is meaningless; In other words, what they are saying is just that you could encrypt your whole file, not that you can encrypt your whole storage remotely?

Agreed; the interesting lies are definitely worth putting up so that they can get debunked too.

I have no problem with this. I'm not objecting to posts. Just objecting to avoiding objectively interesting "pro-Google" stories whilst selecting objectively boring "pro-Microsoft" stories (MS R&D has reinvented the modem - which even turns out to be a pre-existing iPhone app).

If you manage your own keys and you use a client that isn't written by Google, how does Google get at the decrypted data? As I understand the system there's nothing they could do and they do allow third party clients?

If so it would be a very good reason to insist your cloud data provider is not the same as your OS vendor. In the end though it's your OS vendor you have to trust for everything since they clearly do have (indirect) access to the keys. Another good reason to use Ubuntu rather than Windows or Cyanogenmod/Replicant rather than Android I guess.

Or alternatively, you should have a rule which means that, for everybody, if they rob you and don't repent then you don't let them into your party. In which case, it sort of isn't discrimination or our disagreement just comes down to word definitions ;-)

This is more or less what everybody said when Netscape dominated web browsers; look how that ended. Microsoft managed to use other strengths to find a way to attack Netwscape in an area where they had been completely lost. Currently Microsoft still dominates desktop operating systems. They also have vast dominance in the political control of US politicians and plenty of influence (through their investments in Ireland etc) in the EU. They also seem to have much more strength in software patents.

In each of those areas you can already see Microsoft moving to use their strengths to try to destroy Google. This is exactly what Steve Ballmer promised too. Until and your politicians can guarantee Google protection from that stuff, you have no right to accuse Google of being the bigger bully.

Actually, the grandparent is wrong. At some point Microsoft will fix their app to work the same way the Blackberry one does and then Google will allow it through. Having made the promises they have openly made, anything else would open them up to a lawsuit. If Microsoft had any extra restrictions beyond those on Blackberry they would have told us about that. This is about something else; e.g. Microsoft wants to reduce Google's ability to present content so it is no better than their own and is pretending they don't understand some tag or other to do that. Alternatively, Microsoft won't agree to some data protection on some of the data they get or something similar.

There are a bunch of things to remember, for example:

• Microsoft is one of the biggest political donors going; they have more politicians bought on both sides of the US Houses than most other donors added together
• Microsoft has been making repeated anti-trust accusations against Google. They have used their political connections to drive those through.
• You might think that was just cheeky and hypocritical, but they have actually managed to get investigations started which is almost unheard of (Google was mostly cleared but their room for manoeuvre is being continually restricted)
• Microsoft currently have ongoing complaints in both the EU and US against Google's search engine and Android
• Microsoft is actively suing Motorola (owned by Google) to force them to allow Microsoft to use Motorola's almost for free whilst avoiding the FRAND obligations which should fall on Microsoft for doing so.
• At the same time, Microsoft is making more money than Google by overpricing it's own, completely outragously bad, patents and using those against phone manufacturers

Essentially Google is under continual legal siege from Microsoft. Almost anything they say to defend themselves will be used against them. They simply cannot afford to comply with what you request. Any public statements from them would place them at great risk somewhere.

The rest of us, people with no connection to Google, have to stand up to this playground bullying and say that it is wrong. Don't blame the victim. Don't allow Microsoft telling you "she was wearing a short skirt" / "she wasn't wearing a Burha" / "she didn't scream no loudly enough" to distract you from the fact that Microsoft is doing the raping and Google (and others) deserve support as the victims.

Until the legal system provides clear protection for Google from Microsoft it is unfair to demand that Google does anything.

Slashdot seems to have been taking an extremely pro-Microsoft bias. On they day that an Android based phone in customer satisfaction, they post stories about how Galaxy phones are having problems. On the day that Microsoft's cloud crashes they post stories about how "MS Researchers Develop Acoustic Data Transfer System For Phones". Mostly I guess the shrills and astroturfers have got to the moderation system and the posting queue, but you really have to occasionally wonder about the fact that Microsoft does have a huge advertising budget.

It's really worth just entering "Microsoft" and "Google" into the front search box to see how much pro Microsoft bias there is in Slashdot stories recently. Again, this might be partly that Microsofts publicity companies keep posting, but a bunch of the anti-Microsoft stories also keep disappearing.

Without any provocation you shoot me; bad. I shoot you back; self defence. Yes; it is not just justified to do this to Microsoft it is the only possible survival mechanism for dealing with them. Companies like Borland that partner end up getting screwed over. Companies like Oracle that fight end up surviving.

"sticking it to Microsoft" is not a "mentality" any more than worrying about your own kids when a known recidivist child killer gets released into your neighbourhood is a mentality. You demand protection for your own children from the authorities. If they don't give it then you have to do things to protect your kids. Look at the way the competition authorities and even Judges have been bending over backwards to give Microsoft everything they ever wanted to destroy FRAND standards even when it was clearly illegal. Google, frankly, just isn't nearly standing up to Microsoft as much as they should.

It is very clear from the article that Microsoft decided not to even try to do what Google expected from new Apps

both companies recognized that building a YouTube app based on HTML5 would be technically difficult and time consuming,... whine whine whine...Google claims that one problem with our new app is that it doesn’t always serve ads based on conditions imposed by content creators / Our app serves Google’s advertisements using all the metadata available to us.. whine whine whine..

Try getting your app approved by Microsoft into Windows app store based on coding standards from 2008. They would laugh at you. And what the hell is "technically difficult and time consuming" coming from a company that is meant to be providing HTML5 coding environments. All app development is "technically difficult and time consuming". That's what developers get paid for.

not to mention smarmy bits like

inconsistent with Google’s own commitment of openness

Which basically means

we would never let you be compatible for free; look at how we block free implementations of ActiveSync; however we demand that Google let us into their market so we can fuck them because they aren't nearly as nasty as we are

Microsoft are a bunch of hypocrites as ever. Google should not be opening up anything for them until Microsoft fully opens all of their server protocols; clearly shows remorse for the things they have done in the past (including clearly identifying who was responsible and ensuring that they are handed over to the justice system) and fully and clearly compensates all of the companies and people (Sendo; Netscape; Borland; Novell; IBM etc.) they have damaged in the past through abuse of their monopoly situation.

If some guy has come by and been caught robbing you several times, that does not make it discrimination if you don't invite him when you invite all your other neighbours over.

Exactly

CentOS) Costs Nothing
Counterfeit Windows) Costs Nothing.

Exactly nothing in common.

Please read through my post again. The thing which doesn't apply to a Nexus is the boot loader protection which "protects" you from fixing the Android PRNG yourself (on a Nexus, you can even install alternate ROMS that you can compile yourself). You might also want to note my signature.

This is true because Bitcoin is not really designed for anonymous exchange. All transactions are public and many points on transactions are publicly known. You have to try pretty hard to be anonymous.

What Bitcoin added is lack of a single point of centralised control or even distribution. It is a pretty neat cryptographic design which has actually been implemented in real life. Up until recently, the NSA could probably have taken over and destroyed Bitcoin at any time, but since there seem to be quite a number of ASIC miners working now probably even the NSA doesn't have the compute power to do that and so there's no real way to put Bitcoin back into centralised control.

There was nothing before Bitcoin that achieved all that.

Having said that, if someone could do the same but with proper anonymity and some other desirable characteristics there's nothing to say that Bitcoin won't be swapped out some time in the future. No idea what that would do to the value of a Bitcoin. Probably depends on the value of the Bitcoin holdings of the guy who designs the future.