Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Family Safety Filter Blocks Google

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the can-neither-confirm-nor-deny dept.

Microsoft 332

mike.rimov writes "I saw that part of the brand new Windows Live package is the Family Safety Filter, so I decided to give it a spin. Turned it on, set it to 'basic filtering' (their lowest level), and went to Google ... oops, it blocks Google! So I logged into the settings and added Google as an exception. Google still wouldn't come up. Just in case, I turned off the family filter: voila, Google. As we all know, 'Don't be evil' is not part of Microsoft's motto! Oh yeah — and with the filter on, Microsoft's own search engine, live.com comes up." Anomaly?

cancel ×

332 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post! (4, Funny)

GeorgeMonroy (784609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612719)

Google is evil so thank you Microsoft!

All Search is defacto Spyware (0, Troll)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613063)

Block it all. Scrub through proxies. Obfuscate queries. Hire a cookie monster.

YASIU (yet another stupid internet user) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613275)

gawd it's bad idiots know how to get on the internet

Re:All Search is defacto Spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613291)

Or, don't worry and don't do anything.

Re:First Post! (4, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613719)

Between Microsoft and Google, I vote for the lesser evil. Go Google!

Re:First Post! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27614127)

why is google evil, not sure I get your lack of elaboration on that. Microsoft probably is the most evil company because of their business practices which you probably don't REALLY know about. Google just makes a bunch of free services, and makes businesses successful but utilizing their free services. your comments are ridiculous. MS forces lock in to their products, I could use MS Office ($250??) or Google Docs or Open Office (Free)...yeah that is right google sucks.

Well... (3, Insightful)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612727)

It probably wasn't intentional, most likely they pushed developers to focus first on microsoft based search engines, but really, I also find it hard to believe not a single person would have tried google first. I doubt it was a big conspiracy, but rather they knew about it but didn't want to spend anytime fixing it.

Re:Well... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613175)

I find that hard to believe. Microsoft has been spending a lot of money because they have a very small share of the search engine market [howtonotma...online.com] .

They haven't been able to do that. Their search and crawling seems to be as bad as it's ever been. Their crawling especially.

If you can't crawl properly, why would people bother to use the search?

There's a small chance it's not intentional, but given their history of using their monopoly on the desktop to further other products, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Well... (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613397)

I wish anonymous cowards deserved mod points because this one does.

If Microsoft didn't intentionally do this, then there's a lot of programmers that ought to be filing for extended unemployment. It's boorish at best and plainly poor software testing at worst. DoJ monitors-- RU listening??

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613627)

> It's boorish at best and plainly poor software testing at worst.

We already know it's a Microsoft product.

Re:Well... (-1, Flamebait)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614037)

DoJ monitors-- RU listening??

Sorry, the DoJ only cares about those evil "pirates" and also those "ter'rists" who use this nefarious operating system called "Linux" and talk about some evil ter'rist plot called "open source." There is no funding for the DoJ to enforce antitrust laws, because Barack has spent over $10TRILLION ensuring that billionaires and multi-millionaires keep their bloated salaries as they continue to drive their companies into the ground, and also giving free houses, drivers licenses, health care, and college tuition to illegal aliens (er, sorry, that was not PC. I mean "undocumented immigrants").

Re:Well... (-1, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613933)

It probably wasn't intentional, most likely they pushed developers to focus first on microsoft based search engines, but really, I also find it hard to believe not a single person would have tried google first. I doubt it was a big conspiracy, but rather they knew about it but didn't want to spend anytime fixing it.

If they knew about it and chose not to treat it like any other bug (i.e. file it and attempt to fix it), then they were complicit. Logically, this would make it an intentional act. It's not like Microsoft doesn't have the resources to fix this sort of thing, or to test for it before this filter is available to the general public. I'm not saying they did this on purpose because I cannot prove that; in fact I have to say I have my beliefs but I don't actually know. What I am saying is that the scenario you describe would be no accident if it occurred the way you describe it. It would, in fact, describe a "conspiracy" of the "look the other way" type.

I'm amazed that the usual Microsoft apologists have not come out of the woodwork to defend this action. They seem quite timid when Microsoft does something that isn't easily spun or portrayed as a good thing. That's because they are largely cowards who don't really believe in defending a faceless corporation, that can easily defend itself, for free, as much as their vehement words would indicate. That they do this at all is one of the easier examples of misplaced loyalty and groupthink; for in my opinion, only a very small percentage of them (if any) are astroturfers or paid shills.

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614093)

Maybe that's because the people you blanket label as "MS apologists" aren't actually apologists, but reasonable & rational people that actually evaluate MS products on their merits. It seems at /. you're deemed an apologist if you ever defend MS on anything.

If you want to see group think in action, look at your own post, and the posts that show up when anyone dare criticize linux.

That makes the interwebs safer! (0, Redundant)

agnosticanarch (105861) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612733)

...because you can find PR0Ns on Google. Seriously!

