Lets also not forget that israel will try to blow you up if you're carrying a bomb.
But I see your point. We refuse to officially "profile" people, to "protect our rights". And then we get groped "because it's necessary". So, they're protecting our rights, so a few feet down the line they can violate them anyway.
Wonderful system we have here. And so much less effective on top of it.
You might want to look two articles down for "Apple Is Now the Most Valuable Company In History" and rethink what your definition of "winning" is. Current state of affairs appears to suggest they know what they're doing.
They're good at giving people what they don't yet realize they will like. And they DO tend to be forceful about it. They drag their customers, some of them kicking and screaming, into the future. And when they get there, they suddenly realize that was a change that really helped them. But then there will be another change in the works and another group kicking and screaming over it. Rinse and repeat. They're used to it. But obviously it's a strategy that has gathered momentum because it works well over the long term. They're not selling to the market of today. They're selling to the market of tomorrow, reinventing it, keeping it fresh.
Apple started pushing hard with laptops around '95 when people were complaining how nobody liked them because they were underpowered, overpriced, and lacked upgradeability. Now over half the personal computers in circulation are laptops because they're portable and the price has gone down along with the power going up simply because the manufacturers started using and developing the tech ahead of its heyday.
And now another shift is in full-swing. People want the benefits looming on the horizon but are afraid to let go of some of the security of their existing systems. There are laptops that are modular, kitchen-table-tech friendly, and upgradeable, but they do this at the cost of hanging onto being large and heavy. The netbooks that started landing on the market in '06 were just announcing the new niche. They had the size and runtime but hadn't solved the power issue. They were the stepping stone to ultrabooks.
Ultrabooks recently got off the ground with the macbook air, and now are full-speed-ahead with the macbook pros. Now power is solved, and some of the new ultrabooks are lighter and run longer than most netbooks from just a few years ago. You can't make something that small AND make it hacker-friendly. Accessories give way to built-in. Latches give way to screws. Screws give way to glue. Modules give way to single boards. Shrinking the size and increasing the runtime are what you get, without losing the functionality people value most. And the majority of users are perfectly willing to make that tradeoff. Many don't even see it as a tradeoff, because what they've "given up" they didn't even care about to begin with. For them it only adds value.
There will always be a subset of the users that want to be able to work on their computers, and there will always be computers in the market that they will like, but for the vast majority of computer users today, they'd simply rather have the lower weight, smaller size, and greater runtime, accepting they're not upgradeable. With costs coming down, it becomes much more attractive to pay a little bit more on the cost-per-year to have those benefits. Trying to make a case for your preferred market niche being "the only right way" is just plain foolish.
twice you mention that, without ever saying what exactly the shareholders could do about it besides sell? Which from the looks of it going for 2 cents/share I'd say happened anyway. or am I missing something? I'd say all the "wrath of the shareholders" could be summed up in one of three ways: piss, moan, and SELL.
BY definition Holy Ware has specific uses and effects.
I disagree. They are selling "sanctified water". In other words, ordinary water that some old dude in fancy robes has waived his hand around and mumbled some silly things to. Nothing more. If that's what they're selling, you're probably going to get just that. Anything more is up to someone else to tell you that you're getting. The guy doing the selling isn't going to describe it in any other way, or ebay will just yank it.
I can get on ebay and sell a spoon that the Pope ate his breakfast cereal with last year. That's all that I'll lay claim to. If YOU want to believe that eating your breakfast with that same spoon will have some spiritual or other magical positive effects, you go for it! Maybe you were told by someone that it would make your cereal less fattening. But that's entirely up to you to believe, I make no promises I can't keep. You believe what you want to believe from who you want to listen to. I don't mind that if it gets my spoon sold. But I sure won't mind taking advantage of any suckers that believe what "holy benefits" someone else has told them my spoon might get them. If they don't get the effects they were expecting, they need to take it up with the wacko they got the voodoo information from, NOT me. And this keeps eBay OUT of the loop.
I think there should be a line drawn, but the problem is the line isn't very clear to see. It's one of those "common sense" things.
If I buy a rope and they claim it can hold 200 lbs continuous and has a breaking strength of 500 lbs, and I slowly put 100 lbs on it and it breaks, that's all pretty clear-cut. They made a reasonably believable claim to performance, I didn't get that performance, and the performance of the product is clearly demonstrable.
