people who clamp on GPL violations back it up with proof - i.e. showing what signs indicate that the violation occurred.
They don't just tell companies to pay them royalties or else.
Microsoft did not reveal which parts of the Linux kernel it found infringing, even though it has the code to read through.
claims of GPL violations are based on evidence in the published binary: comparison with a known GPL binary, telltale signs of known code (symbol names) and sometimes the actual GPL itself quoted verbatim inside the binary
These claims of violation come with hard data - which bytes are which values, and why that's bad. It's not a claim of 'you're violating the GPL because you copied GPL code. I won't tell you which GPL code you copied, or how I know, I'll just say that I'm the owner of that code'. That's insane.

To steal yourself away is to deny yourself from the current location
When you steal a kiss, you deny someone else that kiss
When you steal a look, you're looking at something before others do.
When you steal an idea, you gain its advantages before the original creator

There never were other meanings to 'steal'

A woman has stolen my heart. Now my heart is not mine to command any more

It's *our* microsoft

If the object is not often moving and rubbing against other objects (mmmm... rubbing), then the coating need not be temporary.
Dust-proof museum art.
Spider-proof ceilings (seriously, this is all I can think of). I guess it's not very useful that way.

The insides of windows?

Basically any object which is furniture.

Doing what? It?
I want you to be completely straight with me: Are you having sexual intercourse with these people?

I don't understand. why are you using a webcam on your linux box? is it doing something worth filming? and why are your mum and mum-in-law were trying to read magazines that are holding the camera?
How did you expect magazines to comfortably hold a camera?
What the heck is going on in this summary?

I don't think software will allow your magazines to hold the camera more comfortably while your mum reads it.
I think you assume I know something you did not mention and is not obvious.

Have they tried the optometrist?
Have you tried installing a 'looking glass' app on a smartphone?

Yes, RAID-5 or 6 would be much better - distributed parity - even when one of the providers is down, only some of the pieces will require recovery

I intuitively see some truth in this, but why?
* You don't gain any more speed
    You already maxed out your downstream
* You don't really gain more reliability
    Reliability does not go higher and higher with more providers, because other components are still unreliable - i.e. you'll never reach 5 nines anyway.
* You are "gaining" more complexity
    Slower write performance?

No, I'm pretty sure you don't. I think your own seems to be just fine :)

Agreed. Put like that, it seems stupid.

But what happens with 3 providers?
A stores half the data, B stores the other half, and C stores the parity.
If a single one is down for maintenance, the data is readable.

So on. 7 providers. 5 hold data pieces and 2 hold parity
Or it's still better to just mirror them? cut the data into 7 pieces and write each piece on two providers

So you agree that you planned for an outage - you planned for them to not keep your data intact - you didn't trust the provider. But you used it.

I think the statement is both
Nobody trusts silicon or spindles, but we use them.

It's also offtopic because the question was not which provider to use. A question that many people here seem to be trying to answer for some reason

I'm still looking for the legal part where it says you're not allowed to connect to the Service with any kind of modified client.

Fuller disclosure:
* Storage is Amazon S3. No mention of other clouds. So it's just a worse version of S3
* Client is closed binary
* Horrible 'acceptable use' policy and terms of use
    oh yeah, it is closed source:
"You must not reverse engineer or decompile the Software, nor attempt to do so, nor assist anyone else to do so"

So, um, yeah, they're data pirates waiting to kidnap your data. Have fun.

I'm not sure I understand - 'rather than as a process'. you mean rather than as part of the storage process? It's more secure to have the data already encrypted, before storing it.

OK, now you're just attacking him for wanting encryption.

I agree, but still - you don't want the hashes to leak, either. (no matter the hash or salt, username+hash is way better than a web login interface, and if you have some knowledge about the user you might break it)

Why not encrypt everything as you store it, as well as (of course) keep salted hashes of passwords and not plaintext.

What about shared secrets and private keys? Should they be encrypted twice (before backup and at backup)?