This is perfectly valid (4, Funny)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612741)

Google is unsafe... for Microsoft's monopolies.

No, sir! *This* is perfectly valid... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612899)

Rob Malda (aka Cmdtaco) is not what many would consider "the ideal candidate" for a dot-com start-up. He started his career as a C++ coder for a major manufacturer, but then quit to pursue a mathematics degree in Canada. That didn't quite do it for him either, as he then dropped out to pursue something far more interesting: canoe from Calgary to New Orleans. But after 1,200+ miles of rowing, his journey ended in Minneapolis with a cracked butt and a frozen river. Temporarily, of course, as he plans to pick up and continue south someday soon.

All that said, Malda was pretty excited when he received his first response to all the resumes he'd been sending out to various tech companies. He immediately called back to schedule an interview and was pleasantly surprised at how flexible the interviewer was: Malda could "stop by any time."

After shaving his pubic area smooth and putting on his interview clothes (leather pants, leather boots and leather vest, steel nipple rings and nothing else), Malda hopped on a bus, transferred to a few other busses, and, after almost two hours, finally reached his destination. It was a residential apartment complex that had obviously seen better days.

When he knocked on the door of "Suite 318," Malda was greeted by Michael Simms, a spry-looking man in his 50's with glasses precariously perched on his conical head and a face a few days past shaved. Upon entering the squalid apartment, the first thing Malda noticed was the rotten stench of ejaculate-stained underwear haphazardly strewn across the living room. There and a blue tarp hung over the south-facing window, blocking the sun and a view of the Mississippi river. "For my little get-togethers" Michael Simms explained using quote marks with his fingers. "Can't have the neighbors looking in now can we?" The second was Michael Simms sitting down on a computer, firing up a popular MMO. He was completey nude. Malda stared unabashedly at the sight; Michael's tumescence was incredible.

"You see this," Simms said, avatar running towards the closed city gate, "when you get to the door you have to wait while the game loads the next area. You should just be able to see out through it."

Taking this as the "technical" portion of the interview, Malda started to explain about how he would implement dynamically loading regions. Malda was very clear that, while he had never written something like that before, he was certainly aware of the basic concepts involved.

"Now, look. He just runs right through the tree. Right through it! You see that?" He harrumphed and turned toward Malda with a look like someone died. "Motherfucker! I'll fucking kill you!" Rob shouted.

"Now now, Rob, that will never do. You'll suck my penis to erection and then take it in your sweet little anus until it's time to dump a load of Uncle my special sauce down your slick throat, and you'll like it!"

With this Simms cocked the hammer of his gun and pointed it at Rob's mouth and began forcing his jaw open with the barrel as he poured the JÃffgermeister, thick and dark and brown, into Rob's mouth. He trickled some onto his bush and penis for good measure and jammed his thin cock into Rob's mouth. Rob took it to the hilt.

"That's a good little faggot. You take all of Uncle Eric's junk and you like it!" Eric said as he began pumping his cock in and out of Rob's mouth. Simms's bulbous white gut hovered menacingly over Rob's face like a full moon and his ruddy pubes tickled Rob's nose. The gun barrel wavered at Rob's eyes.

Rob moaned as Simms grunted his pleasures into the back of Rob's throat.

"Now Rob, I want you to look me in the eyes. Rob's beady eyes connected with Michael's pale blue irises, tears welling in his eyelids as Simms's crotch continued its assault. "I have with me a funnel, Rob, and you're going to take it in your ass. This old cock of mine needs a little lube and we're going to pack your rec-room full of something quite slippery!" Simms said as his eyes grew wide. He shook his bottle of JÃffgermeister again as he helped Rob pull his pants off.

With a pop Michael removed his pulsating cock, slick with spit, from Rob's hungry mouth as Rob turned over onto all fours, his back arched and ass swaying in the air. Simms's little orange funnel entered Rob's anus without complaint as he began pouring the brown fluid. Rob shivered.

"Good boy, Rob. Good boy." Simms moaned as he rammed his dong home into Rob's familiar rectum. "Reeeal goooood..."

Rob cried out in pain as Simms put his full weight into each and every thrust, Rob's hairy ass-cheeks spread further and further apart with every push.

"OK, Rob, I want you to say hello to my little friend!" Simms said with a maniacal laugh. Rob hissed as he felt something cold and metal begin to enter his asshole right beside Simms's rigid cock. "What's the barrel of my .44 feel like up there, Rob?"

"I can't take this anymore! I was done with this when I moved from Ann Arbor! I just want to have a normal straight life with Kathleen, I justÃf"" Rob said through sobs and grunts as he continued his battering ram assault. "I just want to live a straight lifestyle and leave my gay days behind!" He grunted one last time, withdrew his gun and cock from Rob's bloodied anus, and shoved Rob onto his back.

"Get ready to take my load, boy!" he yelled as he jacked his crooked cock into Rob's mouth. He kept his .44 focused on Rob's forehead as he began pouring the brown liquor into Rob's mouth. A few drops of the spirit hit Simms's dick and he lost control. His butt cheeks tightened and his hips thrust forward and backward like a piston as his scrotum tightened.