On the other hand if I sell a rope for catching ghosts, and you're stupid enough to buy it for your seance, and you swear you see a ghost and it slips through the rope, now we have the "stupidity" that ebay is trying to avoid. "this rope doesn't work on ghosts!" "No it works fine on ghosts, you're using it wrong!" Even if the seller IS being sincere, (stupid) ebay is tired of refereeing these idiots. I don't blame them.
The problem isn't the magical power of the item being disputed, but of it not having the claimed effect.
Sanctified water isn't usually sold with any claimed "magical powers". People buy it for whatever power they believe it may happen to have that they're looking for. Most of the "uses" are very subjective, and I think we can agree the effects, if any, are placebo.
Now on the other hand, if you were selling Holy Water (the "usual variety", sanctified at your local church etc) and were claiming that it could do all sorts of things like remove warts, THEN ebay would likely step in. Otherwise go ahead and sell all the Holy Water you want to. Just don't claim it will perform any specific magic service.
Agreed. School is not an appropriate time to be using social media. It's no different than barring students from using their cell phones while at school. Same goes for twitter, myspace, etc. Any social media site that shows its taking students' attention away from the learning process should be blocked completely, immediately.
From personal experience, you WILL occasionally run into "Timmy uploaded a video to xyz and needs it for his presentation, unblock xyz". Make it clear that's not how it works. Make flash drives available in the library for student check-out so they can bring in things they need for their presentations. Distribute a guideline sheet to the staff with information for them and to give to their students, outlining the blocked sites policy and the proper procedure for bringing in media for classwork as well as presentations. Make no exceptions or you will be setting a torturous precedence. Get the superintendent to sign off on the written policy so it's clear there is no higher authority to appeal to. In our case we went so far as to get the staff to physically sign off on the sheet to make sure there was no plausible ignorance of the rules.
We still had a collective heart failure when we blocked youtube. You'd have thought the world had come to an end. It took about three weeks for the students AND staff to figure out they could live without youtube at school. There's just NO effective way to filter content on things like that. We still had occasional incidents where students had videos on youtube they neglected to obtain for their presentations. It's no different than if you forget to bring some other physical media. Either postpone the presentation until tomorrow, go home and get it, or go without. Just because it's online is no excuse to suspend the rules. Do NOT have a computer or two that is exempt from the filtering so they can request you download it if they forgot it, that's a crutch you will seriously regret having given them. Make it clear that the policy applies to ALL computers, ALL the time.
Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?
Maybe they're more like consultants?
To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony against you in spite, or (B) cover their costs plus a little "for the trouble" to come out and make your testimony and give them an opportunity to be "the expert" up at the front of the room which most of them probably enjoy anyway.
Now (B) certainly is abusable. Some people will say anything for money, even under threat of perjury. But it has its reasonable place. It's up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness. The opposing council is certainly within their right to try to undermine that credibility if they can demonstrate that they were paid lavishly to testify. That's the check-and-balance here. These guys can probably make around 75k speaking at any event, this isn't a lot different to them.
In any event, I think that most "expert witnesses" could slant their testimony at least a little bit in either direction if they wanted to, they have enough facts to be able to put at least a little spin on it either way. You have to hope that the opposing council practices spin control. Juries understand that this is a "witness for party xxx" and will give it a little larger grain of salt when they're supporting party xxx if they're doing their job.
I also think there is some question of "expert witness" and "impartial witness". Good reading: http://www.balindaandco.com/Blog/Personal-Injury-Are-expert-witnesses-impartial/ They propose some solutions, but the best seems to be "each side brings their own 'expert witness' to testify before the jury". If you can't guarantee impartialness, at least get both sides of the spin presented to the jury.
Clients randomly request pieces they don't have. They're specifically coded to not request sequential blocks. Speaking as someone that has written bittorrent clients, I can't think of a more horrible way to serve up a torrent than on a linear-access system such as tape. Peers and seeds seek continuously.
The only way you could possibly make this work would be to advertise you only have block 0. Then when they get that from you, announce you now have block 1 also. etc. Messy, but doable - the only way really for the seed to dictate what order the packets are served. Would probably thoroughly confuse the tracker. Once you had another seeder available in the swarm, your smartest move would be to disconnect until all the seeds were gone again.
