Deja Dup doesn't support full system encryption, only home directory. rsync - I should make the backup, then archive the folder and then encrypt it. It's too long. tar archive of the system - I should make tar, and then encrypt the archive. It's too long. encrypt the external hard drive with cryptsetup and then put tar archive of the system there or use rsync - I can't use the standard Windows utility to make the backup because it requires ntfs. Am I right? What would you recommend?
This question exists because it has historical significance, but it is not considered a good, on-topic question for this site, so please do not use it as evidence that you can ask similar questions here.  While you are encouraged to help maintain its answers, please understand that "big list" questions are not generally allowed on Ask Ubuntu and will be closed per the .   Backup is incredibly important. Obviously there's no best backup tool, but a comparison of the options would be very interesting.   Graphical Interface? Command line? Incremental backups? Automatic backups? Install method: In standard repositories? PPA?
I finally got fed up when wanting to read about bash's read and it's -s option with man bash. I found the right spot eventually (around line 4500), but it was a frustrating as usual, since both /read and even /\s-s\s searches have way too many matches.  So, the question is: How can I read long man pages efficiently, or get same information in other ways, locally? As a specific example, how to reach the relevant documentation after seeing read -s pwd in a shell script? A good answer could be a shell script snippet, or hint about some tool and how it is used, or something else entirely, as long as it helps in finding the right spot to read.  Note: I'm not tagging with  because I want the question to be about man page reading in general, even though that quite possibly is the most commonly encountered humongous man page. What gifts would be welcome for a Swedish host family? I have to do some manual reordering or rows in Excel and cut/paste is too hard to use. I'm looking for something that would enable me to use drag'n'drop or to add some buttons to move-up/down move-top/bottom. How do I unit test code that includes a callout? Variance of a linear combination of vectors How do I specify unique constraint for multiple columns in MySQL? I have a table:  table votes (     id,     user,     email,     address,     primary key(id), );   Now I want to make the columns user, email, address unique (together).  How do I do this in MySql?  Of course the example is just... an example. So please don't worry about the semantics. I'm looking for an ASCII art generator (text is preferred, but images will do too) in the  style, but with text instead of trains. Any suggestion? Wilson and Fermat's Theorem I'm exploring the effects of removing the intercept in a logistic regression model.  Assume a model:  $$logit(Y = 1) = \beta_1 x + \beta_2z + 0$$  with $x$ and $z$ being categorical variables with 2 levels each and no intercept.  I understood that having no intercept with categorical predictors produce coefficients that compare the $P(Y = 1)$ in each level of the two predictor against a null case where $P(Y=1) = 0.5$ or $logit(Y=1) = 0$.  I noticed a phenomenon that can understand. Using glm() function in R if you change the order of the variable in the right hand part of the formula, the coefficients change too. But even more oddly, the coefficient of the first variable is always the same.  Here's an R demo:  y &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T)) x &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T)) z &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T))  coef(glm(y ~ x + z - 1, binomial) #        x1         x2         z2  #-0.1764783  0.3260739 -0.1335192  coef(glm(y ~ z + x - 1, binomial)) #        z1         z2         x2  #-0.1764783 -0.3099976  0.5025523    As you can see the first predictors have the same coefficient while the other are different in the two models.  Here is what I expected and instead behave differently than what I though:   Since every level of the two predictors is compared to the same null case, I expected to have the same coefficients in the two models, independently from the order in which I use them. I expected to see the coefficients of every level of every predictor, instead the coefficient for the 1 level of the second predictor is not shown. I therefore assume that only the first variable is compared against the null case, while the second is compared against a reference level; but what is this level? Is it $P(Y = 1 | X = 1 \cap Z = 1)$? Reproducing one of the models WITH the intercept we get:  coef(glm(y ~ x + z - 1, binomial) #        x1         x2         z2  #-0.1764783  0.3260739 -0.1335192  coef(glm(y ~ x + z, binomial)) #(Intercept)         x2          z2  #-0.1764783   0.5025523  -0.1335192    As expected x1 become the intercept, and x2 is likely relative to x1. z1 is missing also in this case and z2 is the same as in the model without intercept.  