Reality is, you can live a pretty exotic life with a family of 3 spending under $30k/year which puts your retirement account estimate at a much more reasonable $750k. That's all without any plan to depend on Social Security, or any other potential source of income.
Absolutely correct. I think that too many people not near retirement age think that they will buy a new house, go on vacations every month, and golf every day and eat out 7 days a week, and a slew of other things.
When in fact, as a person who retired young, the better half and I live very well, go on several vacations a year, one extended one in Florida, and a lot of time, hang around the house. I'm not spending money on suits, her, her workplace dresses. No mortgage, and taxes are lower. But if I had known then what I know now, I would have retired at 50 instead of 55.
People need to reconsider their spending habits if they don't feel at least mostly financially free with half a million in the bank.
I think they don't understand the financial social and personal aspects, as well as having been fear mongered by investment counselers. You can't be a spendthrift in retirement, but you never should be one anyhow.
. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.
Save four times as much just so you can burn it on the most unproductive health care on Earth? I bet two million dollars would buy me a very pretty pyramid.
I have a suspicion that it will get really ugly if everyone is put on the hook (good choice of words, BTW - for their own healthcare. Because it's pretty importnt that some of the supporters of that bit of silliness are going to be a little upset when they find out that they can keep there guns, but will lose their medicaid, and food stamps.
For someone living in a median house in the most populous state in the country, $25k/year will barely cover the mortgage.
Plain and simple. If you have a mortgage, you better be pulling in as much per year, plus raises as if you continued working.
In other words, you can't realistically retire holding a mortgage. When I paid off my mortgage, it was like getting a hundred percent raise. Now retirement became a given.
We even had many dim bulbs who retired in our area, and built a new house when they retired. Not a modest Cape Cod, but Big multi-story McMansions. Now they are in their 80's, and are half broke, and 85 year old couples tend to not like stairs and cleaning 5-6 bedroom houses very much. And since most of the developments won't even allow single story homes around here these days, my single story ranch has zoomed in value around 300 percent. Friggin RE agents are pestering the hell out of us to sell.
A lot of people would certainly like to be bringing in $25K, but it's not exactly going to be high living.
A lot of people aren't going to live to 95 either. And we are living a little less long of lives than we used to in America http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/....
Most people die miserable in poverty and you have to be filthy stinking "rich" to have any hope of avoiding that.
You're damaged goods, man. It's pretty obvious that your parents didn't plan well, and you are fearful of falling into the same problem that they did.
But unless you have an odball definition of filthy stinking rich, "miserable poverty" is not the only alternative.
You are on the right track, of living well within your means, and saving money. That part's good, and the basis of a happy dotage. But that anxiety and fear of falling into the same situation as your parents is gonna eat you up. Do you have anyone you can talk to about that?
Really, you need $200,000 per year in retirement to be comfortable? That seems like a hell of a lot.
Some people actually plan to build a new house with a new mortgage after retirement. Seems crazy to me.
I guess it depends on what your current standard of living is but that is around four times the median household income in the US, and people in retirement often have lower expenses than working people (kids have generally grown, house is often paid off, etc.).
In many states, retirees are exempt from many taxes as well. I don't need as many dress clothes nor does my better half.
I am planning on retiring early but with nowhere near that war chest, probably closer to $1M in investments for a $40k annual income. Once Social Security kicks in it will just be extra income on top of the investment income.
That should be sufficient. I have two retirement accounts - one untouched so far, and now that I've started collecting SS, I'm making more than when I retired.
p> I am just not willing to exchange further years of my life for extra money at the end of it, I would rather retire when I still have the physical and mental ability to enjoy it.
Exactly. End weighted money tends to go to a nursing home anyhow. You probably already have this figured out, but take the SS retirement at 62. You will make less money per month, but the amounts are based on actuarial tables, so the concept is total money extracted. My rationale is that if you wait until the latest possible time to start collecting, you'll just be getting more money at a time when you're starting to slow down and not need as much. As well as possibly die in the intervening years and never collect anything at all.
