You can use Android without Google. Two examples from a Google search: http://9to5google.com/2011/09/21/eric-schmidt-its-possible-to-use-android-without-google-search/ http://arcriley.blogspot.com/2010/06/using-android-without-google-part-1.html

> Google tried to make a browser that was tied into the OS
FTFY

China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site, an official said
The problem is, I believe, although IANAL, that there is no law against automatically redirecting. And saying it like this, it seems that Google has started censoring again. Although it is not explicit I can safely assume from the amount of comments in this section that people understood this sentence as if it said that Google has started censoring again. It's a problem with natural language, it's vague, and this, as it seems, purposely leave the question if google.cn is censoring again.

Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference.
Yes, they did stop doing that, just that they did it years ago when they started censoring google.cn; not relevant. google.cn was always censored since it began, so it makes no sense pointing it out.

Again, you can't search on google.cn and google.com.hk is not censored
Oh, so you mean, you do agree with the story? So it is true? Comment fail.
No, I didn't say that. RTFA and see that it implicitly says that Google.cn is censored. If we start saying that things that do not have infringing material are censored, I can safely assume that gardening.org is also censored. Oh, the humanity!

Read the comments above mine and see if people understood the same thing you did. If you believe they did, then you are right, I failed at my comment; but I believe it's clear that people understood it wrong, and, as many comments above and below mine, I think that it was necessary for people to read and not get the image that google stepped down on it's promise to stop censoring.

Although China did say that Google is censoring its web search, it's just not true. If you go to google.cn you can see that there is an image which takes you to Google Hong Kong. Even if you RTFA all through the comments you can see the answer from a Google PR person answering to his issue saying that they are NOT censoring web search, and that the only products which remain in China are those that can exist without censorship. This is just the Chinese government trying to make it appear as if they won. That is NOT true. Again, you can't search on google.cn and google.com.hk is not censored

In Opera you go to https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F right-click on the input box and select Create Search; select use as default search engine and you are good to go. And then people complain Opera's awful UI.

What people don't seem to understand is that Google just doesn't want to censor. This doesn't mean that it doesn't want to sell cellphones in China or sell software if the government starts using Google Apps. It just means that Google doesn't want to censor. He can continue selling ads, He can continue selling phones, He can continue doing whatever it pleases, except censorship. And search isn't Google primary income, it's ads.

Let's just face it. If ACTA do comes out, it will improve innovation between pirates. Which is good. For us. Bad, for them.
As everyone says with every new DRM that comes out, this will end in more people being pirates and in making it easier to be one. It is, in some twisted and crazy way, the downfall of intellectual property; the government will not be able to force it, and the pirates will be able to create better and more distributed ways to improve the current technology. Web pages will not fall, because they will be hosted in a distributed form, with no real server to shut down; people will have more ways to be anonymized; Tor will prevail.

No, but nowadays your personal information (unless posted on Facebook or some other shit) are only read by machines who couldn't care less of who you are. In fact, I think it's safer to have your all your personal information on the cloud than to write it on a piece of paper, because there are so many things in the cloud that nobody cares, and if someone really cares they would've stole the paper anyways.

But, anyhow, you are right on saying that it's different. Because it is. And I know that machine data mining could bring much more problems than yore, but I just feel this problems won't come. I just trust more on machines that I do on people. And I also trust more in Google that the owner of the grocery store. And, also, I don't care much for my personal information. If I did something, I'm responsible for it, and I don't care if anyone finds out.

Information wants to be free. All information.

As I already told in one comment, I find it ridiculous to think that giving data for comfort its stupid. Just think about it, it's what our grandfathers did when shopping at a grocery store that knew what they liked. The owner would tell them of a new product to see if they liked. You trust someone to give your information because you know it would make your life easier. And I rather trust a company that some random guy who owns a store. BTW, I'm pretty sure that Franklin gave his personal information to many people, including most of the people around him. I mean, we are talking about a famous person here, he almost gave away all his privacy.