That's actually what I was originally looking for. The Swift case was a new one to me, but it's the same bullshit with a different bull.

The first thing to do is to not create a single-volume RAID that spans several drives. Each drive should be able to stand on its own. Especially with not-quite-essential data like ripped DVDs. This way if one drive fails, you only have to re-rip one drive of DVDs. But most importantly, you can't erase them all with one command. I'm not sure how submitter's friend happened to do that, but it's exactly the kind of failure that RAID does not protect against!

Sure, it's nice to have one big volume and not have to worry about switching over as they fill up, but unless you have some kind of advanced volume management that can deal with drives disappearing and let you easily add or remove drives of arbitrary sizes, it can come back to bite you.

If you really want redundancy, use mirrored drives, or sync to a mirror volume, or whatever, just don't use RAID 5. Parity RAID seemed like a good idea at the time, but it's just begging for two drives (usually from the same manufacturing lot) to fail at the same time. And the system is loaded way more when you're trying to do recovery, which could cause another drive to fail from the extra stress. Even worse is that the size of modern drives means the sensitive recovery period is going to last longer.

This advice is specifically toward storing large A/V libraries. The really important stuff (financial data, family photos) is going to be smaller. Keep it separated from the big non-essential A/V files and it should be easy to use multiple backup strategies like removable storage and cloud backup.

I know that I, for one, just love seeing a blog where half the comments are stupid trackbacks to some even more mindless vanity blogger. NOT. Agreed, the absolute worst feature ever made. It wasn't even a good idea back when The Web[tm] was young, and people would "share links". Remember that?

Not to mention the obvious SEO spam ("You have a such great web site! This was so informative! Thank you for your post!") that never gets removed, even when the blogger is still replying to posts. It's not just luser bloggers, either, I've seen this on Bunnie Huang's blog! If I ever have a blog, I'm stealing the "all threads automatically close after two weeks" idea from Slashdot.

Exactly. When you get down into the details (just like a relationship), "it's complicated" is the accurate description of how the economy works.

But the point remains: the simplistic statement by anonymous coward, "When the federal reserve increases the supply of money, inflation is the net result really is not accurate. It's not that simple. Even in the simple case, it's not that simple.

Second raid is NOT a backup it's high availability.

That's entirely a matter of configuration. If I were doing this with drives, I'd grab an 8x SATA card, 8 4TB drives, an external hot-swap shelf, and setup RAIDZ-2 with compression on it. I'd put the drives in, rsync the data to them, snapshot it, pop them out, and bring them to a safe deposit box for safe keeping. Cost is about $1800. That's totally a backup. A second set of backups is another $1300.

Can somebody compare the cost for tape?

Also, stop hoarding stuff, it's expensive. My (legit) backups of my extensive DVD(2.4Mb/s h.264) and CD(FLAC) collection fits in less than 2TB.

How is long term storage a solution? I figure the NSA is probably immune to lawsuits anyway, like Area-51 is, under presidential determination.

It hardly matters whether they're immune or not, since they recklessly violate the highest laws of our land en masses and as frequently as possible.

Firefox and others had plugins that would scan the webpage and turn text web addresses into clickable hyperlinks. A number of them let you configure things such that you could essentially auto-highlight whatever you want depending upon a regex and even link it to launching an external applicaiton with that text as a command-line argument. I fail to see how this is significantly different.

That would be because, duh, what "Guccifier" was so obviously wrong that there is nothing to discuss about it. What do you expect to talk about? The types of legal repercussions that we should expect for him? Various methods of gangland retribution? I do not really understand what you expect here.

No. The only thing to discuss is what the victim did to make herself an easy target. There are many avenues of discussion available with that: reused passwords, mailed passwords, etc.

But you are wrong. The first person is a malicious hacker and the second person is a security researcher who may or may not be hacking.

A hacker is someone who uses unorthodox methods and ingenuity to perform some act. There is no good or evil associated with it. At some point in time, the word came to represent (to the masses) just the evil side of unorthodox and ingenious acts.

The problem is that non-malicious term of hacker came (evolved?) first, is still a useful term, and many of the people still alive used the non-malicious version first. It is not our fault that the ignorant masses outnumber us.

Of course, cars haven't improved as much as gaming PCs in the last decade.

And cars tend to cost MORE as time goes along, while gaming PCs tend to cost the same or less for vastly greater performance.

I'll let the AC explain what he thinks is wrong, if he will actually step up to the plate.
But, you do realize that this story starts with Timothy mentioning what a small percentage of the OS community thinks, and doesn't mention a somewhat more likely possibility - that Google is dissatisfied with the GTK, finds it very difficult to work within its limits, and doesn't feel it can get any cooperation from the GTK designers. If that is how Google feels, then the AC would probably say Google's position is reasonable. I tend to agree with that, myself. But, what's the point of asking the AC to defend his position, when that same position was totally left out of Timothy's original summary, and the position of those who don't see any problems with the GTK is presented as the default of the whole open source community?

Summary: Ooooohhhh! Anybody who doesn't like FOO is a rapist of dead baby seals and unmutual to boot! We're gonna just assume that absolutely everybody reasonable likes FOO, and raise only the questions those reasonable people would ask mean old unreasonable Google.
AC: Well I don't like FOO because it's smelly and might let girls into the Sekret club...
You: AC, you need to explain mo' betterer

Yes, AC probably should present some specific facts, if this was a debate over GTK's quality. But even if you turn this whole thread into a debate with the AC and others like him, win every point, and leave the rest of us impressed with your clarity and logical superiority, do you really think that will prove Google's reasons are as invalid as your debate opponent's?. The facts are, there is an ongoing debate o in the OS community over the conduct of the GTK developers. The summary needs to be written like the community is still seriously divided, not like the only questions being asked are from people who don't see a problem with the GTK and assume that Googgle can't really have a good reason.

That's a paraphraseof Joe Stalin's “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”. It's a good quote, but it raises the question, is that true of governments in general, at all times, or only when the government is a dictatorship like his was. As you've given it, you could mean either a warning people should heed and can maybe still do something about, or an exercise in sophomore pessimism that says we should all do nothing at all. It's easy to sound wise by saying something most readers will interpret whichever way suits their temperament, but which way do YOU see it?

Good question.

Bad (and unsupported!) conclusion.

If you create a mean and vicious pit bull, do not be surprised when it turns around and bites you. D'oh!