Or perhaps a large segment of the Amazon customer base is families and parents don't want their kids to find stuff that is completely beyond what they need to see at that point in their life. I do agree with the poster you replied to though, they could allow for a search filter to be on by default and turned off with the change of a setting.
They deleted books from the Amazon rankings.
RTFA and please try again.
They didn't censor the books, just removed them from the rankings. Since when do the authors have any ownership over the book rankings? Unless an author has a contract with Amazon that says that Amazon is required to have them in the book rankings, I see no problem here. If they do, that's another story. Last I checked they (they == the book rankings) belonged to Amazon and Amazon can do with the rankings (including getting rid of them outright) if they so desire. Maybe you should take your own advice.
The first rule of Steisand Effect is you don't talk about the Steisand Effect.
The second rule of Steisand Effect is...YOU DONT TALK ABOUT THE STREISAND EFFECT!
After sweeping porn and prostitution tax collection laws were passed, the legal purchase of properly documented strippers and prostitutes in Sweden increases by 75%. Officials have begun talks into other laws that can be passed to decrease syphilis, the plague, torn euros, smudged photos, and world hunger.
Keep in mind that the IRS is only specific about cash gifts. This has nothing to do with non-cash gifts, and is not categorized the same way. You already pay sales tax (at least you are supposed to, this doesn't happen most of the time on internet purchases) on the goods generally.
My original point (got off-topic mainly because of people flaming me without taking a second to really consider my post) was that authorities in San Fransisco will not call this terrorism, with all due respect to the OP. They shelter illegal aliens in open defiance of state and federal laws (San Francisco is a publicly noted and self proclaimed Sanctuary City. Don't bother trying to correct me on this, it's been proclaimed by the Mayor himself). San Francisco also defied state drug regulations (whether you agree or disagree with them, that doesn't mean you get to just openly defy these laws).
San Francisco claims to be a city of civil liberties, but anyone or any organization that is Pro-Life or Pro-Military (or just Pro-anything that liberals think is moral grandstanding) is openly criticized by the local government and the US Military on many occasions has had to fight the city trying to kick out their recruiters, who have just as much of a right (both legally and in the spirit of the freedoms of our constitution) to be there as any other agency, whether it be the military, a peace corps recruiter, or PETA and Green Peace. SF reminds me a lot of the ACLU. Used to be great, but has been compromised by hypocritical ideaology. SF is considered a place where people are free to think and do as they wish, but this is only the case if you "think like they do." Let's remember that we all have the same rights, even if we think people who don't think like us are right.
Flame away, call me an idiot conservative troll, I really don't care, I have karma to burn. But really, anyone who thinks that anyone in SF is going to start screaming terrorism is incredibly, stupidly naive. Maybe if it was Rush Limbaugh throwing stink bombs at an Abortion Doctor. They'd probably try to get him sent to Gitmo (although I find him incredibly annoying, I wouldn't be against sending him to some remote island myself). But if it was a gay, illegal immigrant setting off a bomb near a military recruiting center, they'd say he's a persecuted innocent and try to hide him in some basement when the FBI came calling. Yeah, it's an exaggeration, but really, how far off the mark is it?
Nope, but plenty in Mexico. The Spanish killed most of them. And the Mexicans were the ones he said we stole it from. My point (although, if I wanted to be truly accurate, I would've said Native Americans) was that we did nothing less bad than what the Spanish did before us. So it's really a stupid thing to say, being that the strongest generally survive and conquer. Us taking California and Texas from Mexico is really no different than the Spanish taking Mesoamerica from the Aztecs and the Myans.
Didn't really think of that, but yeah, I could see a $100,000 purchase online drawing some attention, considering that the company has to report the revenue. I would guess that while legally speaking, buying a $1000 laptop online would require you to pay taxes, how hard is the government really going to scrutinize such a small purchase.
They probably make it even easier than that to take your money. I'd imagine that they capture you in a VLAN and then ask you to upgrade your plan online to continue usage.
If you have a relationship with a girl and she takes her clothes off and you give her thousands of dollars a year, it's not taxable.
Even if you were in a multiple spouse household, it would still be true (multiple guys supporting her).
Without the "relationship" (one date? you don't have to be living together in the same house), it's taxable.
Depends on how many thousands of dollars we're talking about here. FAQ on Gift Taxes is a nice summary from the IRS on tax laws pertaining to monetary gifts. According to the FAQ, anything over $13,000 for 2009 for one person would not be taxed as it does not exceed the annual exclusion. So if you gave your strip...err...lady friend under 13k, then yes, you are right. More than that, and you'd have to pay taxes on it (according to the IRS website, gift taxes are generally paid by the donor, not the donee).
