At any time, a proper setup involves maintaining a minimum of three copies of any important data:
1) The copy you use.
2) Your local backup.
3) Your off-site backup.

How you choose to implement those can vary. For instance, if you have the cash, I think most of us would agree that maintaining separate RAID arrays for your in-use and local backups would be ideal. The reason you'd keep them separate is because of the all-important mantra: RAID is not the same as having a backup (you don't seem to be under this misconception, but it bears repeating, nonetheless). RAID can protect against certain forms of hard drive failure, meaning that you wouldn't even need to resort to using your backups in the case of those sorts of failure, but it does nothing to protect against your data being corrupted by the file system or deleted by an accidental action on your part.

If you don't have the money for RAID, you could start out by just putting your in-use and local backup copies on separate hard drives (which it sounds like you're already doing), the first of which backs up to the second. That'll work most of the time and in most cases, but it means that hard drive failures will be more of a threat and an inconvenience, since you'll have to be more reliant on your other copies being intact, given that you'll be suspending your use of the damaged copy while you replace the drive and restore the data to it.

In addition to your local copies, you should have an off-site backup in a location that is geographically removed from you, that way if natural disaster does its worst, you don't lose your data. CrashPlan is the one I use and is a good place to start, since it offers multiple options for backing up off-site, including a free option where you and a friend provide off-site backups for each other. Their for-pay options are reasonable in price (though they have more than doubled since I joined a few years back), offer unlimited storage, and provide the ability to set your own encryption key (i.e. keeps them from being able to pry into your data if they're served with a warrant).

So, at a minimum: a drive for your in-use copy, a drive for a local backup, and CrashPlan backups to a friend, all of which would only cost you as much as the hard drives involved.

Ideally, however, you'd also do something to protect against corrupted data or accidental deletions on your part, which means storing multiple versions of your backups, and doing so both locally and off-site. CrashPlan subscriptions all provide full versioning of anything you backup in perpetuity, so if your data becomes backed up in an incorrect state, you can rollback to a previous version easily. Even so, you should still have versioning stored locally in some form or fashion, that way you're not dependent on CrashPlan always being around and always working. If you're a Mac user, Time Machine can serve this purpose (it should be in addition to any other local backups mentioned above), and you can even backup your Time Machine data off-site if the off-site backup system you choose doesn't offer built-in versioning like CrashPlan does. I'm sure others can make some recommendations for Windows and Linux alternatives to Time Machine.

And yes, you should keep the tapes around, if only so that you can demonstrate ownership should any legal questions come up. But once you verify that the copies you've made are all correct and working, you can probably box them up and put them in an out-of-the-way spot in the attic where you'll never have to bother with them again.

There's an audio file linked from the article which pretty much confirms that #1 and #2 from your list are the prevailing theories for why this is happening. Basically, as warmer air comes through, more of the land-based ice melts and moves into the sea, which is supported by measurements on land indicating that the land-based ice has been steadily decreasing in mass for some time now.

Additionally, warmer air also brings more moisture, which equates to more precipitation than is usual. Precipitation naturally has a lower salinity than the ocean waters on which it lands, causing the water to more easily freeze.

The audio file also indicated that this really doesn't have any impact on the major climate models since scientists have known for some time that the Antarctic ice may respond in a fashion similar to this, but it also pointed out that it runs contrary to public perception of how things are supposed to work.

Available from any exterior-facing window near you!

(as well as some interior ones)

The first six seasons of Big Bang Theory are on blu-ray as a set for $86 on Amazon right now. You could probably pick up the entire series for less than you pay in a month, and you'd have it forever. You could repeat the same process again with your kids' shows, and you'd likely get even more bang for your buck. SyFy makes most or all of their series available via their website and Hulu for free (though you have to wait a month after air date, but that only feels weird for the first month, after which it feels like normal).

