The dog ate the IRS's homework.

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course competent person would have a RAID in the first place so problems with one drive would not result in such trouble.

Ever see RAID in an ordinary network-connected workstation? I haven't.

While I personally run RAID for everything but my SSD most workstations don't.

I saw it, you can have RAID with just 2 hard drives.
In any case I don't believe in their 7 crashes theory at all.

Of course you can. That doesn't mean it's normally done. The usual procedure is workstation drives are considered expendable.

 

[barbos]

Of course competent person would have a RAID in the first place so problems with one drive would not result in such trouble.

Ever see RAID in an ordinary network-connected workstation? I haven't.

While I personally run RAID for everything but my SSD most workstations don't.

I saw it, you can have RAID with just 2 hard drives.
In any case I don't believe in their 7 crashes theory at all.

Of course you can. That doesn't mean it's normally done. The usual procedure is workstation drives are considered expendable.

The usual procedure is not having important data on workstations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course competent person would have a RAID in the first place so problems with one drive would not result in such trouble.

Ever see RAID in an ordinary network-connected workstation? I haven't.

While I personally run RAID for everything but my SSD most workstations don't.

I saw it, you can have RAID with just 2 hard drives.
In any case I don't believe in their 7 crashes theory at all.

Of course you can. That doesn't mean it's normally done. The usual procedure is workstation drives are considered expendable.

The usual procedure is not having important data on workstations.

That's why they're considered expendable.

It's just they didn't give the people big enough e-mail boxes so archives ended up on the local drives.

 

[barbos]

You are running circles.

 

[prideandfall]

You are running circles.

no, for once loren is being perfectly reasonable and utterly in line with both the facts in evidence and the contextual information regarding the situation.

none of us are saying that these people didn't lie or destroy data, but those of us who actually work in IT and actually know what the fuck we're talking about are all in 100% agreement that the scenario as described is completely plausible and entirely common.
if you want to argue that 7 specific individuals all losing data is fishy and that it sounds like malfeasance, that is a pretty reasonable argument to make under the circumstances.
but stop acting like you know your ass from a hole in a SATA port when it comes to the technical mechanics of IT infrastructure, because you clearly don't, and it's frankly embarrassing on your behalf every time you post something.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are running circles.

no, for once loren is being perfectly reasonable and utterly in line with both the facts in evidence and the contextual information regarding the situation.

none of us are saying that these people didn't lie or destroy data, but those of us who actually work in IT and actually know what the fuck we're talking about are all in 100% agreement that the scenario as described is completely plausible and entirely common.
if you want to argue that 7 specific individuals all losing data is fishy and that it sounds like malfeasance, that is a pretty reasonable argument to make under the circumstances.
but stop acting like you know your ass from a hole in a SATA port when it comes to the technical mechanics of IT infrastructure, because you clearly don't, and it's frankly embarrassing on your behalf every time you post something.

For a company that requires its customers to have strict records up to several years their IT oversight was horrible and they are horrible about getting answers that they would demand within days. They certainly targeted political groups but they will luck out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are running circles.

no, for once loren is being perfectly reasonable and utterly in line with both the facts in evidence and the contextual information regarding the situation.

none of us are saying that these people didn't lie or destroy data, but those of us who actually work in IT and actually know what the fuck we're talking about are all in 100% agreement that the scenario as described is completely plausible and entirely common.
if you want to argue that 7 specific individuals all losing data is fishy and that it sounds like malfeasance, that is a pretty reasonable argument to make under the circumstances.
but stop acting like you know your ass from a hole in a SATA port when it comes to the technical mechanics of IT infrastructure, because you clearly don't, and it's frankly embarrassing on your behalf every time you post something.

For a company that requires its customers to have strict records up to several years their IT oversight was horrible and they are horrible about getting answers that they would demand within days. They certainly targeted political groups but they will luck out.

If they were targeting conservative political groups, why just allegedly tea party groups and not conservative groups enmass?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are running circles.

no, for once loren is being perfectly reasonable and utterly in line with both the facts in evidence and the contextual information regarding the situation.

none of us are saying that these people didn't lie or destroy data, but those of us who actually work in IT and actually know what the fuck we're talking about are all in 100% agreement that the scenario as described is completely plausible and entirely common.
if you want to argue that 7 specific individuals all losing data is fishy and that it sounds like malfeasance, that is a pretty reasonable argument to make under the circumstances.
but stop acting like you know your ass from a hole in a SATA port when it comes to the technical mechanics of IT infrastructure, because you clearly don't, and it's frankly embarrassing on your behalf every time you post something.

For a company that requires its customers to have strict records up to several years their IT oversight was horrible and they are horrible about getting answers that they would demand within days. They certainly targeted political groups but they will luck out.

If they were targeting conservative political groups, why just allegedly tea party groups and not conservative groups enmass?

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

 

[prideandfall]

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

and by 'worried about the tea party' you mean 'worried about political groups abusing non-profit status for the purposes of lobbying', and you're also of course adding in the fact that out of all the groups that actually got denied their tax exempt status, the ONLY ONE was a progressive group... not a single 'targeted' conservative group was denied.

yep, they musta been awful worried.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

Or the newest and most likely unfamiliar with how the process worked?