Embassies universally have a lot of internal safeties. Tunnels out, many stories of bunkers under the main building or complex, secured rooms for destroying materials in the event of an attack, and a plethora of secret rooms and content-destroying safes. I doubt even little Ecuador has missed out on this.
There is probably already a plan in place. Assanage is on a lower level and has instructions on where to go if they get the intercom that the UK authorities HAVE truly lost their minds and are storming the place. In the time it takes them to get anywhere near him in the building, he'll be in a place that would take a crew with penetrating radar several days to find, assuming he's not long gone out a tunnel.
I'd like to see the fine print on that "we reserve the right to revoke your embassy." I can't imagine them not having clauses for being given free license to take whatever they want out of the country without search, and a delayed effect. Diplomatic immunity is not so quickly, easily, and completely revoked. Otherwise it would not suit its purpose.
And although they may have the right to revoke the embassy, there's probably a notice period required, so they can't go storming in before that expires. Until then, that embassy is foreign, sovereign soil. Storming it in that state would be no different than say, what the americans did when they scooped up Osama out of Pakistan. Imagine if they'd have gone in there to whisk away someone wanted for a clearly fabricated charge on a purely political basis? The world's reaction would be a lot different.
You're free to talk about anything you want to. Unless we don't like what you say, in which case we will lock you up or kill you. Have a nice day.
Funny how governments (usually of the oppressive variety) are deathly scared of people voicing their opinions of them or outing them publicly.
Just how oppressive is Vientnam's government? That's not one I usually hear tossed around with Cuba, North Korea etc. IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.
why these things are hard to decrypt? They're computer programs. The computer has to be able to decrypt them to run them. So either the computer has the key, doesn't need the key, or the key is going to be delivered to it later.
So I'm assuming the authors sent the payload and will be activating it later when they send the decryption key? Otherwise, this shouldn't be such a big deal to figure out. There's no reason to need to break the encryption if the key is IN the payload or in the malware shell.
The only time where this sort of thing works is in places like the sat boxes, where they've hardcoded the key in a chip that uses its hardware engine to decrypt data. In that case you have to physically get the key from the chip itself with a purpose-built microscope. But that sort of defense isn't possible with a purely-software thing like this. (I read today that's also what the iphone is doing, and I assume other smart-devices like crackberries)
it's a torrent site? Sketchy, dangerous, and exploit-running ads are a staple of torrent sites, as far as I've seen.
Public trackers, yes. Private is an entirely different matter. And if you're seriously considering using a public tracker, you're foolish in more than one way.
It's just a problem of lack of accountability on the public trackers.
I have a setup here where the server's video media is about 8tb in size. That backs up via rsync to the backup server which is in another room over rsync. It contains a large number of internal and external drives. None of them are over 2tb in capacity. The main drive has data separated into subfolders and the rsync jobs back up specific folders to specific drives.
A few times I've had to do some rearranging of data on the main and backup drives when a volume filled up. So it helps to plan ahead to save time down the road. But it works well for me here.
The only thing with rsync you need to worry about is users moving large trees or renaming root folders in large trees. This tends to cause rsync to want to delete a few TB of data and then turn around and copy it all over again on the backup drive. It doesn't follow files and folders by inode, it just goes by exact location and name.
I help mitigate this by hiding the root folders from the users. The share points are a couple levels deeper so they can't cause TOO big of a problem if someone decides to "tidy up". If they REALLY need something at a lower level moved or renamed, I do it myself, on both the source and the backup drives at the same time.
Another alternative is to get something like a Drobo where you can have a fairly inexpensive large pool of backup storage space that can match your primary storage. This prevents the problem of smaller backup volumes filling up and requiring data shuffling, but does nothing for the issue of users mucking with the lower levels of the tree.
Considering the volatile nature of most pregnant women, in the final trimester in particular, which would you want your woman to have? A big TV, or an assault rifle?
Anyone that's ever been a father-to-be can easily help you out with that one. (or at least any father that lived through it)
Slashdot Mirror
Lets also not forget that israel will try to blow you up if you're carrying a bomb.
But I see your point. We refuse to officially "profile" people, to "protect our rights". And then we get groped "because it's necessary". So, they're protecting our rights, so a few feet down the line they can violate them anyway.
Wonderful system we have here. And so much less effective on top of it.
