness which was successfully exploited.
What I'm trying to explain to you is that the pictures were not properly secured. We can tell because they went public without authorization via a hack. That security was Jennifer Lawrence's responsibility. You will notice nothing in the links you sent talking about guarantees or compensation in case of a breach. She did not assign responsibility for the security of her photos to Apple or Dropbox.
So, to recap...
1) Nude selfies produced by Jennifer Lawrence.
2) Insufficient security used to protect pictures after they were sent across / posted on the INTERNET.
3) Pictures go public because there are bad people on the internet.
4) Jennifer Lawrence claims she is a victim of a sex crime

To put it another way (per your request): If your picnic in the middle of the street on a blind turn is ruined by a car driving through it, while the driver may be cited for not yielding right of way to a pedestrian, it's really your fault for exercising poor judgment locating it there in the first place.

When you say " that's equivalent to putting photos in an envelope and putting them in a post office? I don't think so.". Well, it was an analogy but YES. We have insufficiently secured personal documents posted on a public medium.

Ah, but what if "Sam" puts nude selfies in an envelope and pins the envelope up at the local post office? Without a doubt the guy that takes them out of the envelope is wrong to do so, but as the possessor of an extremely low UID "Sam" should know his nude pics would be interesting to many people. In this scenario, you don't think "Sam" should bear any responsibility for creating and insecurely distributing his selfies?
Note I'm not arguing that breaking into the account and making a copy of the pics contained therein was right, I'm just saying that a celebrity sending nude pictures of themselves over a worldwide network designed to disseminate data looks a bit silly crying crocodile tears when someone other than the intended recipient sees them.

So you're saying there could be issues with uploading nude pics of yourself (that you don't want public) to a world encompassing network whose primary purpose is the free interchange of data? Amazing!

Did anyone else think "Heart of Gold" while reading this?

There was this country recently that had huge protests because while they were getting a democratic election the only people they could vote for were preapproved by a third party not necessarily interested in what the people wanted.
Yeah, we have two choices (we can pretend there are more but let's stick to reality here) and they end up being functionally the same and not what we want.