The only part I've found complex is finding out where and how various apps actually store their data, particularly when I don't really have much interest in the app.

Apart from that however, system restoration is pretty trivial.

For example, let's say a basic Apache webserver.
Apache stores it's master website in /var/www and personal websites under a users homedir.

So you have a pre-backup script (or just a cronjob) that runs:
dpkg --get-selections >/root/current-packages.txt

Backups should always consist of /root , /home , and /etc no matter what.
As mentioned with Apache, we need to add /var/www to that mix.

Now to do a restore, you install from the debian disc, then restore your directories from backup.
Then run:
apt-get update && dpkg --set-selections /root/current-packages.txt && apt-get install

At that point all your software and dependencies are back from the listing in /root , and services started up from your own configs in /etc , and in this case Apache is happily again serving from /var/www and homedirs.

That's it. One CD boot, one reboot into the live OS, and a few commands to restore all data/software/apps/libraries/dependencies which get started after install and run from your edited configs just as before.

Again, the only real trick is not missing any application data. Especially from a sysadmin point of view.
A user of the machine asks for WierdSQL. What do I care about learning a new SQL server? I just want to make sure I can make consistent and regular backups of its data.
I don't want to hear someone say "Oh the raw DBs are in /var/blah/blah" which are always in use and always changing.
I want to hear "Use this command to backup the data to date/time stamped .bak files where ever, then go backup that whereever dir - and here are the commands to restore .bak files into a fresh install"

For servers I setup for myself, it's pretty guaranteed I either know the software already and can answer all of the above questions, or I'm just learning it and so there is no risk or useful data to be lost and it doesn't matter.
But for servers I run for others, yes it can be a lot more work to learn those things, and is certainly not nearly as fun as the former.

1200 baud is actually a pretty accurate guestimation.

75 and 300 baud was way slower than my reading speed.

1200 baud was the point that certain cases (say transferring an ascii text file) was pretty much equal or just slightly faster than reading speed, only balanced out by the relatively slower ANSI "box" characters being added to the mix and/or ANSI color codes that took more bytes to send.

2400 baud was the point things were beyond reading speed by a large enough amount that most all "baud frustrations" disappeared.

Granted this was all reading speed and not verbal communication, of which the latter is possibly faster.
But even then I would still only say "1200-2400 baud" as a good range for generic spoken communication, and only faster than that when both parties know the terms and higher level ideas being conveyed ahead of time.

That reminds me of a guy I knew a little over 20 years ago back in the BBS era.

I was a wide-eyed youth at 15-16 years of age, and met another sysop from in town who prior I only knew as the guy with a massive 48 node BBS that put a lot of our setups to shame.

While I was still fighting with the phone company to have a third POTS line run to my apartment so I could finally add a Second BBS node (ofc it was really my moms apartment, and line #1 was the house phone line), many of us wondered just what sort of business this 48 node BBS guy was running to make the kind of money needed for such a setup.

Turns out he did exactly as you said, he moved into a barn to live in cheaply and spent his excess real-job money on his hobby.

Although that part did seem a bit out of the ordinary, I must admit I was at the time way more interested in learning about PRIs over POTS, Ascend Max dialup concentrators over serial based modems, and this multitasking many DOS BBS apps under OS/2 over dedicating one PC per BBS node.

Being one of the many huge technology learning experiences as a teen that lead me down the path I am on today is the core reason I remember him still.

But I forgot all about the financial side of things and him being "the sysop that lives in a barn" until now, which is also quite interesting despite me not appreciating that fact at the time.

Ha! That figures.

(And I do apologize for laughing, it really isn't a funny situation)

At least my understanding of physics is safe for another day.

I saw the entry "Windows 10 and later upgrades and service drivers" show up under the products & classifications options on our WSUS server a good 3-4 months ago.

Interesting wording I thought, since all other entries under the "Windows OS" group are named specific to a major windows version, and as far as I remember have never said "and later".

It looks like Microsoft is really serious about copying Apple versions now, with the "10" not really being part of the version string but just being there, and using the minor version section as the new major version number.

Yeay for needless confusion!

But at least it still isn't as bad as Nintendo product naming I guess.

The only problem with that request is that today a percentage of hobbyist drones ARE autonomous craft in the 100+ pound class.