I wonder if there are any stats on the percentage of people who actually pay taxes on internet purchases at years end. I know I'm not one of those who do. Oh, I hear a knock on the door, be right ba...
Or, better yet, if we gave it back to the Aztecs and Myans. It was kinda theirs to begin with before we shot a bunch of fellow invaders and called it ours.
You are joking, right? We're not too far off from bailing out California because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only state in the US that may fail completely if they do not get the bailout money because their economy is hemmoraging cash. Don't get me started on wasteful spending. Obama took a bad deficit and made it worse in less time than it took for Bush to even mobilize our military to Iraq. The Iraq war was a huge mistake and we're paying for that now, only we're making things worse by spending our way into an even worse hole.
It's San Fransisco. In their world, terrorists don't exist, so I doubt Terrorism charges would hold in that city. And honestly, if terrorism did occur in SF, would we really be that torn up over it?
You can see evidence of change by the fact that they shunned Sarah Palin from the GOP Fundraiser and instead invited Newt Gingrich. She got her one chance to help lead the party and blew it big time I think. Of course, unfortunately, she'll probably make noise again in the future, but hopefully, the party will be smart enough to look in a different direction.
Or even more likely, not everyone in the Republican party is corrupt and would like to see people with taint on them just go away. Hard to believe, but statistically speaking it's highly likely. From what I can tell, the GOP has a youth movement of sorts going on and you can see it in shortening of support for older candidates (McCain was only supported by the majority when it was clear that he was going to win the nomination, when most of the party faithful were clearly behind Romney).
I suspect that's what Stevens is going to be getting as well. No prison, but uncleanably tainted reputation.
Which I doubt he'll care too much about, considering that he's 85. I don't know about you, but if I were 85 where the current life expectancy is in the high 70's, and I had a lifetime pension from the Senate (which he'll likely get to keep now that the conviction has been thrown out), I wouldn't care what anyone thought about my reputation. More than likely, I wouldn't live long enough for it to matter much.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, unless you work in the Amazon corporate office, you really can't do much about it. Maybe you should shoot them a copy of your resume.
Or perhaps a large segment of the Amazon customer base is families and parents don't want their kids to find stuff that is completely beyond what they need to see at that point in their life. I do agree with the poster you replied to though, they could allow for a search filter to be on by default and turned off with the change of a setting.
Obama, is that you?
Except that the list is published by Amazon, so it's not censorship if you are doing it to yourself.
They didn't delete anything.
They deleted books from the Amazon rankings. RTFA and please try again.
They didn't censor the books, just removed them from the rankings. Since when do the authors have any ownership over the book rankings? Unless an author has a contract with Amazon that says that Amazon is required to have them in the book rankings, I see no problem here. If they do, that's another story. Last I checked they (they == the book rankings) belonged to Amazon and Amazon can do with the rankings (including getting rid of them outright) if they so desire. Maybe you should take your own advice.
This article should have never been on Slashdot in the first place.
Hi, welcome to Slashdot, you must be new here. Let me show you around.
The first rule of Steisand Effect is you don't talk about the Steisand Effect. The second rule of Steisand Effect is...YOU DONT TALK ABOUT THE STREISAND EFFECT!
After sweeping porn and prostitution tax collection laws were passed, the legal purchase of properly documented strippers and prostitutes in Sweden increases by 75%. Officials have begun talks into other laws that can be passed to decrease syphilis, the plague, torn euros, smudged photos, and world hunger.
Keep in mind that the IRS is only specific about cash gifts. This has nothing to do with non-cash gifts, and is not categorized the same way. You already pay sales tax (at least you are supposed to, this doesn't happen most of the time on internet purchases) on the goods generally.
My original point (got off-topic mainly because of people flaming me without taking a second to really consider my post) was that authorities in San Fransisco will not call this terrorism, with all due respect to the OP. They shelter illegal aliens in open defiance of state and federal laws (San Francisco is a publicly noted and self proclaimed Sanctuary City. Don't bother trying to correct me on this, it's been proclaimed by the Mayor himself). San Francisco also defied state drug regulations (whether you agree or disagree with them, that doesn't mean you get to just openly defy these laws).
San Francisco claims to be a city of civil liberties, but anyone or any organization that is Pro-Life or Pro-Military (or just Pro-anything that liberals think is moral grandstanding) is openly criticized by the local government and the US Military on many occasions has had to fight the city trying to kick out their recruiters, who have just as much of a right (both legally and in the spirit of the freedoms of our constitution) to be there as any other agency, whether it be the military, a peace corps recruiter, or PETA and Green Peace. SF reminds me a lot of the ACLU. Used to be great, but has been compromised by hypocritical ideaology. SF is considered a place where people are free to think and do as they wish, but this is only the case if you "think like they do." Let's remember that we all have the same rights, even if we think people who don't think like us are right.