The best career move I ever made was retiring at 55 years old. The wife and I go on several vacations a year where we are physically active, hiking and such, and no one except deluded people live forever. I always sum these things up by noting that there are stories about these ancient people who run marathons and such, and for some weird reason way too many people envision themselves like that at 95 years old. Shit, most of us will be dead before hitting that age.
Sure you can retire at 55 years old without a mega-buck, but the risks that you will either end up broke in a medicaid nursing home or die early due to lack of ability to afford medical treatment goes up dramatically.
I plan to retire at 55, but only if I can get closer to 5M in equity investments. That way I can afford to live well while retired, traveling regularly and not concerned about food stamps.
So you planning on taking a trip around the world when you are 85? I'm all about saving and living well, but my experience with others indicates that retirement in mid fifties is pretty damn nice, as you are still getting around pretty darn well. In the sixties, there is a general slowdown biased toward the 70 year old end. The slowdown accelerates, and by the eighties, most people are pretty settled, and the early portion of the nursing home experience is kicking in.
You will find nursing homes fighting over you for your millions. And you'll tend to live until they've just about emptied your bank account.
I do think it's sad that your father dutifully stashed away (if I did the math correctly) $96k over the course of 8 years, only to have it sucked away in 6 weeks by cancer and funeral expenses.
If he had went on Medicare, they would have taken everything. If he gone into a nursing home, it would have cost $10K+ per month. Dying isn't cheap.
Personally, I would rather my heirs get my estate, not some nursing home. My plans are that once it looks like curtains for me, and if I can still do it, I'm going to save my family the money and the stress by taking myself out.
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information.
The basis of any autonomous driving system will have to have all of the vehicles talking to each other. Because there is a difference between having one google car on the road, and having almost all of them.
There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
Oh hell yeah. Selling ads for you to watch while the car drives itself. You'll love it. Bad guys might want to jam the signals. That won't cause the cars to wreck, but might make for some traffic jams.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
It will have to be very short range stuff, because otherwise, you'll run into the same problems that WiFi and cellular have today. Too much shit on the air. And given the numbers of cars on the road, all of them transmitting with much power and antenna gain will drive the noise floor crazy - think an RF arms race.
They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Present day small scale implementations already like OnStar, already ID you. You can bet the final implementation of this technology will at the very least, ID the location and the car owner, just like the license plate ID's the registrant of the vehicle.
Maybe I should write a tell all book for all the dumbfounded tech zombies I encounter in "meatspace".
Oh derp. Some of us don't actually give a rats ass about the basis of the cellular system - which inherently tracks because it has to in order to work. Or credit cards. Or ATM Cameras. Cool part is, if I'm going to be paranoid about the whole thing, They can exonerate me as well or better than implicate me.
But if you really have need for eliminating tracking, get rid of your SS card, not use any phone at all ever, because a landline spots you, and any cell phone does as well, get rid of your credit cards, and move to the mountains of Idaho, live off the land and barter for a living. No cashe either - they don't put serial numbers on bills for nothing, and if you try to buy stuff with coins you become pretty interesting after while.
And for crissakes - don't use a computer ever, because if they want you badly enough, your AC doesn't mean shit, and if you use TOR, you are just waving a big sign that says "I am interesting!".
" an attacker could "manipulate accounting documents and financial results, bypass change management controls, and bypass segregation of duties restrictions," which could result in "fraud, theft or manipulation of sensitive data," as well as the "unauthorized payment transactions and transfer of money." An attacker could also add a backdoor to the affected server, the advisory said."
Then legal threats
Perhaps we could use a little deductive reasoning to conclude that this was not a flaw, but a critical feature of the software that some folks didn't want getting out?
Financial history is full of interesting accounting tricks.
Geez, me as an American can read the original posted dates. The one claiming they can't read and then stopped is just plain LAZY.
The only thing the original post was missing was being done in all lower case, and omitting punctuation.
Part of communications is communicating, and if someone can't be bothered to make sentences and paragraphs readable without a lot of effort, then some folks might not vother to read them.
Case in point, the original took me about 10 seconds to parse, the cleaned up version, done in proper chronological paragraph order took perhaps a second to read.