"You little fucking Linux faggot, take my load!" Simms shouted at the top of his lungs. Spurt after spurt of sickly yellow hacker semen erupted from Simms's straining purple cockhead into Rob's gullet, the JÃffger splashing Rob's face and mixing with the cum into an infernal homosexual cocktail. Rob gagged and flailed his arms.

Rob laid gasping and spitting after Simms climbed off of his spent form. Rob turned and looked at Simms as if in a trance. Blood and semen and JÃffgermeister leaked from his sullied lips and collected in his goatee. Sweat and more JÃffgermeister covered his brow. His eyes, bloodshot from the alcohol, strained to make out Simms's pudgy form shuffling in the darkness. Rob started but then cried out in pain as his ass spasmed. His hand went to his sore, puffy anus and he rolled around in his soiled sheets. His eyes were glazed over, almost catatonically. He began crying again, his whole body wracked in weeping.

Simms pulled up a website with a few 3D models on it and asked, "what does 100,000 polygons mean? Hey, could we just have the program write whatever text we wanted over these signs so we could sell ads in-game?"

Malda felt at a disadvantage since he hadn't done any 3D programming since toying around with POV-Ray work a decade ago. He struggled through an explanation about how models are essentially a web of triangles with a flat texture projected onto them, and that in-game ads should not, in fact, be difficult.

"Really? Golly." Simms said. "Okay, they tell me we can finish this in six months if we work part-time, so we can probably finish it in three if we work full-time."

He had been describing a game as complex as Spore.

"I'm outsourcing most of the work to the Philippines. They're willing to work on a royalty basis. You can transmit the technical requirements to them, change my words into code they can understand."

"Change... your words... into code... they'll understand..." Malda gibbered.

"Really, you can do that?" Michael Simms peered through his glasses.

At that point, Malda had given up all hope that a decent game could be made. But he still wanted to know how much money he could get out of this guy...this queer chicken-hawk. "So... how much would I be getting for this?"

"$75,000 per month," Michael Simms said, with no hesitation.

Malda blinked. "That's, um, after the game's done, right?"

Michael Simms pulled up a spreadsheet. "A popular game gets about 250,000 players. At $15 a month, that means they pull in... $3,750,000. They tell me to pay about 10% of that to the developers. I'd give you 2%. That's... $75,000." He smiled at the screen.

"But, ah, nothing until we're pulling in that kind of money?"

"We'll offer advertising in the game," he said. "For gay sex. Don't you think companies like Google would like to get in on this, advertise in our game?"

He blinked again. "I'm not sure Google really needs that kind of exposure." Deciding to go on the offensive, Malda said "Okay, a friend of mine, Calvin, worked for five years on his game, Venture the Void. Go ahead and pull it up at venturethevoid.com."

He started typing in the address bar: "venture of the void". Malda corrected him and soon colorful planets and spaceships swirled on the monitor. It was a gay site to behold.

"Okay, see he's generating all these planets automatically. No two are the same, they've got times of day, automatically generated weather, plants... You see that spaceship? No two of them in the game are identical, even over multiple plays. All that and guess how many paying players he got?" Malda paused. "Twenty-five."

"Oh," Michael Simms said, "but did he advertise on this site?" He navigated to the third or fourth hit on Google for "MMO". It was some portal for MMO games with reviews, news, and all sorts of things.

"I'm not sure," Malda hesitated, "Calvin submitted it lots of places."

He just shook his head. "All that work and he didn't even advertise in the right places. If he just would have advertised here, he could have been rolling in the money."

It was pretty clear that Malda wasn't going to get any money out of this engagement, so he decided to cut his losses and make the long journey back to his own apartment. As he stood up to end the interview, Michael Simms casually blurted out "I never leave the apartment."

Malda raised an eyebrow.

"I've got an idea every day," he said. "I'll just be doing something then, POW! An idea! That's why you need me. Now, look at this."

Michael Simms walked over to his closet and took out one of those massive wargames from the 70's. He told him about a "compare and contrast" essay he had in college, "comparing tic-tac-toe to checkers to chess to games like this with thousands of pieces." Ten years ago, he presented investors the idea of developing a series of games like this on the computer. "ÃfIt's just like printing money!' they told me."

Not one game chit had been popped from its original cardboard. Malda couldn't help but wonder if any investors had sprung for this free money.

"Have you ever played the computer game Civilization?" Michael Simms asked. Before Malda could even nod affirmatively, he continued "One time I was playing and a chariot parked in the mountains defeated a howitzer! That's just never going to happen. One time I just sat down and started writing down things that were wrong with the game. POW! I had a list of ninety things, just like that."

It was time for him to go. Malda wished Michael Simms luck, but told him frankly what he thought of his enterprise...that it was shit. After his two-hour ride home, the first thing he did when was email his friend Calvin the link to the magical money-making MMO forum, asking for only 2% of his proceeds. He expects to be rolling in money any time now.