Flame away, call me an idiot conservative troll, I really don't care, I have karma to burn. But really, anyone who thinks that anyone in SF is going to start screaming terrorism is incredibly, stupidly naive. Maybe if it was Rush Limbaugh throwing stink bombs at an Abortion Doctor. They'd probably try to get him sent to Gitmo (although I find him incredibly annoying, I wouldn't be against sending him to some remote island myself). But if it was a gay, illegal immigrant setting off a bomb near a military recruiting center, they'd say he's a persecuted innocent and try to hide him in some basement when the FBI came calling. Yeah, it's an exaggeration, but really, how far off the mark is it?
Nope, but plenty in Mexico. The Spanish killed most of them. And the Mexicans were the ones he said we stole it from. My point (although, if I wanted to be truly accurate, I would've said Native Americans) was that we did nothing less bad than what the Spanish did before us. So it's really a stupid thing to say, being that the strongest generally survive and conquer. Us taking California and Texas from Mexico is really no different than the Spanish taking Mesoamerica from the Aztecs and the Myans.
Didn't really think of that, but yeah, I could see a $100,000 purchase online drawing some attention, considering that the company has to report the revenue. I would guess that while legally speaking, buying a $1000 laptop online would require you to pay taxes, how hard is the government really going to scrutinize such a small purchase.
They probably make it even easier than that to take your money. I'd imagine that they capture you in a VLAN and then ask you to upgrade your plan online to continue usage.
If you have a relationship with a girl and she takes her clothes off and you give her thousands of dollars a year, it's not taxable. Even if you were in a multiple spouse household, it would still be true (multiple guys supporting her).
Without the "relationship" (one date? you don't have to be living together in the same house), it's taxable.
Depends on how many thousands of dollars we're talking about here. FAQ on Gift Taxes is a nice summary from the IRS on tax laws pertaining to monetary gifts. According to the FAQ, anything over $13,000 for 2009 for one person would not be taxed as it does not exceed the annual exclusion. So if you gave your strip...err...lady friend under 13k, then yes, you are right. More than that, and you'd have to pay taxes on it (according to the IRS website, gift taxes are generally paid by the donor, not the donee).
I wonder if there are any stats on the percentage of people who actually pay taxes on internet purchases at years end. I know I'm not one of those who do. Oh, I hear a knock on the door, be right ba...
Or, better yet, if we gave it back to the Aztecs and Myans. It was kinda theirs to begin with before we shot a bunch of fellow invaders and called it ours.
There, fixed it for you.
You are joking, right? We're not too far off from bailing out California because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They are the only state in the US that may fail completely if they do not get the bailout money because their economy is hemmoraging cash. Don't get me started on wasteful spending. Obama took a bad deficit and made it worse in less time than it took for Bush to even mobilize our military to Iraq. The Iraq war was a huge mistake and we're paying for that now, only we're making things worse by spending our way into an even worse hole.
I'm from the Eastern US so I don't care if the whole damn state of California falls into the ocean.
People in SF only care about diversity if it benefits their cause. Just ask the United States Military.
It's San Fransisco. In their world, terrorists don't exist, so I doubt Terrorism charges would hold in that city. And honestly, if terrorism did occur in SF, would we really be that torn up over it?
You can see evidence of change by the fact that they shunned Sarah Palin from the GOP Fundraiser and instead invited Newt Gingrich. She got her one chance to help lead the party and blew it big time I think. Of course, unfortunately, she'll probably make noise again in the future, but hopefully, the party will be smart enough to look in a different direction.
Or even more likely, not everyone in the Republican party is corrupt and would like to see people with taint on them just go away. Hard to believe, but statistically speaking it's highly likely. From what I can tell, the GOP has a youth movement of sorts going on and you can see it in shortening of support for older candidates (McCain was only supported by the majority when it was clear that he was going to win the nomination, when most of the party faithful were clearly behind Romney).
In all likeliness, Stevens would still lose due to his tainted reputation, so I doubt it would change matters much.
I suspect that's what Stevens is going to be getting as well. No prison, but uncleanably tainted reputation.
Which I doubt he'll care too much about, considering that he's 85. I don't know about you, but if I were 85 where the current life expectancy is in the high 70's, and I had a lifetime pension from the Senate (which he'll likely get to keep now that the conviction has been thrown out), I wouldn't care what anyone thought about my reputation. More than likely, I wouldn't live long enough for it to matter much.
Or This. Too bad it wasn't a Navy Submarine, they could have just shot a torpedo at it to see what would happen.