I prefer Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Better be careful about that, or some cleric'll put out a hit, er I mean fatwa on you.
You might want to look two articles down for "Apple Is Now the Most Valuable Company In History" and rethink what your definition of "winning" is. Current state of affairs appears to suggest they know what they're doing.
They're good at giving people what they don't yet realize they will like. And they DO tend to be forceful about it. They drag their customers, some of them kicking and screaming, into the future. And when they get there, they suddenly realize that was a change that really helped them. But then there will be another change in the works and another group kicking and screaming over it. Rinse and repeat. They're used to it. But obviously it's a strategy that has gathered momentum because it works well over the long term. They're not selling to the market of today. They're selling to the market of tomorrow, reinventing it, keeping it fresh.
Apple started pushing hard with laptops around '95 when people were complaining how nobody liked them because they were underpowered, overpriced, and lacked upgradeability. Now over half the personal computers in circulation are laptops because they're portable and the price has gone down along with the power going up simply because the manufacturers started using and developing the tech ahead of its heyday.
And now another shift is in full-swing. People want the benefits looming on the horizon but are afraid to let go of some of the security of their existing systems. There are laptops that are modular, kitchen-table-tech friendly, and upgradeable, but they do this at the cost of hanging onto being large and heavy. The netbooks that started landing on the market in '06 were just announcing the new niche. They had the size and runtime but hadn't solved the power issue. They were the stepping stone to ultrabooks.
Ultrabooks recently got off the ground with the macbook air, and now are full-speed-ahead with the macbook pros. Now power is solved, and some of the new ultrabooks are lighter and run longer than most netbooks from just a few years ago. You can't make something that small AND make it hacker-friendly. Accessories give way to built-in. Latches give way to screws. Screws give way to glue. Modules give way to single boards. Shrinking the size and increasing the runtime are what you get, without losing the functionality people value most. And the majority of users are perfectly willing to make that tradeoff. Many don't even see it as a tradeoff, because what they've "given up" they didn't even care about to begin with. For them it only adds value.
There will always be a subset of the users that want to be able to work on their computers, and there will always be computers in the market that they will like, but for the vast majority of computer users today, they'd simply rather have the lower weight, smaller size, and greater runtime, accepting they're not upgradeable. With costs coming down, it becomes much more attractive to pay a little bit more on the cost-per-year to have those benefits. Trying to make a case for your preferred market niche being "the only right way" is just plain foolish.
twice you mention that, without ever saying what exactly the shareholders could do about it besides sell? Which from the looks of it going for 2 cents/share I'd say happened anyway. or am I missing something? I'd say all the "wrath of the shareholders" could be summed up in one of three ways: piss, moan, and SELL.
I disagree. They are selling "sanctified water". In other words, ordinary water that some old dude in fancy robes has waived his hand around and mumbled some silly things to. Nothing more. If that's what they're selling, you're probably going to get just that. Anything more is up to someone else to tell you that you're getting. The guy doing the selling isn't going to describe it in any other way, or ebay will just yank it.
I can get on ebay and sell a spoon that the Pope ate his breakfast cereal with last year. That's all that I'll lay claim to. If YOU want to believe that eating your breakfast with that same spoon will have some spiritual or other magical positive effects, you go for it! Maybe you were told by someone that it would make your cereal less fattening. But that's entirely up to you to believe, I make no promises I can't keep. You believe what you want to believe from who you want to listen to. I don't mind that if it gets my spoon sold. But I sure won't mind taking advantage of any suckers that believe what "holy benefits" someone else has told them my spoon might get them. If they don't get the effects they were expecting, they need to take it up with the wacko they got the voodoo information from, NOT me. And this keeps eBay OUT of the loop.
I think there should be a line drawn, but the problem is the line isn't very clear to see. It's one of those "common sense" things.
If I buy a rope and they claim it can hold 200 lbs continuous and has a breaking strength of 500 lbs, and I slowly put 100 lbs on it and it breaks, that's all pretty clear-cut. They made a reasonably believable claim to performance, I didn't get that performance, and the performance of the product is clearly demonstrable.
On the other hand if I sell a rope for catching ghosts, and you're stupid enough to buy it for your seance, and you swear you see a ghost and it slips through the rope, now we have the "stupidity" that ebay is trying to avoid. "this rope doesn't work on ghosts!" "No it works fine on ghosts, you're using it wrong!" Even if the seller IS being sincere, (stupid) ebay is tired of refereeing these idiots. I don't blame them.