The sentence I responded to started with "We landed on the moon because...". There's a number of answers I could come up with for this but some preliminary calculations (only problems of modest size were possible to solve using masses of humans with calculators) many years before the deed are definitely not on the top of my list of ideas for those answers.
We landed on the moon because of many reasons. Most of which kinda sorta had to mesh together to make the whole thing work. Some were more exciting than others, but all were important. I see no reason to make too many ranking distinctions.
external USB drive I had you buy and told you that you had to have it plugged in while you were at home?
Which in the context of ransomware is precisely the wrong advice - you need *offline* backups to recover, since the malware will happily encrypt any and all drives it can find. Backup to one or more external hard drives yes, but don't leave it/them connected routinely.
No, I probably should have explained more - it was her work laptop, so the only part of it being used at home was the backing up.
Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.
That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.
I think that he wasn't talking about Americans. Probably the rest of the world, or perhaps China. There are dangers of isolation ahead.
Sure, he's flipped on a lot of issues, but opposition to free trade, along with restricting immigration, were his two big signature issues. If he flips on those, then he stands for absolutely nothing.
Annnnnd Bingo! He stands for very little other than himself, which is close enough to nothing for all intents.
Now if for some weird reason he and congress decides to stand firm on so many of these issues, the US will begin to find itself isolated as the world moves on. Isolation will lead to dropping the dollar as the standard currency, and adopting the yen.
The TPP won't be the sole reason, but since the world is very interconnected, it will be come a death by a thousand cuts situation.
Backups work great for random acts of god but not necessarily for ransomware. It would be fairly trivial to create ransomware that slept a random amount of time before encrypting your files or even worse encrypt your files and then continue to function like normal for several weeks before alerting you. By that time, all your backups are also infected and even if you have a really old backup you won't have any of the recent stuff from that last several weeks or months since the initial infection. For all the people on here that are bragging about backups, even if you catch it the same day and restore it is still a huge pain and chances are if written properly it could easily be written in a way that the backups are also infected.
Of course its a pain, and no system is foolproof. My own personal backup system doesn't have offsite storage in a fireproof container inside a guarded vault. But there is that old saying about how perfection is the biggest enemy of good enough, which is the road you are on.
And since probably 80 percent of users have no backup at all, there is a lot of low hanging fruit before the bad guys get to multiple file backups and multiple image users.
"So what would you do if this ransomware infected your files?"
The correct answer is to reformat the storage and restore from a backup.
In a world of Password1, I wonder what the percentage is of people who actually have any backup at all. Gotta be pretty low.
Most people are the type who used to put electrical tape over their blinking VCR lights, so backing up their computer simply doesn't happen - a combination of laziness and avoiding reading instructions.
A friend for some crazy reason took her computer to an on-campus computer help for an update. I guess she thought I was too busy or something. Well, the Windows guy hosed her Mac. She calls me in a panic. So I went over to her place....
"Remember that external USB drive I had you buy and told you that you had to have it plugged in while you were at home?"
Yeah?
"Let's plug it in and let it do it's thing."
A little while later, Time machine had restored her computer to the way it was. She's a big believer in backups now, even though I had to almost trick her into using it.
OSX, Linux, or Windows, back the damn things up folks. But there I go preaching to the choir again.
Slashdot Mirror
Reality is, you can live a pretty exotic life with a family of 3 spending under $30k/year which puts your retirement account estimate at a much more reasonable $750k. That's all without any plan to depend on Social Security, or any other potential source of income.
Absolutely correct. I think that too many people not near retirement age think that they will buy a new house, go on vacations every month, and golf every day and eat out 7 days a week, and a slew of other things.
When in fact, as a person who retired young, the better half and I live very well, go on several vacations a year, one extended one in Florida, and a lot of time, hang around the house. I'm not spending money on suits, her, her workplace dresses. No mortgage, and taxes are lower. But if I had known then what I know now, I would have retired at 50 instead of 55.
People need to reconsider their spending habits if they don't feel at least mostly financially free with half a million in the bank.