Re:No, sir! *This* is perfectly valid... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613015)

cool story, bro

Re:No, sir! *This* is perfectly valid... (1, Insightful)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613403)

WTF?

Re:This is perfectly valid (4, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613029)

Sure, it blocks Google... but it does it safely.

Re:This is perfectly valid (1)

UncHellMatt (790153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613363)

Or if, say, you're in China and would like to learn about democracy, the Dali Lama, etc. etc.

Worst part is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612747)

...websense was blocking google one day at work because Google was blocking us...

Anomaly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612755)

Would a company now lead by a chair-throwing, sweating dancing monkey who once shouted "I'm going to fucking kill Google!" do something as unimaginable as blocking Google?

Yes.

Never, ever trust Microsoft. For ANYTHING. They have never been trustworthy since their beginnings, over three decades ago. If you still trust them, you're fucking insane.

Re:Anomaly? (1)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613337)

Ya all the ip's in my house are banned from microsoft.com. Hilarious. Yet they still let me on hotmail and msn simply because they don't want me using Gmail or something else. *Firefox can't find the server at www.microsoft.com.* Guess that is why we have proxy's

It's the Os (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612761)

It's the "O"s in Google. They look like boobies.

Re:It's the Os (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612939)

What good is the joke if you don't give a link to the picture [fundromeda.com] (NQSFW).

Re:It's the Os (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613315)

Yuck. If she bent over, she'd resemble a cow with hanging udders. Blech. Give me natural As or Bs anyday rather than fakies.

Re:It's the Os (5, Funny)

Dmala (752610) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613427)

Yuck. If she bent over, she'd resemble a cow with hanging udders. Blech. Give me natural As or Bs anyday rather than fakies.

If you're the typical Slashdot reader, you probably have natural As or Bs already.
http://www.instantrimshot.com [instantrimshot.com]

Sorry, how could I resist?

Re:It's the Os (1)

garylian (870843) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613567)

More like this: http://www.booble.com/ [booble.com]

Re:It's the Os (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612955)

Yep. It's the OS.

Re:It's the Os (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612973)

+1 Funny, but sad when letters start becoming erotic out of context
 
in other news: 3------>

Re:It's the Os (2, Funny)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612999)

Not to mention the fact it's pronounced 'Go-ogle'.

Re:It's the Os (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27614149)

Yes! It is subliminal pornography! ;-)

Probably intentional (4, Interesting)

W2k (540424) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612807)

Just a wild guess: Perhaps the family filter talks to Live.com in order to filter "inappropriate" results out. Other search engines not owned by Microsoft don't support this integration, so the filter blocks them as they would otherwise be a trivial way around the filter.

Re:Probably intentional (4, Insightful)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613051)

That does make a lot of sense, it is probably the most likely explanation next to "Oops, we made a typo."

It doesn't make sense that whitelisting Google still results in it being blocked, as the summary said.

I'd be very surprised if they block other search engines out of competitive reasons, because they've been getting hammered by the EU for various anti-compition violations over the past few years. In IE7, the startup wizard gave the user an easy way to select something besides Windows Live search as their default search engine if desired, so its not like these concerns are foreign to Microsoft.

Re:Probably intentional (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613815)

I'd be very surprised if they block other search engines out of competitive reasons, because they've been getting hammered by the EU for various anti-compition[sic] violations over the past few years.

Yeah, but few of those have been effective at stopping MS from continuing said antitrust actions and MS has committed numerous new, unaddressed violations of the law. They're still making more money breaking the law and paying fines, than complying. Why do you think they'd comply now?

Re:Probably intentional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613841)

remember desktop search just released in Vista a couple years ago? They didn't allow it disabled when you add another desktop search and Google Desktop was out before Microsoft embedded their search in their OS. The courts forced them to change that but it was something like a year before they released the fix. Not to unlike how they disabled AOL in one of their DOS/Windows releases in favor of their MSN.com site. Again, about a year later they fixed it but who many gave in and just started using Microsoft's crapware?

I find it quite difficult to accept this is accidental and they know how to play the court system and still end up winning. "oops, we're so sorry. It's a bug and we'll fix it real soon in our next Service Pack release."

Re:Probably intentional (1)

xulfer (1368787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614161)

The reason for blocking competing search engines doesn't matter. Anti-competitive behavior doesn't require impure motives. Actually, most of the incurred by Microsoft in the EU were also 'features' that were 'part of the design'.

Re:Probably intentional (2, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613079)

Let's not forget that the Google cache would provide a way around the filtering for every single website in its index, if Google's added as an exception. I wonder if it blocks archive.org.

Re:Probably intentional (2, Interesting)

kimmp (1519597) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613643)

In my department at work Google cache is blocked but Google itself is not. It's rather frustrating, really, I wish I could image search. Fortunately when we do get those few pictures at the top of the search results when we add "pictures" or "images".