The problem isn't the magical power of the item being disputed, but of it not having the claimed effect.
Sanctified water isn't usually sold with any claimed "magical powers". People buy it for whatever power they believe it may happen to have that they're looking for. Most of the "uses" are very subjective, and I think we can agree the effects, if any, are placebo.
Now on the other hand, if you were selling Holy Water (the "usual variety", sanctified at your local church etc) and were claiming that it could do all sorts of things like remove warts, THEN ebay would likely step in. Otherwise go ahead and sell all the Holy Water you want to. Just don't claim it will perform any specific magic service.
surely he can find some more effective substance, hydrofluoric acid perhaps?
Enough of that and he ought to go up like the WoO witch.
I had a similar experience. NOW ebay doesn't allow sellers to leave buyers negative feedback.... only neutral, positive, and none.
I'll take good ol fashioned stone tablets any day. THOSE have withstood the test of time.
Agreed. School is not an appropriate time to be using social media. It's no different than barring students from using their cell phones while at school. Same goes for twitter, myspace, etc. Any social media site that shows its taking students' attention away from the learning process should be blocked completely, immediately.
From personal experience, you WILL occasionally run into "Timmy uploaded a video to xyz and needs it for his presentation, unblock xyz". Make it clear that's not how it works. Make flash drives available in the library for student check-out so they can bring in things they need for their presentations. Distribute a guideline sheet to the staff with information for them and to give to their students, outlining the blocked sites policy and the proper procedure for bringing in media for classwork as well as presentations. Make no exceptions or you will be setting a torturous precedence. Get the superintendent to sign off on the written policy so it's clear there is no higher authority to appeal to. In our case we went so far as to get the staff to physically sign off on the sheet to make sure there was no plausible ignorance of the rules.
We still had a collective heart failure when we blocked youtube. You'd have thought the world had come to an end. It took about three weeks for the students AND staff to figure out they could live without youtube at school. There's just NO effective way to filter content on things like that. We still had occasional incidents where students had videos on youtube they neglected to obtain for their presentations. It's no different than if you forget to bring some other physical media. Either postpone the presentation until tomorrow, go home and get it, or go without. Just because it's online is no excuse to suspend the rules. Do NOT have a computer or two that is exempt from the filtering so they can request you download it if they forgot it, that's a crutch you will seriously regret having given them. Make it clear that the policy applies to ALL computers, ALL the time.
Maybe they're more like consultants?
To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony against you in spite, or (B) cover their costs plus a little "for the trouble" to come out and make your testimony and give them an opportunity to be "the expert" up at the front of the room which most of them probably enjoy anyway.
Now (B) certainly is abusable. Some people will say anything for money, even under threat of perjury. But it has its reasonable place. It's up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness. The opposing council is certainly within their right to try to undermine that credibility if they can demonstrate that they were paid lavishly to testify. That's the check-and-balance here. These guys can probably make around 75k speaking at any event, this isn't a lot different to them.
In any event, I think that most "expert witnesses" could slant their testimony at least a little bit in either direction if they wanted to, they have enough facts to be able to put at least a little spin on it either way. You have to hope that the opposing council practices spin control. Juries understand that this is a "witness for party xxx" and will give it a little larger grain of salt when they're supporting party xxx if they're doing their job.
I also think there is some question of "expert witness" and "impartial witness". Good reading: http://www.balindaandco.com/Blog/Personal-Injury-Are-expert-witnesses-impartial/
They propose some solutions, but the best seems to be "each side brings their own 'expert witness' to testify before the jury". If you can't guarantee impartialness, at least get both sides of the spin presented to the jury.
I've been in an embassy before. I suppose you have too?
I suspect you're the one who lacks the proper sense of realism here.
and swallowed occasionally.
"Torrent" and "Tape Drive"
Clients randomly request pieces they don't have. They're specifically coded to not request sequential blocks. Speaking as someone that has written bittorrent clients, I can't think of a more horrible way to serve up a torrent than on a linear-access system such as tape. Peers and seeds seek continuously.
