This is a bad idea. Other than the ludicrous cost of the SSD, flash drives tend to fail all at once. bam! and all your data is gone. This is also why i do not use a USB key for backups.
On my system everything is dumped on a 2TB mirrored system (simple 2 x 2TB HDDs running debian software encryption + RAID lvm) and periodically backed up to blu ray DLs in duplicate. At $10/disk from japan (see ebay) two verbatims back up 50GB in duplicate for $20.
Typically it takes 2-3 months to generate that amount which means its cost effective. DVDRs (Taiyo Yudens) fill the gap if there is not enough data to justify a bunch of blu rays.
 

i use rsync + samba on a linux box over the network with 2TB drives in a mirror (encrypted, mirrored with debian) for primary backup and have a LG Blue Ray burner for secondary backup. I get 50GB DL blu rays for $10 each from ebay (shipped from japan in 10 packs) mostly using verbatims. I burn two blu rays at a time with copies of the sam data on both and store them separately. $20 for 50 gig is not a bad bargain.

i use a samba on a linux box over the network with 2TB drives in a mirror (encrypted, mirrored with debian) for primary backup and have a LG Blue Ray burner for secondary backup. I get 50GB DL blu rays for $10 each from ebay (shipped from japan in 10 packs) mostly using verbatims. I burn two blu rays at a time with copies of the sam data on both and store them separately. $20 for 50 gig is not a bad bargain.

yes, the district court must follow it. NYCLs analysis was essentially, trolling. I realize NYCL is popular here, but that does not make his reasoning correct.
NYCL stated : (a) it contradicted the plain wording of the district court rule, (b) it ignored the First Amendment implications, and (c) there is no such thing as 'advisory' mandamus or 'advisory' anything -- our federal courts are specifically precluded from giving advisory opinions.

(a) is plainly incorrect because the opinion was from a higher court -- they do not need to follow the wording of a lower court - they can -- and do -- explicitly contradict it. hence the term "appeal" or "appeal to a higher power who can disagree with you if it so desires".
(b) is incorrect because there is no First Amendment implication to publish. The court is still allowing you to speak in front of it, you do not have any republication rights in the 1st amendment. its free speech not free license to republish for a mass audience. My reasoning would be similar if i were to judge this case - publishing a stream would risk the trial turning into a circus. You may disagree with this (as NYCL did) but it does not make the reasoning incorrect or invalid.
(c) is incorrect for all the reasons i have layed down in my later post. basically SCOTUS allows advisory mandamus rulings.

i'm sorry but as a fellow attorney (NY too!) i have to correct NYCLs analysis.
Advisory mandamus has its roots in the Supreme Court's reference to mandamus review of "basic, undecided question[s]." Schlagenhauf v. Holer, 379 U.S 104, 110 (1964); see Horn, 29 F.3d at 769; see also 16 Wright et al., supra, 3934. It is appropriately invoked when the action or inaction of the district court presents an issue of great importance and novelty, and one the resolution of which will likely aid other jurists, parties, and lawyers. See Horn, 29 F.3d at 769-70 (citing In re Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 695 F.2d 17, 25 (1st Cir. 1982), and In re Bushkin Assocs., Inc., 864 F.2d 241, 247 (1st Cir. 1989)).
To summarize : They are allowed to issue advisory mandamus in cases such as these.

you took a misd because you did not want to lose a job ? umm...arent your priorities a bit screwed up ? most employers dont touch anyone with a conviction for good reason.
why didnt you simply have those discharged ? after 10+ yrs you can easily apply to get them wiped from your record....and you should try your best to avoid making it longer.
 

Come now... as a fellow attorney you know better than to mislead the proles.
That particular legal proposition dates back to the reign of King Canute in 994-1035.
In more modern times i refer you to the 1762 treatise by Sir Michael Foster, Fosters Crown Law.
As your legal training has no doubt informed you, British Common Law is where most of our law
evolved from.