Re:Probably intentional (5, Insightful)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613121)

Other search engines not owned by Microsoft don't support this integration, so the filter blocks them as they would otherwise be a trivial way around the filter.

This seems reasonable. So it wasn't a devious attempt to block a competitor, just a very rigid safety feature that is unmotivated to integrate competitive products. Unfortunately, this will very likely drive a large chunk of people away from using it, and will make a lot of users think that MS is just being a dick.

Unfortunately, some parents may just turn it on for their kids without testing it thoroughly and not realize what their safety filter is locking their kids into.

Re:Probably intentional (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613667)

>>> [Fortunately,] this will very likely drive a large chunk of people away from using it, and will make a lot of users think that MS is just being a dick.

Fixed. ;-)

And I'm not just being anti-MS here. The computer industry was a lot better when we had multiple manufacturers (Atari, TI, Commodore, Apple, IBM) and multiple OSes (GEOS, TOS, Workbench, MS-DOS, MacOS) because it promoted innovation. Since Microsoft became dominant circa 1998, innovation has slowed to a crawl, and I think the weakening of Microsoft so people can explore alternative companies would be a good thing ("fortunate").

Re:Probably intentional (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613687)

> This seems reasonable. So it wasn't a devious attempt to block a competitor, just a very
> rigid safety feature that is unmotivated to integrate competitive products.

Yes, it's always best to have a plausible cover story, isn't it?

Re:Probably intentional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613697)

All too true, but there is no getting around Google returning porn searches without a warning whatsoever. My guess is Microsoft didn't want to risk Google accidentally returning adult material web pages in the search list, and hence it's blocked.

Alternatively, they have control of MSN search, and can therefore only return G-rated web pages when it recieves a byte indicating the filter is on.

Re:Probably intentional (2, Insightful)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614201)

My guess is Microsoft didn't want to risk Google accidentally returning adult material web pages in the search list, and hence it's blocked.

So they keep silently blocking google even after you've whitelisted it? I'm not accusing Microsoft of malfeasance just yet, but it's very shoddy worksmanship that they'd implement a "we'll block google by default" thing, then either silently override whiltelisting of it "because it can work around the filter", or botch the whitelisting implementation altogether. On top of that, such a bug/feature/whatever still had to make it past QA.

Re:Probably intentional (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613475)

>>>Perhaps the family filter talks to Live.com in order to filter "inappropriate" results out.

Riiiiight. And our president wasn't really bowing to kiss a king's hand, but was just stumbling (official white house explanation). Uh huh. Yep. Sure. I don't believe that or Microsoft's explanation. I'd rather hear, "Ooops we made a mistake" than a lie.

BTW the reason why it's wrong to bow to a king or queen is because it endorses the idea that some persons (nobility) are better than other people (commoners), and we in America consider that to be completely-and-totally false. All people are created equal... kings, queens, janitors. They are all the same class - human being.

Re:Probably intentional (1)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613817)

"BTW the reason why it's wrong to bow to a king or queen is because it endorses the idea that some persons (nobility) are better than other people (commoners), "

Not quite.

The reason it is exceptionally bad (as in "crossing the streams" bad) for Obama to bow to a King or Queen is because he is (unfortuantely as these gaffes pile up) the Head of State for the US. The only time a Head of State makes obeisance to another Head of State is when they are recognizing they are the inferior in a hierarchical relationship.

So, if an individual wants to declare himself a bootlicking dog to be treated in whatever manner the person they make obeisance to wishes that is fine.

When the POTUS does so it is entirely inappropriate and can only be excused if it is done under duress. (If you need a movie example - consider Superman II).

Re:Probably intentional (1)

JWW (79176) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614319)

Dude, if I had mod points you'd so be getting them, just for the great movie references alone.

Re:Probably intentional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613867)

BTW the reason why it's wrong to bow to a king or queen is because it endorses the idea that some persons (nobility) are better than other people (commoners), and we in America consider that to be completely-and-totally false. All people are created equal... kings, queens, janitors. They are all the same class - human being.

Only natural born US citizens can become President, rendering your statement false without a blink's thought.

Moreover, the fact that the class system in the US is today stronger than in traditional class-based societies such as that of Britain makes your statement laughable.

On a plus note, it's nearly the weekend, so you have two days to recover from that epic failure of a post. Although the US has longer working hours than most developed nations, so perhaps that's no relief either.

--
AC, who really does enjoy much of US culture (it does exist!) but is sad to conclude that he's glad he didn't settle in the US after all.

Won't be long now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612811)

Until MS boocks Google in Windows, or pays the US government to block it and/or shut it down.

Way to go. (1)

HypotenuseMan (1169475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612825)

Subtle, Microsoft.