The only way you could possibly make this work would be to advertise you only have block 0. Then when they get that from you, announce you now have block 1 also. etc. Messy, but doable - the only way really for the seed to dictate what order the packets are served. Would probably thoroughly confuse the tracker. Once you had another seeder available in the swarm, your smartest move would be to disconnect until all the seeds were gone again.
Embassies universally have a lot of internal safeties. Tunnels out, many stories of bunkers under the main building or complex, secured rooms for destroying materials in the event of an attack, and a plethora of secret rooms and content-destroying safes. I doubt even little Ecuador has missed out on this.
There is probably already a plan in place. Assanage is on a lower level and has instructions on where to go if they get the intercom that the UK authorities HAVE truly lost their minds and are storming the place. In the time it takes them to get anywhere near him in the building, he'll be in a place that would take a crew with penetrating radar several days to find, assuming he's not long gone out a tunnel.
I'd like to see the fine print on that "we reserve the right to revoke your embassy." I can't imagine them not having clauses for being given free license to take whatever they want out of the country without search, and a delayed effect. Diplomatic immunity is not so quickly, easily, and completely revoked. Otherwise it would not suit its purpose.
And although they may have the right to revoke the embassy, there's probably a notice period required, so they can't go storming in before that expires. Until then, that embassy is foreign, sovereign soil. Storming it in that state would be no different than say, what the americans did when they scooped up Osama out of Pakistan. Imagine if they'd have gone in there to whisk away someone wanted for a clearly fabricated charge on a purely political basis? The world's reaction would be a lot different.
don't forget to bob your head dramatically left and right when you say that
You're free to talk about anything you want to. Unless we don't like what you say, in which case we will lock you up or kill you. Have a nice day.
Funny how governments (usually of the oppressive variety) are deathly scared of people voicing their opinions of them or outing them publicly.
Just how oppressive is Vientnam's government? That's not one I usually hear tossed around with Cuba, North Korea etc. IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.
why these things are hard to decrypt? They're computer programs. The computer has to be able to decrypt them to run them. So either the computer has the key, doesn't need the key, or the key is going to be delivered to it later.
So I'm assuming the authors sent the payload and will be activating it later when they send the decryption key? Otherwise, this shouldn't be such a big deal to figure out. There's no reason to need to break the encryption if the key is IN the payload or in the malware shell.
The only time where this sort of thing works is in places like the sat boxes, where they've hardcoded the key in a chip that uses its hardware engine to decrypt data. In that case you have to physically get the key from the chip itself with a purpose-built microscope. But that sort of defense isn't possible with a purely-software thing like this. (I read today that's also what the iphone is doing, and I assume other smart-devices like crackberries)
Public trackers, yes. Private is an entirely different matter. And if you're seriously considering using a public tracker, you're foolish in more than one way.
It's just a problem of lack of accountability on the public trackers.
Sounds like a poor contraction for "misinformation". How poetic.
I have a setup here where the server's video media is about 8tb in size. That backs up via rsync to the backup server which is in another room over rsync. It contains a large number of internal and external drives. None of them are over 2tb in capacity. The main drive has data separated into subfolders and the rsync jobs back up specific folders to specific drives.
A few times I've had to do some rearranging of data on the main and backup drives when a volume filled up. So it helps to plan ahead to save time down the road. But it works well for me here.
The only thing with rsync you need to worry about is users moving large trees or renaming root folders in large trees. This tends to cause rsync to want to delete a few TB of data and then turn around and copy it all over again on the backup drive. It doesn't follow files and folders by inode, it just goes by exact location and name.
I help mitigate this by hiding the root folders from the users. The share points are a couple levels deeper so they can't cause TOO big of a problem if someone decides to "tidy up". If they REALLY need something at a lower level moved or renamed, I do it myself, on both the source and the backup drives at the same time.
Another alternative is to get something like a Drobo where you can have a fairly inexpensive large pool of backup storage space that can match your primary storage. This prevents the problem of smaller backup volumes filling up and requiring data shuffling, but does nothing for the issue of users mucking with the lower levels of the tree.
You'd have thought a group as bright as NASA would've already known that Morpheus was not The One...
Considering the volatile nature of most pregnant women, in the final trimester in particular, which would you want your woman to have? A big TV, or an assault rifle?
Anyone that's ever been a father-to-be can easily help you out with that one. (or at least any father that lived through it)