No, but it will notify you of a problem. However, I suspect that smartmontools would do an even better job of notifying you of a problem before it even occurs.
If you want something that will actually protect against bit level errors well, generate some extra data using an appropriate Error Correcting Code for your important archives/files. Something like what par2repair generates. This is incredibly slow compared to simple erasure codes like RAID uses, though. There are some filesystems that do this for you automatically, I wrote one:) Actually, other than that I don't know of any filesystems that do this.
If the above is impractical for performance reasons, Google recommends mirroring everything on three disks...
These are bit level errors. So instead of losing a bit or two, you lose a massive chunk. That's the difference between a strange character in your Doc file and losing the whole thing.
I think it's 128 bits for truecrypt, although internet searches point to many people using higher (1024 and 4096).
And if the bit level error rates are as high as he says, looks bad.
If the hard disk detects the bit error, it will return an I/O error instead of the corrupt data. Likewise, ZFS will not return corrupt data. So there are plenty of cases where bit errors are promoted to block errors. I can understand the desire to minimize propagation of corruption, but I'd rather just use RAID.
I tried offering prizes, paying $50 to a name-choosing service, asking everyone I could, spending many hours myself. All results sucked.
For my latest startup I spent just a few minutes on it will resist all urges spend more. I'm not allowing myself to get pulled into that time-sink black hole again.
Want it to be easy? Simple. Have $2000 to $10000 to blow on some squatter scum. Or just choose an uncommon topic area. Probably both are unreasonable for most of us.
What promising, legitimate startups have been tripped up because of trademark issues with their domain name? I wouldn't think that this concern is a priority...
"... Not close to being a startup by then, and it worked out great for them? ..."
I think Apple Computer was lucky initially, since then quite pragmatic.
Apple Records was incorporated in '68 ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records and in business with the major players in the record industry. Apple Computer incorporated in Jan '77 and by '78 the first legal suit was filed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer. This might seem a long time but in legal time, short. Both companies have been in and out of the courts ever since. At this early stage could Apple Records have squashed Apple Computers brand? I think the smart thing Apple Computer did was negotiate, license where everyone made money and not to reveal themselves as a threat until the iPod/iTunes. The real losers are distributors while both Apples still make money. Apple now controls the chain.
Wow, that's awful.