Anomaly? (2, Funny)

omar.sahal (687649) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612849)

Anomaly?
I dont't know mike.rimov but the word anomaly in the English Oxford dictionary is defined as
  • noun (pl. anomalies) something that deviates from what is standard or normal.

so no its not an anomaly for Microsoft, if thats what you getting at. No news here move along

Re:Anomaly? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613425)

Rhetorical

  • adjective, (of a question) asked for effect or to make a statement rather than to obtain an answer.

Cause you can google to find you way around it ... (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612863)

This is a classic filter issue, and a prime example of why using filters like this is a retarded waste of time.

A simply Google search probably will tell you how to work around the filter completely, as such Google is a banned website.

This isn't anything new, all of the filters out there do this sort of thing, this one just seems evil since its Microsoft blocking Google, but it happens with all of them.

The real solution is to realize that the person you're trying to prevent from seeing stuff on the Internet is going to find a way to look at it anyway. If you're doing this to stop kids from looking at something then you better keep them locked in a basement cause they'll just go somewhere else to find what they want. You can bet one of their friends doesn't have a porn blocker.

The solution to these problems for parents is to actually be a parent and remember that YOU are responsible for your children. Not Microsoft, not the computer, not your ISP, not the Internet, YOU. You can spend an entire lifetime trying to stop them from doing something and they'll spend their entire lifetime showing you how you can't. Unless of course you just ignore anything they do when you aren't watching them. Perhaps you should try a little education instead.

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613515)

A simply Google search probably will tell you how to work around the filter completely

If someone wants to see the dancing bunny, then by God, they'll see the dancing bunny!

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613717)

I'm always interested in folks who share your opinion (waste of time, always a work around). I think that this is true in the case of a poorly implemented filter, but I can certainly establish a filter that you can not get around without physical access to the wiring closet. A very simple forced transparent proxy with DPI and whitelists makes it pretty trivial to completely control what you do and do not have access to. Even if I go the blacklist route, a good weighted phrase engine (DG) does an outstanding job. Anyway, I'm sure your much to smart to be stopped by such a setup...you and your '1337 skillz' and whatnot.

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614135)

If you're willing to block-by-default and whitelist then yes, you can make a working filter. Good luck having the time to whitelist any significant proportion of the internet, though. So you blacklist, at which point it's always going to be trivial to get around, because I and the internet as a whole can adapt faster than you can, and it only needs one anti-filter proxy to be around at any time for the filter to be useless.

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (2, Informative)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614391)

Hmmm.... Whitelisting might work in a corporate environment where you want to tie people down to your website and a handful of providers. But it's not practical for a household; my kids do research on the web for their schoolwork. By definition, that's undefined; they're exploring.

So I use openDNS with moderate settings. We've talked the filtering in place and they've found some sites that they need access to that are blocked. (openDNS sometimes prudishly classes sites about sexuality as pornography. I disagree.) If they are skilled enough to compromise my DHCP and DNS servers, then we'll have a serious talk about a future in IT. I guess that they could get a list of IP addresses and enter those. But for now openDNS works.

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613819)

>>>If you're doing this to stop kids from looking at something

I don't understand the big deal. So kids see nudity? So what? The human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Although I don't want my kids to see porn (sex), if they did would it be so horrible? By the time they're 13 they'll know what sex is anyway, and even if you shelter them completely, they'd better have SOME idea what they're supposed to do on their wedding night else I'll never get grandchildren! ;-)

American society seems to be built on the notion of keeping kids ignorant ("innocent") which is exactly the opposite of what our jobs as parents is meant to do. We're supposed to be teaching children about the world and preparing them to deal with it, not hiding it from them.

Re:Cause you can google to find you way around it (2, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613881)

Really, it depends on the age of the user though.

For example, I have a 6 year old daughter who has discovered the wonders of YouTube videos on my iPhone. She knows how to do a basic search for things she wants to see, and finds all sorts of little cartoon segments and music videos for things she likes.

Unfortunately, there are also issues like her last search for "Easter bunny" bringing up a Charlie Brown Easter cartoon, overdubbed with all sorts of profanity, violent and racist remarks, in an attempt to be humorous.

She was still too young to understand all of it, but I had to wrestle the phone away from her before my mom overheard what it was saying and went ballistic.... She proceeded to try to find the SAME video 3 or 4 times after that, because she wanted to watch "Charlie Brown Easter" on there.

I found myself *really* wishing the iPhone had a family-friendly filter of some sort for YouTube viewing on it.

The younger kids really aren't going to go searching Google and figuring out how to use proxy sites to get around filters, etc. etc. All you really want for them is a basic "barrier" to things you don't want them accidentally stumbling onto. If it blocks known ad banner type sites that inject malware and so forth, that's a plus as well.

adsense too? (3, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612877)

From a post made in December, [blogspot.com] it also apparently blocks AdSense ads (which would make sense, since they're part of Gooooogle). Anybody else know what this "Safety Filter" blocks?

I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612911)

Told you Google is evil :)

google isn't all that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27612929)

google : two connected kids
get their rich banker friends
to throw more money than imaginable
to buy up other people's businesses.

Where did all the money come from?