I think they don't understand the financial social and personal aspects, as well as having been fear mongered by investment counselers. You can't be a spendthrift in retirement, but you never should be one anyhow.
. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.
Save four times as much just so you can burn it on the most unproductive health care on Earth? I bet two million dollars would buy me a very pretty pyramid.
I have a suspicion that it will get really ugly if everyone is put on the hook (good choice of words, BTW - for their own healthcare. Because it's pretty importnt that some of the supporters of that bit of silliness are going to be a little upset when they find out that they can keep there guns, but will lose their medicaid, and food stamps.
For someone living in a median house in the most populous state in the country, $25k/year will barely cover the mortgage.
Plain and simple. If you have a mortgage, you better be pulling in as much per year, plus raises as if you continued working.
In other words, you can't realistically retire holding a mortgage. When I paid off my mortgage, it was like getting a hundred percent raise. Now retirement became a given.
We even had many dim bulbs who retired in our area, and built a new house when they retired. Not a modest Cape Cod, but Big multi-story McMansions. Now they are in their 80's, and are half broke, and 85 year old couples tend to not like stairs and cleaning 5-6 bedroom houses very much. And since most of the developments won't even allow single story homes around here these days, my single story ranch has zoomed in value around 300 percent. Friggin RE agents are pestering the hell out of us to sell.
A lot of people would certainly like to be bringing in $25K, but it's not exactly going to be high living.
A lot of people aren't going to live to 95 either. And we are living a little less long of lives than we used to in America http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/08/....
Most people die miserable in poverty and you have to be filthy stinking "rich" to have any hope of avoiding that.
You're damaged goods, man. It's pretty obvious that your parents didn't plan well, and you are fearful of falling into the same problem that they did.
But unless you have an odball definition of filthy stinking rich, "miserable poverty" is not the only alternative.
You are on the right track, of living well within your means, and saving money. That part's good, and the basis of a happy dotage. But that anxiety and fear of falling into the same situation as your parents is gonna eat you up. Do you have anyone you can talk to about that?
Also you might live to be 110 due to medical innovation or bad luck
Fixed that for you.
Really, you need $200,000 per year in retirement to be comfortable? That seems like a hell of a lot.
Some people actually plan to build a new house with a new mortgage after retirement. Seems crazy to me.
I guess it depends on what your current standard of living is but that is around four times the median household income in the US, and people in retirement often have lower expenses than working people (kids have generally grown, house is often paid off, etc.).
In many states, retirees are exempt from many taxes as well. I don't need as many dress clothes nor does my better half.
I am planning on retiring early but with nowhere near that war chest, probably closer to $1M in investments for a $40k annual income. Once Social Security kicks in it will just be extra income on top of the investment income.
That should be sufficient. I have two retirement accounts - one untouched so far, and now that I've started collecting SS, I'm making more than when I retired.
p> I am just not willing to exchange further years of my life for extra money at the end of it, I would rather retire when I still have the physical and mental ability to enjoy it.
Exactly. End weighted money tends to go to a nursing home anyhow. You probably already have this figured out, but take the SS retirement at 62. You will make less money per month, but the amounts are based on actuarial tables, so the concept is total money extracted. My rationale is that if you wait until the latest possible time to start collecting, you'll just be getting more money at a time when you're starting to slow down and not need as much. As well as possibly die in the intervening years and never collect anything at all.
The best career move I ever made was retiring at 55 years old. The wife and I go on several vacations a year where we are physically active, hiking and such, and no one except deluded people live forever. I always sum these things up by noting that there are stories about these ancient people who run marathons and such, and for some weird reason way too many people envision themselves like that at 95 years old. Shit, most of us will be dead before hitting that age.
Sure you can retire at 55 years old without a mega-buck, but the risks that you will either end up broke in a medicaid nursing home or die early due to lack of ability to afford medical treatment goes up dramatically.
I plan to retire at 55, but only if I can get closer to 5M in equity investments. That way I can afford to live well while retired, traveling regularly and not concerned about food stamps.