Just cut the cable for one month. One month. Divert that cash into buying the shows you can't find elsewhere for free and still want to see (you'll be shocked at how much stuff you actually don't miss once it's gone). Go get season passes from iTunes or Amazon or wherever if there's something you absolutely have to see as it's coming out that isn't on Hulu or whatnot. Repeat the process for as long as you need. My bet is that within three months you won't be spending anywhere close to the full $130/month.

Look at print media. Niche publications are dying out left and right, yet we have an abundance of media covering more niches than ever. Granted, many of these new media forms, such as blogs, are of a decidedly less formal and professional nature than those that have preceded them, but we're by no means starved for the content we want, since if the demand still exists, someone will put it together. Tech magazines in many cases had to appeal to the masses if they wanted to be able to stay afloat, but most blogs have no such demands being placed on them. It's perfectly possible for a person to employ themselves by going sufficiently in-depth on a topic.

By that same token, some of the smartest media folks I've seen have started betting big on YouTube channels, video streaming, and other, newer forms for getting video footage in front of eyeballs. They may not have the production values of a news room or studio setup, but they have a faster turnaround, no obligation to fill a time slot, more direct control over their revenue stream, and more immediate feedback both from and regarding their viewers.

It's pretty clear that the days of old-style broadcast TV are numbered and that in a few more years "cable TV" either won't exist or won't resemble what it does now. The upcoming generations have no concept of broadcast schedules or what it even means to miss an episode, since everything is on-demand and always available.

ESPN is merely Twitch for sports lovers. They just haven't realized it yet. Or, if they have, it's scared the crap out of them.

Yeah, I had a similar conversation with my dad the day before the keynote, since I mentioned a few of my predictions and he pretty quickly tied it to the mark.

You should point out that the mark is supposed to be on their heads, not hands, so the watch shouldn't be a spiritual problem. ;)

My original claim is not false, nor was it unfounded (though it was unsubstantiated until I posted the links). And the links I provided were intended to show you how simple it would have been for you to find this info on your own (as you apparently just did), since I gave you the search results from Slashdot, the first relevant summary, and the article from the summary.

Moreover, I said it was a substantially more difficult process than the other guy made it out to be, and it is, as you've confirmed. That said, the process I linked you is by no means the only way to acquire a spoofed fingerprint. The original technique I saw demonstrated was less reliable but much simpler, and it's what I was referencing up above. Even so, while it may be simpler, it is by no means simple.

As for spoofed vs. hacked, you're quite right that "spoofed" is a much more precise word to use to refer to the type of attack. That said, spoofing is a type of hack, so trying to say it's a spoof and not a hack is an inaccurate distinction. Either way though, it really doesn't matter. I'm merely corroborating what someone else said regarding Touch ID being vulnerable to a form of attack. If you feel that we shouldn't have called it what we did, then I'm fine with only referring to it as spoofing, since it doesn't change what I intended to convey earlier. Plus, it should have been apparent what I was intending to convey, given that I described the mechanism for the attack.

P.S. You're misusing Betteridge's Law. It only works with headlines that contain a question. The one I linked you doesn't. Moreover, citing that law as an excuse to disregard something is a form of the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

That's an apt comparison to the iPod. It certainly resembles the germ of a good idea, but it doesn't feel like it's there yet. It looks like it's closer than the alternatives that have preceded it, but we'll need to wait for it to blossom before it reaches mass-market appeal.

For users who preferred larger screens, obviously Apple was lacking in that regard, but aside from screen size, let me ask a dumb question (I'm a recovering Apple fanboy, so you'll have to pardon me :P): in what other aspects of the hardware were they considered behind in a meaningful way, prior to today?

Obviously, that "meaningful" qualifier will mean different things to different people (e.g. most differences in pixel density don't matter to me, so long as they're beyond the threshold where my not-so-great eyes can distinguish individual pixels), but I'd be curious to hear some of Slashdot's take on which features mattered to them that the Galaxy 5 had and the iPhone 5s didn't. I know iPhones have been dinged for a lack of removable battery, lack of expandable storage, and their comparatively small screens, but I'm always interested in learning about what my blind spots are.