Limiting our discussion to one subset of aircraft (the small RC planes) would not allow for fully addressing the actual problem at hand, in that any/all unauthorized aircraft should NOT be in no-fly zones, and most certainly should not be in obviously dangerous areas such as over a forest fire where there is no justification or excuse for not assuming it would be a no-fly zone at that point in time.

And while no they are not specifically weaponized, in the sense of adding specific payloads to drop.
But similar to controlling a 2000+ pound car in and of itself can be used as a weapon, so too can the medium to heavier drones.
The point being that even non-weaponized doesn't necessarily mean the device can't still be used in a dangerous manor.

I remember reading stories and comments on slashdot referencing the British version of the US FCC, where they utilize vans/trucks of RF tracking equipment to triangulate locations of both unlicensed transmitters as well as unlicensed receivers.

As I recall they do this due to a mandatory "TV tax" type of thing on the receiver side, but more akin to preventing interference on the transmitting side very much in line with our FCC rules already.

Perhaps such methods and technology could be used to track down the drone operators and fix the problem at the source.

Of course this wouldn't necessarily at all help against autonomous drones or a coordinated attack situation like you described, but so far as the "toy drone" operators being assholes I think it would be quite effective.

I'm less familiar with the methods used to track down a receiver (I must admit I wouldn't have thought that even possible) but if that works as implied too it may also be helpful as one additional method to locate drones already out in the area.

As someone mentioned jamming the RF bands toy drones used would work well in keeping out drones that weren't already in the no-fly zone, tracking their receivers would fill in the other side of that problem for drones already there.

Also as someone who is a "toy drone" operator that isn't an asshole, I too would rather see the assholes in question be dealt with directly without having to force the issue of regulation.
Obviously a regulation like "don't fly in the fire fighters no-fly zone" (which we already have) are fine.
But past experience implies any new regulations will be even more restrictive than is needed, and is likely to put extra and needless burden on all of us non-asshole drone operators.

This is exactly why we can't have nice things. And fuck these people for ruining things for the rest of us.

That's why tracking down the asshole operators would be the better option of the two.
A fine to cover the $10000 in damages plus enough extra to make them think twice about their asshole ways is completely justified.

It is also only a matter of time before one of these assholes ends up resulting in the loss of human life.
Of course manslaughter charges and jail time are perfectly fitting as an after-the-fact response, but it would obviously be much preferred to not have that situation in the first place.

One thing I did that helped was push out a program called UnChecky (Google it, or just add dot com for their site) to our domain.

They maintain a list of installers that do the default-on bullshit options, and when one of those installers is run it uses UI automation calls to turn off all the bundled offers.

I think it is/was more targeted at end-users that hammer the OK/next buttons until things go away, but with the event of updater software silently installing bundled crap it is easy for even a seasoned vet to fall into this trap since there is little to no indication of what the installer is doing.

May be an option to look into adding to ye ole toolbox.

Not at all. Once you point the gun at someone, that is force.
NOT pointing a gun at someone and doing the same would be implied force, which still qualifies.

Asking the town hall to make a new law, to which the town hall says NO, and no one comes to any bodily harm nor has a gun pointed at them afterwards however - is not force.

Are you claiming these 40 new arrivals are pointing guns at people or the equivalent?
Are they even threatening violence?

I saw nothing even close to that in the article. No threats implied or otherwise were reported on. No guns were reported to be in use.
Nothing but the normal town hall processes that is democracy.

Fair enough, I too agree it is a waste of time, but unfortunately short of some mass population cleansing or something equally terrifying, I feel this is still one of the better ways of handling things.

Far from claiming the government works [adjective not needed], it at least seems to be serving its purpose.
Listen to the minority, judge any basis for harm or loss, and act accordingly - even if that action is to reject their claims.

Oh no, far from. I agree these people are at best hypochondriacs that are full of shit, and at worse real-life trolls full of shit.

I'd even go so far to say that putting up with the needs of the many over the few is simply one of the prices to pay for living in a civilized society.
That puts the onus on them to change their life style as they want it.

Shy of any real forcing their will on others I may be missing here, my take on the article was they are kinda doing just that.

Don't want to believe there is EM radiation around you? They believe an EM blackout zone such as the one around the observatory makes them happier? Then move to the blackout zone (which they did)

They want to believe florescent lights give them problems? Them replacing their own lights to avoid such perceived problems is the right thing to do.