Any endevour like that which produces
instant billionaires
seems questionable to me.

This is a really biased summary. (2, Insightful)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612935)

Why is it that Slashdot posts such opinionated summaries at times? This is worse than the typical Apple bashing that goes on. It's also rather immature.

Re:This is a really biased summary. (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612991)

Do you have any specific problem with it, or are you just trotting out the "bias" canard?

Re:This is a really biased summary. (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613231)

It's not the summary that's biased here; it's a fair summary of a large company showing biased behavior.

Re:This is a really biased summary. (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613317)

Unfortunately Slashdot's content is reader-submitted, and it's a rather immature readership. Normally only the summaries are reader-submitted by, you know how it is, slow news day, might as well just pass off a comment as an article.

Re:This is a really biased summary. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613423)

Why is it that Slashdot posts such opinionated summaries at times?

You must be new here! Welcome!

Re:This is a really biased summary. (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613443)

Why is it that Slashdot posts such opinionated summaries at times?

Because they are good for getting /. panicking and supporting the ad revenue ;)

[/cynic mode]

Re:This is a really biased summary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613949)

What is your problem with bashing Apple? It sues journalists, illegally ties hardware to software, promotes DRM, and is the complete opposite of open hardware.

Perhaps you should refine your personal ethics. What's next, "this is worse than the typical AIG bashing that goes on..."

Re:This is a really biased summary. (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614043)

Sometimes the news needs to be opinionated. When someone does something wrong, there's no reason to let them get away with it simply to be an "objective" source.

Eh? (5, Informative)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612961)

I'd love to know WTF the author has done. It's never blocked Google on the three lappies its installed on here.

what about other search engines? (4, Interesting)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27612969)

I'd imagine that they're not intentionally blocking google because they're a competitor (although it could be a contributing factor). I would think that they consider Live.com to be more compatible with family filter and google allows access to cached pages which the family filter may not be able to block.

Of course, one way that MS could show good faith would be to open up the family filter's API in some way so as to let it play nice with google and allow google to disable cached pages for users of the filter.

Re:what about other search engines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613641)

I have to agree with you.

I would think that they consider Live.com to be more compatible with family filter and google allows access to cached pages which the family filter may not be able to block.

Where I work, access to the Google cache is blocked as "proxy avoidance." Same with Coral Cache and Mirrordot and the Wayback Machine and basically any caching service.

Because you could possibly use them to avoid the proxy, they're all banned. Nothing intentionally malicious about it.

Re:what about other search engines? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613695)

You missed the part where he says "added Google as an exception. Google still wouldn't come up", that is weird, If MS allow to add exception just follow them

Google cache urls include the target's url (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613725)

So why would that be so hard to integrate?

Re:what about other search engines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613749)

That and the image cache and groups cache. All SORTS of things you can get that are *NOT* appropriate for small children.

How was Google added as an exception? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613035)

Google redirects to other TLDs based on the user's location. If the filter runs through some proxy in the US it's entirely possible he was getting redirected to the block-list google.com from the allowed-list domain of google.fr or whatever. However seeing as the "story" is a one-para barely-there bug report I doubt we'll ever actually know.

Piracy (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613075)

They're probably just trying to stop people from downloading the new Wolverine movie [slashdot.org]

Re:Piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613345)

They're probably just trying to stop people from downloading the new Wolverine movie

Yeah. Now that Pirate Bay's going under, people are turning to Google for their warez - Microsoft is just acting quick.

Possible related to Google filtering options? (5, Informative)

nlewis (1168711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613097)

I seem to recall a much older filtering software package (I don't recall which offhand - DansGuardian, maybe?) that will block Google if you have disabled "SafeSearch" in the Advanced Preferences - that is, if you have it set to "Do not filter my search results."

Duh, safe search doesn't really work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613099)

Have you ever googled boobs, tits, or 2girls1cup? Makes sense to block google if you have some strict parents, like the kind that would install the family filters.

thats nothing. (5, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613147)

I tried to visit redhat.com and a chair shot out the back of my machine!

Anomally (3, Funny)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613157)

Anomally?

Sounds like smart marketing to me. Just block your biggest competitor.

I wonder if they blocked Mozilla too?

Google leads to piracy and should be blocked (1)

yoyodyne_usa (1534821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613197)

Google is a pirate site and MS and everyone else should block any site that can lead a user to copyrighted material. We all now know that because TPB trial has proven that any site that leads to copyrighted material must be a piracy site.