Because that was the most outspoken of the new political groups and they were worried about the tea party.

and by 'worried about the tea party' you mean 'worried about political groups abusing non-profit status for the purposes of lobbying', and you're also of course adding in the fact that out of all the groups that actually got denied their tax exempt status, the ONLY ONE was a progressive group... not a single 'targeted' conservative group was denied.

yep, they musta been awful worried.

And this was about tax exemption! These groups could continue to say, "educate", advertise all they want. Trying to shut down insane political bowel movements by delaying tax exemption status seems like a very poor way of going about it.

 

[prideandfall]

For a company that requires its customers to have strict records up to several years their IT oversight was horrible and they are horrible about getting answers that they would demand within days. They certainly targeted political groups but they will luck out.

two things:
1. the 'strict records' basically say 'hey, if you happen to think this is important, you should keep a copy of it around' - i have seen plenty of links to the IRS rules, i have not seen one argument actually defending an opinion that the emails that were lost actually fall under the category of having been worth preserving in the first place, excepting that now right-wingers have latched on to this non-scandal as something to gnash their teeth over.
2. they targeted political groups that seemed to be abusing 501c status for the purposes of lobbying - what you and others who are all hopped up on your IRS quaaludes seem to keep forgetting is that no conservative groups were denied, but progressive groups were.

 

[ksen]

Guys, this is just as bad as Benghazi, which is just as bad as collecting phone records of reporters, which is just as bad as "fast and furious", which is just as bad as Obamacare, which is just as bad as the fake birth certificate which is of course as bad as . . . HITLER!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Stockman offers 'Dog Ate My Tax Receipts' bill

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has introduced legislation that would allow taxpayers to make "dubious excuses" for not providing documents to the IRS.

The bill is intended to mock the agency, after it lost two year’s worth of emails from former official Lois Lerner due to a computer crash.

"Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves," Stockman said in a statement. "Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama administration uses."

Under Stockman's bill, taxpayers could claim one of the following 10 reasons for not submitting documents requested by the IRS:

1. The dog ate my tax receipts

2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction

3. Traded documents for five terrorists

4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon

5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room

6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car

7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords

8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar

9. Was short on toilet paper while camping

10. At this point, what difference does it make?

Lerner, the former head of an IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups, has become the face of the controversy over the agency's scrutiny of conservative nonprofits applying for tax exemptions.

The House voted 231-187 in May to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress.

Rep. Stockman introduces 'The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act'

Why shouldn't taxpayers be allowed to use the same excuses the IRS, and other elements of our imperial government, deploy when they get in trouble? Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) aims to make it happen with his "The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act."

"Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama Administration uses," Stockman declared, offering legislation that would require the IRS to accept any of the following reasons when we can't meet their demands for documentation:

1. The dog ate my tax receipts
2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3. Traded documents for five terrorists
4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9. Was short on toilet paper while camping
10. At this point, what difference does it make?

But don't worry, Stockman's bill would not mean the total collapse of our tax system. "In any case, IRS can see the NSA for a good, high quality copy," the Act concludes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's pretty damn funny

 

[Narapoia]

Stockman offers 'Dog Ate My Tax Receipts' bill



Rep. Stockman introduces 'The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act'

Why shouldn't taxpayers be allowed to use the same excuses the IRS, and other elements of our imperial government, deploy when they get in trouble? Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) aims to make it happen with his "The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act."

"Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama Administration uses," Stockman declared, offering legislation that would require the IRS to accept any of the following reasons when we can't meet their demands for documentation:

1. The dog ate my tax receipts
2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3. Traded documents for five terrorists
4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9. Was short on toilet paper while camping
10. At this point, what difference does it make?

But don't worry, Stockman's bill would not mean the total collapse of our tax system. "In any case, IRS can see the NSA for a good, high quality copy," the Act concludes.

Am I missing something or is the IRS actually considered part of the POTUS' Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be.

 

[barbos]

You are running circles.

no, for once loren is being perfectly reasonable and utterly in line with both the facts in evidence and the contextual information regarding the situation.

none of us are saying that these people didn't lie or destroy data, but those of us who actually work in IT and actually know what the fuck we're talking about are all in 100% agreement that the scenario as described is completely plausible and entirely common.
if you want to argue that 7 specific individuals all losing data is fishy and that it sounds like malfeasance, that is a pretty reasonable argument to make under the circumstances.
but stop acting like you know your ass from a hole in a SATA port when it comes to the technical mechanics of IT infrastructure, because you clearly don't, and it's frankly embarrassing on your behalf every time you post something.

I clearly know more about IT then you do. But thanks for the explanation, if people like you work in IRS IT department then I am not surprised with a result.

 

[barbos]

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Am I missing something or is the IRS actually considered part of the POTUS' Administration? Doesn't seem like it would be.

The IRS is under the executive branch. It's parent agency is the Department of the Treasury.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

The problem is "out of 7". There are a lot more than 7 drives.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I know IT "specialists" here and american public at large are mathematically challenged.
But 7 out of 7 hard drive failure probability is about 1 in 10^14.
that means you would have to wait 100 trillions years (on average) for that to happen.
I assumed 1% per year failure rate for HD and 1 year period within which they "failed"

The problem is "out of 7". There are a lot more than 7 drives.

No...The odds of it being the exact 7 that needed to be found are closer to the the number for Barbos. The chances that 7 drives in all of IRS being down would be higher. What are the chances that your numbers will win powerball is much lower than 7 numbers being drawn.