I'll even grant going so far as requesting others do the same for their benefit isn't at all out of line.
So long as it is a willing and voluntary change that isn't being forced upon them (which is how I read the article) then I see no problem.

It all comes down to voluntary requesting vs forcing upon others.

I already posted a similar reply to someone else, but basically what I said was:

I saw nothing mentioned except the new arrivals requesting things at a town hall meeting, and ultimately being ignored.

I would be surprised if 25% of a population was enough to force anything on anyone via voting or passing new laws. If I am incorrect on that fact then I admit I would revise my previous statements, as well as call bullshit on such a situation.

But so far as The Guardian article linked in the slashdot summary, I didn't see anything more than the new arrivals asking for things and the existing population saying 'no'.
And I don't see any problems with asking.

You'd have a point if that was happening, but I saw nothing mentioned but the new arrivals requesting things at a town hall meeting, and ultimately being ignored.

Making a request is not, IMHO, forcing your will on others.
I even used a reverse example in my first post, that the observatory might ask the new arrivals to stop using radio transmitters if it's discovered they are doing so.

Now to my basic math skills:
120 original people + 40 new people = 160 total people
40 new people / 160 total people = 0.25 , aka 25% of the population.

I would be pretty surprised if 25% of a population was enough, even if all voting en-mass, to force anything on anyone.
I may actually be wrong there, although if so I would agree that situation would be complete bullshit and shouldn't even be possible let alone reality.

Perhaps there are other articles not linked to by slashdot or the guardian that supports the claim that these people are forcing anything?
If so I'll gladly admit ignorance of the situation.

So why does this matter to you?

These new people aren't responsible for no-wifi, the radio blackout was put in place for the observatory.
If these people wish to relocate to an existing radio blackout area, that makes them happy, and it doesn't affect you in anyway - why not leave them be?

Again, why does this matter to you?

Let them be "stupid" where their stupidity won't harm anyone. Why can't we just leave them be?

Short of their stupidity resulting in them carrying around a radio transmitter they aren't aware is actually a transmitter, they aren't hurting anything.
And even in that case, I would imagine just telling them the thing is a transmitter would very quickly get them to shut it off willingly, maintaining the radio blackout.

But short of that I don't see why anyone would care that stupid people are going out of their way to be stupid in a place that stupidity doesn't harm anyone.
In fact, good on them for finding an existing radio blackout zone to use, instead of forcing it needlessly on everyone around where they used to live.

Moral of the story: Leave motherfuckers alone.

Many people (purposely) confuse two different labels together, namely "computer expert" and "self-proscribed computer expert"

The former mostly knows what they are doing. The later does not but thinks they do.

This is a case of being the later.

Actual computer experts don't need to ask "do HDs die?" because the answer is "yes, always"
We also don't ask "when will it die?" because the answer is too variable, thus we immediately take steps so /when/ it dies the negative impact is minimized or removed (raid, copies, and backups)

It is frequent however that the self-proclaimed expert will both continue to ask these questions followed with taking all the wrong steps to safeguard against the fact a single storage device Will die.

A more interesting question would be, how many times has a hard drive inexplicably not died after 5, 10, or 15 years?
I still have a 1 GB SCSI Quantum Fireball brand HD that ran spunup for around 8-10 years, and even now after 23 years later it still spins up and is readable.
Quite an amazing exception to the rule IMHO. Especially with a name like "fireball", something one generally doesn't want associated with their data storage :P

Better than that, you can just swap out the internal HD with another HD (or SSD) of your choosing.

It must be a 2.5" drive that is 9.5mm (or less), and 5400rpm to match the built in drive but faster drives will show the speed improvement.

You can then backup your game saves to a USB drive, swap out the internal drive, format the new internal drive, restore your saves from USB, and go about installing games again.

The only annoying part is if you already have a ton of games on the internal drive.
I don't know any way to copy those along, you have to redownload them AFAIK, so hopefully you have a good ISP.

I know a few people that did this using 512gb SSDs for the speed boost.
On my friends SSD'ed PS4 I got to play GTA5 before and after the upgrade, and you could very much tell the difference in speed. Much closer to PC loading times than stock console.

For extra capacity, I think the largest "thin" 9.5mm HDs out there are 2tb, but that too is only a matter of time and I may already be out-of-date wrong with that statement.

BTW the PS3 is just as easily upgraded.
I never owned a PS2 so can't comment there (does it even have an HD?), and the PS1 certainly did not.