Blogger's navigation bar was blocked (3, Informative)

Kligat (1244968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613245)

The navigation bar of Google's Blogger website was blocked for me. Random things were blocked that weren't noticeable as missing, popping up every time, so it felt like spyware. I tried to turn it off through Ctrl+Alt+Delete (actually, Ctrl+Shift+Esc since I use Vista). The process would not let itself die and restarted itself over and over. Then it blocked Wikipedia, I think before or after I went to "Stop Service." I asked if the owner of the computer meant to install it, and sure enough, it was hidden in some automatic update crap. The same automatic update crap rolls back my graphics drivers to the lazily outdated computer manufacturer-approved one, rather than the newest Intel one. The former has a problem with rendering bumpmaps on 3D objects so that if you're looking at an object with a bumpmap in front of an object with a bumpmap, both bumpmaps are rendered on the object nearest the camera. The latter fixes it. It also used to replace my wireless card driver with a driver from the same manufacturer meant for wirelessly communicating with other computers in a local area network, though this hasn't been a problem since I stopped using that card.

Re:Blogger's navigation bar was blocked (2, Informative)

XMLsucks (993781) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613503)

I'm so happy I use Apple.

Re:Blogger's navigation bar was blocked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27614255)

That makes about as much sense as "I'm so happy I use Canonical."

Maybe they should rename LiveSearch to Moogle (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613395)

And use all the exact same lettering and look that Google has. People look at LiveSearch and instinctively recoil in the horror. It would be helpful if LiveSearch did something that Google did not do, which would be to not include google bombed link farms, or, for that matter, Experts Exchange, every time you do a tech search..

There's a lot of ways that Microsoft could leverage the desktop into search... and they are just being stupid. If you wanted a good search and wanted to go at Google, just bundle the search cost into the USA and have a search that does not bias its results based on advertisements in the way Google is perceived. Have it let users remove ALL advertisement from web sites....

Just being another Google, or Moogle, doesn't get you very far.

huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613439)

I have used Family Safety Filter in the past and have no problems with Google...

Sure... (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#27613447)

You could accidentally search for "Live goat Porn" on google. Microsoft's search engine doesn't index any porn (Or much of anything else,) that's why no one uses it.

Re:Sure... (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614369)

I knew Microsoft was Walt Disney's OS, just not as much funny tho.

Probably user error (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613623)

Seriously, how many time have we seen something on Slashdot along the lines of "Many Windows users are reporting that a Windows Update patch (KB8763487) has caused [insert app name] to stop working". When you click on the link in the summary, there's like...3 people and a cat complaining that something has gone wrong somewhere, but there not really sure what/why. Later on, it turns out that the users fucked something up by editing/replacing a file to crack the software in question (because they're `337 power-user pirates!!!). We then have a shit-ton of comments (from people that skimmed the summary) about how Microsoft is evil, and that something like this wouldn't surprise "us".

Anyway, I bet "Mike" added Google accidentally, because "Mike" is a tit.

Re:Probably user error (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614055)

You are right, every problem with Microsoft products must be attributed to the user, none is Microsoft's fault.

not so sinister (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613625)

Perhaps your filtering preferences are integrated with the whole Windows Live experience in that searches on Windows Live Search are filtered according to your filtering preferences. They would not necessarily be able to do that with a search performed on another search engine. If you want content blocked, and they block it for you, that is fine, the content (search results in this case) is theirs to alter as they see fit. If you ask them to block the whole site, that is also fine, but once you request a site, the content belongs to the folks who created the site, in this case Google, and Microsoft does not have the right to alter Google's content to fit your will. So its easier to just block their site since they can not filter it, and force you to use a search engine they own the rights to.

Anonymous Coward (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613789)

I'm not surprised it was blocked.. Think about it, Google has so many tracking methods. I personally block a ton of Google click and track methods. Matter of fact, I block almost all of them. Right now when WEB surfing, going to Facebook, etc there are always advertising AD's, trackers that come up saying Blocked. Its all over the WEB and not really specific to any one site either.

MS problem is perception (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27613963)

Microsoft is terrible at forecasting how their products and actions will be perceived by end users and the public.

Filters are stupid anyway (5, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614287)

They should rename it the "Parents That Can't Be Bothered To Pay Attention Filter" instead. The question "Do you want the government raising your children?" has already been put to the public, and the answer is obvious: a resounding "No!". Now I put this question to you all: Do you want Microsoft raising your children? Turn off the damned net-nanny and actually pay attention to what your kids are doing, damnit!

Cached sites (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614307)

Google caches web sites. As such, the filter might block a web site, but you could get around it using google's cached sites. Still, I'd think that Microsoft would at least expressly tell people WHY they are blocking their biggest competitor's web site.

Intentional or not is not the issue and problem (3, Insightful)

surfingmarmot (858550) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614313)

We have been led to believe Microsoft does extensive testing of products and features. Even if the blocking was unintentional, certainly they must have noticed it and the fact they don't block there own server. As a result, they should have either, white-listed Google or at least expressly and clearly stated Google was being blocked. Given Microsoft's past history, this kind of "aw shucks look it blocks Google but let's just mirk and ignore it" behavior is not acceptable and is predatory in nature in keeping with past behavior. Convicted monopolists are held to higher standards than average companies because they are on parole.

Ballmer Family Rules (2, Funny)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#27614329)

Didn't Steve Ballmer say that using an iPod or Google in his house is a punishable offense?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?