You think that's bad? Just wait until the government introduces a new "hurricane prevention excise tax".

It will be called, the Resisty!

I was going to say the exact same thing, but you beat me to it.

However, whether or not the letter is genuine it seems unlikely that a glitch would cause specifically gay literature to be de-listed; one would expect some other unusal behavior from their search engine as well, which hasn't been reported so far. As for it being a hack, I would suspect that anyone who gained access to Amazon's listing service would do something a little more malicious than simply de-listing gay books (I know I would).

Just my two cents.

*sigh*

Not sure if you were being serious or not, but either way I'm going to respond with my usual rant on the subject because I think it's important: Whether or not being gay is genetic shouldn't matter in the context of any policy whatsoever. It appalls me to no end that people debate about this when the real issue at hand is that adults ought to be able to have consensual sex with whomever they want. What I do in the bedroom is between me and whomever I'm in there with.

the speculation was that the FBI raided the data center for IP piracy. Which would, assuming they in fact had a warrant, be within the scope of criminal law, e.g. The Copyright act.

However, I was under the impression that, in America, it was no violation of the law to owe someone money; at least until that person or corporation showed that money was owed or a contract was breached in a CIVIL suit.

Or has the Federal Government legislated itself into that area as well?

IANAL, etc.

Cops =/= Bears

Besides which, even if this crudely formed analogy were true, the equivalent of the blogger's actions would be shouting insults at the bear from outside the cage. The bear, being at the zoo, ought to be used to that sort of thing.

Now if the cops were pedobear....

Well, I must say that the UK is a horrible place to live and I absolutely would not recommend anyone to travel there. Ever. Wherever you go, make sure it isn't the UK.

Come and get me, bitches.

[sarcasm]Because having, at some point in one's life, broken one of the labyrinthine maze of laws and rules that govern behavior in this country would obviously mean that one could never, under any circumstances, judge someone fairly and impartially.[/sarcasm]

Sorry--I myself have always wanted to do my civil duty and serve on a jury but know that I will never be able to because of some stupid stuff I did when I was young.

Exactly. I mentioned earlier how insurance companies are private corporations which are primarily interested in making a profit. This is an especially bad situation for the consumer when they are required to have auto insurance and when the companies have an insidious information sharing agreement with the state that justifies them to raise your rates for practically any reason. The fact that tickets raise your insurance rates is irritating, considering that in most municipalities you can be pulled over and ticketed for practically ANYTHING: Such as (where I live) driving in the left hand lane when no other cars are on the road, engine breaking, coasting, etc. However, what even more infuriating is the fact that being involved in an accident raises one's premiums even if it was determined that the person wasn't at fault: Just another example of the corporations hiding behind some spurious statistical reasoning to justify ripping off their customers.

First of all, the fact that insurance is viewed as individual risk assessment, instead of pooled risk, is why there is such an unfair and unfounded disparity between insurance rates in this country. And it's not just auto insurance--if you get seriously ill, you're health insurance goes up; if you're a doctor and you get sued for malpractice, your insurance rates go up; etc. All of this is essentially insurance companies trying to nickle and dime people for any reason they can--ie. your male, you got a speeding ticket, you drive a red car, etc.--so they can fatten their own wallets.

Second of all, what do these insurance companies do with all that profit they make over their information-sharing agreement with the state? They sure ain't giving it to charity or using to make the roads safer, for that matter. Where I live (Seattle, WA) Safeco Insurance paid peoples' hard earned money to have a fucking baseball stadium named after them. If the government wants to require people to have auto insurance it should either offer decent public transportation so having a car isn't a necessity, or offer discounted insurance for low income individuals, who need a provider that doesn't spend more on marketing than their paying customers.

Last of all, studies have actually shown that people who drive while stoned are more safe and cautious than those who drive sober. Maybe free joints for motorists would be a good way to keep out roads safe.

You could ask these guys.

...but if you're talking, haven't you waived your right to remain silent...

Just make sure they have the right coverpage.

Exactly.

I had a girlfriend and a boyfriend at different points in high school. And let me tell you, I was told by school administrators that I couldn't hug or kiss my boyfriend at school because it "offended" other students, even though such activities were completely okay with my girlfriend because nobody took offense to it. Most gay people don't call any more attention to their sexuality than their straight counterparts; it's just that certain people (who, I'm quite sure, have their own sexual identity issues) think that the same type of normal human interaction that they can participate in in patently offensive and should be forbidden in someone with different tastes.

From the blog entry you linked to:

"[a member may not] Create a Gamertag or use text in other profile fields that may offend other members. This includes comments that look, sound like, stand for, hint at, abbreviate, or insinuate any of the following: profane words/phrases, sexually explicit language, sexual innuendo, hate speech (including but not limited to racial, ethnic, or religious slurs), illegal drugs/controlled substances, or illegal activities."

(Emphasis mine). So the only gamertag that would be appropriate would be an unpronounceable string of consonants with no numbers, as such numbers could be mathematically related to 666, 420, 911, or some other number that a person would find offensive? Please, Microsoft, for the good of mankind, can we just let people be offended?