So you planning on taking a trip around the world when you are 85? I'm all about saving and living well, but my experience with others indicates that retirement in mid fifties is pretty damn nice, as you are still getting around pretty darn well. In the sixties, there is a general slowdown biased toward the 70 year old end. The slowdown accelerates, and by the eighties, most people are pretty settled, and the early portion of the nursing home experience is kicking in.
You will find nursing homes fighting over you for your millions. And you'll tend to live until they've just about emptied your bank account.
I do think it's sad that your father dutifully stashed away (if I did the math correctly) $96k over the course of 8 years, only to have it sucked away in 6 weeks by cancer and funeral expenses.
If he had went on Medicare, they would have taken everything. If he gone into a nursing home, it would have cost $10K+ per month. Dying isn't cheap.
Personally, I would rather my heirs get my estate, not some nursing home. My plans are that once it looks like curtains for me, and if I can still do it, I'm going to save my family the money and the stress by taking myself out.
you can live for decades in a nursing home on medicare. Would you want to? Also what happens when medicare goes away?
Die quickly!
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information.
The basis of any autonomous driving system will have to have all of the vehicles talking to each other. Because there is a difference between having one google car on the road, and having almost all of them.
There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
Oh hell yeah. Selling ads for you to watch while the car drives itself. You'll love it. Bad guys might want to jam the signals. That won't cause the cars to wreck, but might make for some traffic jams.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
It will have to be very short range stuff, because otherwise, you'll run into the same problems that WiFi and cellular have today. Too much shit on the air. And given the numbers of cars on the road, all of them transmitting with much power and antenna gain will drive the noise floor crazy - think an RF arms race.
They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
Present day small scale implementations already like OnStar, already ID you. You can bet the final implementation of this technology will at the very least, ID the location and the car owner, just like the license plate ID's the registrant of the vehicle.
Nope. I don't. Never have. And yet I live on.
Maybe I should write a tell all book for all the dumbfounded tech zombies I encounter in "meatspace".
Oh derp. Some of us don't actually give a rats ass about the basis of the cellular system - which inherently tracks because it has to in order to work. Or credit cards. Or ATM Cameras. Cool part is, if I'm going to be paranoid about the whole thing, They can exonerate me as well or better than implicate me.
But if you really have need for eliminating tracking, get rid of your SS card, not use any phone at all ever, because a landline spots you, and any cell phone does as well, get rid of your credit cards, and move to the mountains of Idaho, live off the land and barter for a living. No cashe either - they don't put serial numbers on bills for nothing, and if you try to buy stuff with coins you become pretty interesting after while.
And for crissakes - don't use a computer ever, because if they want you badly enough, your AC doesn't mean shit, and if you use TOR, you are just waving a big sign that says "I am interesting!".
" an attacker could "manipulate accounting documents and financial results, bypass change management controls, and bypass segregation of duties restrictions," which could result in "fraud, theft or manipulation of sensitive data," as well as the "unauthorized payment transactions and transfer of money." An attacker could also add a backdoor to the affected server, the advisory said."
Then legal threats
Perhaps we could use a little deductive reasoning to conclude that this was not a flaw, but a critical feature of the software that some folks didn't want getting out?
Financial history is full of interesting accounting tricks.
Geez, me as an American can read the original posted dates. The one claiming they can't read and then stopped is just plain LAZY.
The only thing the original post was missing was being done in all lower case, and omitting punctuation.
Part of communications is communicating, and if someone can't be bothered to make sentences and paragraphs readable without a lot of effort, then some folks might not vother to read them.
Case in point, the original took me about 10 seconds to parse, the cleaned up version, done in proper chronological paragraph order took perhaps a second to read.
Lazy? perhaps the lazy one was the OP.
The sentence I responded to started with "We landed on the moon because...". There's a number of answers I could come up with for this but some preliminary calculations (only problems of modest size were possible to solve using masses of humans with calculators) many years before the deed are definitely not on the top of my list of ideas for those answers.
We landed on the moon because of many reasons. Most of which kinda sorta had to mesh together to make the whole thing work. Some were more exciting than others, but all were important. I see no reason to make too many ranking distinctions.
