If I understand correctly, even reinstallation does not need user attention as long as loader.efi doesn't change. But that's based only on my reading of the article I quoted, so I could be wrong.

User only needs to press a key during initial installation, after that it should boot unattended just fine: "If the user gives permission, the signature will be installed and loader.efi will then boot up without any present user tests on all subsequent occasions even after the platform is placed back into secure boot mode." http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2012/10/linux-foundation-uefi-secure-boot-system-open-source

Here's what I do (with about 3TB data now):

I've got a dedicated backup server at home that backs up all machines there automatically and rsync's the backup to another machine offsite overnight.

I've got an uncapped but relatively slow connection, uplink speed in practice about 2MB/s, but that's enough: it rarely takes more than three hours to do the rsync. Occasionally (like after returning from a two-week trip to Kenya) I've got so much new data (photos) that it takes more than 24 hours, but that's rare (and causes no problems per se, other than increased window of vulnerability, but one day is acceptable for me). Also, both machines have hotswap disk slots, so I could do the sync at home and carry the disks over should I one day get so much new data that rsyncing it over the network would take too long.

This works very well for me. It does require a reasonable network connection and a suitable place for the offsite backup machine, though.

In Finland the parliament can change the constitution, but it has to be supported in two consecutive parliaments (with an election in between) and by 2/3 majority, or by single parliament with 5/6 majority. A bit too easy for my liking, but certainly harder than getting 50000 supporters.

Not really, since the credentials aren't reusable: you have a list of key-value pairs, each used only once, in random order. Moreover, payments require separate confirmation (second key-value match), so even man-in-the-middle attack with identification-only site wouldn't allow stealing your money (well, not that easily anyway).

The article says that

'Metro Transit bought the recordings for $150 from a company that offers the dead composers among "royalty-free" selections.'

I take that to mean it is a public domain performance, too.

Interesting. In comparison, Finnish law applies to crimes outside Finnish territory when either the act is also crime in the country where it was committed and carries sufficiently heavy penalty or it is one of explicitly listed crimes (which include child sexual abuse). In most cases it also applies to crimes committed abroad only when either the perpetrator or the victim is a Finnish citizen, but there're a number of exceptions to that (e.g., certain crimes like genocide or when extradition is denied on grounds of possible death penalty or torture).

So you would not be prosecuted in Finland for smoking hashish in the Netherlands even if you are a Finnish citizen, but you could be for raping a child regardless of where it occurred.

Nope. Finnish citizens in Finland are not required to possess any kind of identity card, and I know for a fact that many indeed do not have one at all. The text you quoted does not say a country must require or issue IDs to all its citizens, only that such a card is sufficient to travel abroad (with limitations), and while Finland does have national identity cards in the sense used in that directive, they're not issued to everybody automatically, you must explicitly request one, and it's not free (EUR 53 last I checked). Indeed most people don't have one but rather use a passport or driver's license as ID when needed - but as noted, some people don't have those either. If you don't travel abroad or drive or need to open a new bank account, you can do without.

Curiously, Finland remains one of those countries where there's no general legal requirement to carry identification papers or indeed even to have any - and some people actually don't. (There's presidential election going on here right now, and every now and then people come to vote without papers, and there are a number of ways they can, including bringing along someone who can testify they're who they say they are.)

For comparison, in Finnish law there's a limit how long you can be detained for refusing to testify, namely six months.

I know and have known many of people who've kept on working despite having no financial need to do so, and also people who've kept on doing the same thing after being fired and having to eat mostly oatmeal porridge to survive on their savings. Mostly they're research scientists. That is indeed something that, at its best, can give you satisfaction over and above everything else. If you've got what it takes, go for it. There're also a number of artists who will keep on doing their thing regardless of money until they starve, but they generally never had a regular job to begin with. (Yeah, they're a minority. But they do exist.)

I guess you live in Southern part of Canada, then. :-) Where I live, about 63 degrees North (in Finland, not Canada) we have about 4 hours daylight in winter and 20 hours in summer, and in spring and autumn around the time clocks are changed day length changes so rapidly that it doesn't really matter whether you move clocks or not. The only positive side in DST is that it forces people to check their clocks twice a year.

It's easy enough to keep any desired schedule of incremental backups with rsync - search for rsnapshot for example, or BackupPC if you want a fancy web-based interface.

Otherwise, 100% agreement: backups should be physically separated from the primary data, preferably by significant geographical distance (think about fire) and duplicated on several locations.

Fortunately using it isn't mandatory - ISPs are free to ignore it (some do, including mine) or provide it to their customers as an optional service (most of them do that, some make as opt-in, some as opt-out). I don't think any of them enforces it on their customers any more.

Here in Finland there was a court case a while back where a man was convicted for using neighbour's unprotected WLAN without permission. Rather amazingly, that lead to a new law passed by Finnish parliament just a few months ago, which explicitly allows such use. (Disclaimer: I was rather heavily involved in the campaign for the law, as then-chairman of Electronic Frontier Finland.) Moreover, just about all landline network connections here are uncapped, and there are enough free WLANs around that using or offering them is not suspicious in itself. Nowhere near enough though, so a campaign like this could be very useful here as well.