Craftsman_2222

an Intel CPU from HP for $50k
I guess still cheaper than ink jet cartriges from HP....

Listening to the sound of nature.

quote from my parents "Im sure theres gremlins in that computer"

Donald Trump.

Exactly what I just thought about

I would say its a little bit of both.

To expand on what @alpenwasser said, RAID is considered redundancy not backup. It will protect you in the case of a hard drive failure. It will not protect you from accidental deletion, file corruption, power surges, or other software/user errors.

If RAID still seems like that is all you are worried about RAID 1 would likely be what you would want to use. Typically, this does require both drives start completely freshly formatted, with 1 notable exception. A software RAID 1 using Intel's Rapid Storage Technology driver will allow you to create a RAID 1 without wiping your source disk, although that software is highly dependent on whether your MoBo/Chipset supports it or not.

If you are looking for an actual backup, I would suggest getting an external drive, backing up to it in frequent intervals and storing it outside of your own home (in case of a fire, flood, other natural disaster). For example I have one friend who rents a deposit box at a bank and once a month he will grab the drive, back up to it, then put it back into the deposit box. If your internet is fast enough there are also options like CrashPlan or BackBlaze that give you cloud based backup solutions that cost around $5 USD a month for unlimited storage. 

You just acquired the jealousy of everyone on this forum

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.

After the attacks in Paris? I personally do not think we should take in any refugees at the moment. It didn't go so well for France, and other countries. There is no guarantee on Americans' safety, and as a nation, we put our citizens lives above all else. However each state should have the authority to decline/accept if we have to have them, as each state has sovereignty.
 
If another country or people in those countries have a problem with it, then you take them in. We aren't obligated to do anything that puts our people at risk.
 
 
And then we have situations like this, where we don't do anything, a terrorist group/etc causes havoc and we are forced to accept the aftermath regardless...
 
 
 
Oh. Some can already worm their way in, why be cautious at all? Makes perfect sense.

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

I would have to say I am satisfied with the discussion so far. It has been kept pretty civil and some good points have been brought up. Thanks everyone so far.

Also, for those of you who think that denying entry of refugees will somehow stop would be terrorists from entering the United States, I have wonderful news; The United States will let just about any idiot into The United States for up to six months after a brief waltz through customs.  If any outside entity sought entry into the United States, they'd just dress their operatives up nice, give them an itinerary for a visit to Disneyland and they'd disappear after they were picked up at the airport.  And that's assuming they don't make use of the many illegal ways to enter the United States.  The US boarder has more holes in it than a sieve.

Okay here is an example.
 
Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house and your house is a country. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

Okay here is an example.
 
Imagine there are 10 refugees outside your house and your house is a country. There is a chance that one of those people are a Muslim extremist, and if they get in they will kill every one in your house. Will you let the ten refugees in?

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

Couldn't Saudi Arabia and Jordan take in refugees? They have room and money for it.

I'm sorry, it only took 8 to do the damage in France. By letting in refugees you take the chance of it happening to America. I wouldn't it, sorry.