To follow that up, I'm aware of several areas that matter to me where they were (I believe) still ahead:
- 64-bit CPU
- Hardware encryption
- Touch ID (I know the Galaxy 5 has fingerprint scanning, but by all accounts I've heard, it isn't that great)

(There are more, but those ones immediately stand out to me.)

All of which is to say, even though you meant it as a joke, your comment got me wondering how much truth was in what you said.

Not strictly true. The crown is offset towards the top of the device, and there's another button next to the crown that's closer to the bottom of the device. It's likely they can be flipped without any real issue, but where would Slashdot be if we didn't all play the pedant with each other?

(don't answer that)

Don't be daft.

http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?...

http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...

http://istouchidhackedyet.com/

If you still wanted a link after my previous post, you could have asked for it more politely than with such a specious line, but I trusted that you were smart enough to find such things on your own once someone corroborated what the troll said, so I saw little reason in doing your work for you.

With the post-2007 smartphones, their benefits over what we had at the time were SO apparent that few of us really complained much when we sacrificed a significant amount of battery life to acquire those benefits. But with smartwatches, most of us here seem to be confused over what benefits they offer that are compelling enough to even justify the cost, let alone the other drawbacks like poorer battery life compared to existing watches. If the barrier keeping someone from buying a smartwatch is its battery life, a larger battery life may make all the difference to them since it'd be significantly more tolerable.

Even the difference between one day and two can make a huge difference for people, since "one day" really just means "it'll die over the course of the day if I use it heavily".

It actually was cracked fairly quickly (a few days after it was released), but it's not nearly as trivial of a process as his comment might suggest. More or less, if you have a really nice scanner, a somewhat specialized printer, a detailed copy of their fingerprints, and at least a day or two to sit around waiting for ink that's been printed on top of ink to dry, then for glue to cure, you can do it, but the up-front cost is in the thousands of USD, so it's not something someone is going to casually do, and by the time they'd have had a chance to do it, you'd have had every chance to remotely disable Apple Pay/your entire phone.

You're moving the goalposts, but before I address your question, let's consider the alternatives that this is intended to replace: swipe or chip-and-PIN. Yes, Touch ID can be cracked, but it requires extended physical access to the device, a copy of the fingerprints, significant expense (around $2000 for the type of printer used and the various other consumable materials), and a day or so to go through the multi-step process of creating the fake fingerprint. All of which means it won't be done casually by unscrupulous cashiers or amateur thieves, which is something Americans face today (my parents are dealing with this right now, in fact). And by the time a person who's actually invested in this stuff manages to go through the whole process of creating a fake fingerprint, the owner of the lost device would be likely to have already revoked Apple Pay access remotely anyway.

Contrast that with swipe: if you compromise physical access to the card, you compromise everything. Or chip-and-PIN, which only adds the additional barrier of a PIN that can be procured by just looking over someone's shoulder at the right time. In comparison to either one of those, it's both more convenient and more secure.

So, to answer your question, no, it's not foolproof, but considering amateur card theft is still rampant in America and perfectly possible overseas, we can say that this system is significantly more secure than what we have now for payments at physical retail locations. It's also more private, since I never have to expose my information to the retailer. And it's more durable, since I don't need to worry about magnetic stripes failing due to wear and tear. And it's also more convenient, since it means less things to carry and less interactions necessary to complete the transaction.

Which is all to say, it's good to point out that Touch ID has been cracked and that that is indeed a vector for a possible form of theft, but let's put that fact in context and recognize that our current systems are significantly less secure and that this represents a massive improvement over them.

You're kidding, right? Every demo showed the use of a fingerprint scan to authorize purchase. You're just making stuff up and asserting it as fact, despite ample evidence to the contrary.