Thus should I assume that the comparison against the null case $P(Y = 1) = 0.5$ is made only for the first variable in a formula, while the other are compared against the usual intercept? Is this behavior normal? What about the fact that the first coefficient has the same value whichever the order of the predictors in the formula? What if I want to compare all level of each predictor against the null case and have a coefficient for all levels? Or it's theoretically impossible for some reason I don't get? Suppose there is a message that is encrypted with AES-128-CBC.  The message is as follows, new lines are used to delimit the 16 byte boundary for each block:  Wire funds from: Alice to Bob in   the amount of $ 1   Because this message is encrypted using CBC mode,  any modification of the first block of cipher text would propagate throughout the message.   However, the amount of the fund transfer falls in the last block.  I am under the assumption that an attacker can use the property of  to alter the last block and produce a valid amount that is greater than \$1 in far fewer than $2^{128}$ operations.   Is this a correct assumption?  Is there a name for this attack or do you know of a real world example?    My instinct is that if you just need one byte of the 16 byte block to be of a specific value then it would only require $2^8$ operations because the other 120 bits of the plain text could be any value. For example lets say we wanted the last block of cipher text to decrypt to 9\0 (where \0 denotes a single null byte, and the message would be interpreted as \$9), then it would take only $2^{16}$ operations to find this cipher text block.  Is there something I am missing? Least-action classical electrodynamics without potentials Is it possible to formulate classical electrodynamics (in the sense of deriving Maxwell's equations) from a least-action principle, without the use of potentials? That is, is there a lagrangian which depends only on the electric and magnetic fields and which will have Maxwell's equations as its Euler-Lagrange equations? "going to come down" vs "going to have to come down" What is the difference between the following sentences?        This fence is going to come down.   This fence is going to have to come down.      I have doubt that when you are saying fence is going to have to come down, that is enough to say it right? but why I hear in movies saying fence is going to have to come down, is there a difference between them? Do cards with abilities that target trigger heroic? IndentationError: unindent does not match any outer indentation level When I compile the Python code below, I get      IndentationError: unindent does not match any outer indentation level     import sys  def Factorial(n): # Return factorial     result = 1     for i in range (1,n):         result = result * i     print "factorial is ",result     return result   Why? How did Draco apparate within Hogwarts? Why is it "description" but "describe" (b and p)? I've just wondered by it is "description", but "to describe". It looks as if "to descripe" would be a more consistant choice. Is there any other explanation besides "this is how it is written for years"?  edit: Or alternatively "to describe" and "describtion". How can I show that if the second fundamental form of a surface is identically equal to zero, then the surface is a plane? This is my question:  Let P be a plane considered as a surface in 3-space. Show that its second fundamental form is zero. Conversely, show that if the second fundamental form of a surface is identically zero then the surface is a plane.  So far I have that the general equation of the plane is $$ax+by+cz+d=0.$$ Then $$M(u,v)=(u,v,\alpha u + \beta v + \gamma),$$ where $a,b,c,d,\alpha,\beta, \gamma$ are all constants and $c\not=0$. Then $M_u=(1,0,\alpha)$ and $M_v=(0,1,\beta)$. I know that $\vec{n} =\frac{M_u \times M_v}{|M_u \times M_v|}$ which gives $$ \vec{n}=\frac{(-\alpha,-\beta, 1)}{\sqrt{\alpha^2+\beta^2+1}}.$$ Hence, the unit norm is a constant. $$ M_{uu}=M_{uv}=M_{vv}=0$$ Hence $l=m=n=0$, so the second fundamental form is $$ ldu^2+mdudv+ndv^2=0.$$  Now I need to show the converse, but I don't know how. Please help :) Find the general solution of $y'= a^{x + y}$ where y is the function If $p$ is a prime such that $p≡1\pmod 7$ then $p ≡1\pmod{14}$ Prove or disprove the following:  1)  if $p$ is odd prime such that $p≡1\pmod 7$ then $p ≡1\pmod{14}$  2)  if $p$ is odd prime such that $p≡4 \pmod 7$ then $p ≡4\pmod{14}$  I think that both statement are true and have a similar proof  1) $p≡1\pmod 7$ so $p≡8\pmod 7$ then $7|p-8$ so $p-8= 7 k$ where $k$ is an integer so $p=8+7k$, so $p ≡1\pmod {14}$  It is that a correct proof? Thank you. Why did the texture I painted in texture paint mode disappear?