Which in the context of ransomware is precisely the wrong advice - you need *offline* backups to recover, since the malware will happily encrypt any and all drives it can find. Backup to one or more external hard drives yes, but don't leave it/them connected routinely.
No, I probably should have explained more - it was her work laptop, so the only part of it being used at home was the backing up.
Japan ratified because they want a good relationship with the people who will still be in charge when Trump takes office.
That's a dumb theory considering everyone and their mom believes that Trump will kill off TPP. It's practically the only thing he has said he will do that people actually believe he will do.
I think that he wasn't talking about Americans. Probably the rest of the world, or perhaps China. There are dangers of isolation ahead.
I wonder how many Linux people have two friends to infect?
Necessity drives innovation.
You don't mean........ come out..... of mom's basement?
side note - I'm a guy who uses Linux, but loves to make fun of anyone.
Sure, he's flipped on a lot of issues, but opposition to free trade, along with restricting immigration, were his two big signature issues. If he flips on those, then he stands for absolutely nothing.
Annnnnd Bingo! He stands for very little other than himself, which is close enough to nothing for all intents.
Now if for some weird reason he and congress decides to stand firm on so many of these issues, the US will begin to find itself isolated as the world moves on. Isolation will lead to dropping the dollar as the standard currency, and adopting the yen.
The TPP won't be the sole reason, but since the world is very interconnected, it will be come a death by a thousand cuts situation.
Why isn't it mentioned anywhere the ransomware works on Windows and only on Windows? Is it to avoid another Windows-bashing? Or is it that obvious?
It has been pointed out. Then the Windows apologists start screaming about how it can be made to work on OSX and Linux.
Which isn't the point, because its a Windows thing.
lol. Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back just because you don't use windows.
You have to admit, the installed user base of malware is best on Windows, those Mac Hipsters and Linux geeks are never going to catch up to you guys.
Wipe and restore from backup. Nex!
First Assumption - Consumers actually put forth effort to run backups.
Second Assumption - Ransomware doesn't seek out and destroy backups.
Damn, there is no hope for anyone! Nothing can be done! We're all doomed, and the computer kids from this country are now our overlords!!
Backups work great for random acts of god but not necessarily for ransomware. It would be fairly trivial to create ransomware that slept a random amount of time before encrypting your files or even worse encrypt your files and then continue to function like normal for several weeks before alerting you. By that time, all your backups are also infected and even if you have a really old backup you won't have any of the recent stuff from that last several weeks or months since the initial infection. For all the people on here that are bragging about backups, even if you catch it the same day and restore it is still a huge pain and chances are if written properly it could easily be written in a way that the backups are also infected.
Of course its a pain, and no system is foolproof. My own personal backup system doesn't have offsite storage in a fireproof container inside a guarded vault. But there is that old saying about how perfection is the biggest enemy of good enough, which is the road you are on.
And since probably 80 percent of users have no backup at all, there is a lot of low hanging fruit before the bad guys get to multiple file backups and multiple image users.
"So what would you do if this ransomware infected your files?"
The correct answer is to reformat the storage and restore from a backup.
In a world of Password1, I wonder what the percentage is of people who actually have any backup at all. Gotta be pretty low.
Most people are the type who used to put electrical tape over their blinking VCR lights, so backing up their computer simply doesn't happen - a combination of laziness and avoiding reading instructions.
A friend for some crazy reason took her computer to an on-campus computer help for an update. I guess she thought I was too busy or something. Well, the Windows guy hosed her Mac. She calls me in a panic. So I went over to her place....
"Remember that external USB drive I had you buy and told you that you had to have it plugged in while you were at home?"
Yeah?
"Let's plug it in and let it do it's thing."
A little while later, Time machine had restored her computer to the way it was. She's a big believer in backups now, even though I had to almost trick her into using it.
OSX, Linux, or Windows, back the damn things up folks. But there I go preaching to the choir again.
So basically the whole point of your post is to show off that you're running Linux and you have backups. Congratulations on being a twat.
I wonder how many Linux people have two friends to infect?