You can still do the search by hitting "Search Anyway". Anywhere other than mainland China, this search will work. Just try it. If you're in mainland China and you elect to search anyway, that will result in your connection being reset and will temporarily break your ability to interact with Google. It is China, not Google, that is doing this.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The search can still be performed, but it is China — NOT Google — that is doing the censoring by interfering with queries which contain offending terms.

Before, if someone in mainland China performed a search containing an offending term, equipment that is part of the so-called "Great Firewall" would interfere with the search, making it appear that the search results page was unavailable or resetting the browser's connection, and then making Google unavailable to the user for a period.

Now, Google is warning you that will happen based on observations of which search terms resulted in China's filters blocking the search results.

Why are there so many ignorant comments on this post claiming that it's "Google" the one doing the blocking? They're not.

...drugs, cigarettes, liquor, gambling, lottery tickets, flat screens, cell phones, junk food, etc...

Somehow I doubt that story. They'd have to file charges and arrest him to seize any property. Or are we talking about another "lost" Apple iPhone prototype?

I've only worked one place that had such insane network security measures. Password requirements that ultimately meant no one used a good password -- they have to change it every 30 days, and cannot reuse it for 6 months [the system remembers the last four passwords, but it didn't have a minimum password age... so you could change your password 5 times in 5 minutes and be back to the same one. But no one did that.] Your account would be locked after 60 days of inactivity. If you failed to change your password after 30 days, your account would be locked. Account names were of the format XXX##### and had nothing to do with anything; the helpdesk had to keep an access db of who had what account, just to know who the f*** did anything.

Physical security was more of a joke... the control boxes tended to be in closets next to the elevators where anyone could get to them -- and the doors don't have locks. If you manage to get into the interior stairwell, you could get anywhere in the 9 story building. (except the basement; it opened into the parking deck at the ground level.) There was only maned (unarmed) security from 7-7(?) -- nothing after business hours.

So, how have the big traditional space contractors like the Rockwell, Boeing, Lockheed, etc., of old, and now United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance not delivered on their contracts? Saying that it might cost too much by some measure is one thing, but in terms of space launch to LEO you don't get a better record than ULA. Note, too, that SpaceX is using a significant amount of government infrastructure and personnel to launch and manage its space systems — not to diminish what they're doing one bit.

AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll

AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll

...to monitor communications, seize property, or perform searches before "the internet", should there not be a mechanism to do the same with communications on the internet (email, web sites, social media, etc.)? Or is something about the internet fundamentally different that means "the government" shouldn't be able to monitor it? If so, why? How does this reconcile with the rule of law and the social contract in democratic societies?

It's my understanding of the system (from dealing with one years ago)... the server can recover the seed used by a hardware token given it's serial number, and two sequential tokens. Perhaps the serial number is the "seed" and it's figuring out the tokens clock. However, it's perfectly clear the server can generate the same numbers as the token. The strength of the system is keyed to protecting that algorithm. Soft-tokens are a bad joke and only slightly better than a password, but are themselves based on a "password".