Like... um... microsoft's? No wait, that got sued out of existence. IBM maybe? Google, I guess, if you count "only available as part of the OS, and also almost sued out of existence".
More like "world defies 'common sense' solutions to problems", Which is amusing because you phrased it as one of those "common sense tells me this is obvious" type rejoinders.
And here we have someone whose biases are based entirely in the null hypothesis, using the null hypothesis to justify ignoring the conclusion. It's a good chance to see this behavior outside of its normal habitat of politics/religion.
You can't maintain an ideology built on premises that are designed to justify other premises of itself in the face of material evidence. The various hyper-conservatives around the English speaking world have decided(mostly in the space of 15 years) that eliminating the role of evidence is easier than shifting their positions a little bit.
The weird part to me is how it happened in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia all on pretty much the same time scale. I can't come up with any theories that don't seem excessively paranoid as to why.
You asked me to back up my claim. Which has been thoroughly demonstrated, whereas yours is reaching bullshittery, wherein you try to imply simultaneously that undue scrutiny was placed on these organizations for being "political" in primary purpose just due to a conservative nature, while simultaneously playing up the importance of an election.
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied.
I'm sorry, but "it's really good if you find a good source" is a claim that applies to every single foodstuff. I can compare supermarket apples to supermarket oranges, and still know my local farmers market does both better.
So... you give no justification, evidence, support, for this sub-theory, just assert it and act like you won? I mean, I made an honest attempt to read up about it, and I can't find anything substantive to support this claim(much less a meaningful claim that it was one sided, and affected "conservative" groups alone).
I mean, it's not "grilled chicken breast" level of flavorless that it can't stand on it's own, but even from pigs, bacon doesn't stand up to a good rib or loin.
Inviting the most downmods in my entire history of posting to slashdot, but bacon isn't that good, in fact being one of the least flavorful cuts of meat, and I wish the internet would come to terms with that fact.
Well, the trick is that being mostly new organizations, they hadn't done anything yet, that was actually political. There wasn't a meaningful history to judge them on.
I'd wager my last dollar than any that actually raised any money did so entirely for political reasons.
I assume this is a evidence substantiated sub-theory, rather than absurdly shifted goalposts when reality shows to be the opposite of paranoid claims. Right?
Now this isn't even true, and I'm pretty sure you felt quite stupid after submitting. The 'success message' you get from/. is your comment actually showing up, that's it.
And notably, every single conservative political group eventually got their tax exempt status, even before the "scandal" broke, while at least a few liberal groups got denied, in the end.
I think we can all dream of a world where all those groups got denied the ability to influence our elections while not paying taxes, but no luck yet.
Well, yeah, that's not really the fault of the people. Game theory dictates that the kind of electoral system we have in the US pushes towards large, dissimilar alliances being able to capitalize on division of others into smaller groups. Political parties evolve and reproduce like a living thing, and success at elections drives that meme reproduction.
If you burned the two existing parties to the ground, made a law that said "you can't identify as democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, whatever" and somehow prevented the two from rising from the ashes you might get 2 different parties down the line, but there'd still be basically 2 parties.
Slashdot Mirror
I was just bringing up sun's (and later oracle's) propensity to sue people who make different versions of java.
Hey, hey, that's not fair, large tech companies have also conspired to fuck over their customers and suppliers. We just have proof about employees.
(I don't know why we call our economy free-market, when regular people don't get a chance to participate in a free way).
Like... um... microsoft's? No wait, that got sued out of existence. IBM maybe? Google, I guess, if you count "only available as part of the OS, and also almost sued out of existence".
Oracle is a tech company that manages to be worse than Microsoft.
More like "world defies 'common sense' solutions to problems", Which is amusing because you phrased it as one of those "common sense tells me this is obvious" type rejoinders.
Nothing says "professional tool for serious tasks" like crappy adware shoved in.
And here we have someone whose biases are based entirely in the null hypothesis, using the null hypothesis to justify ignoring the conclusion. It's a good chance to see this behavior outside of its normal habitat of politics/religion.
I learned java as my first "enterprise" language in school. Oracle is 100% enough motivation to never touch it again.
You can't maintain an ideology built on premises that are designed to justify other premises of itself in the face of material evidence. The various hyper-conservatives around the English speaking world have decided(mostly in the space of 15 years) that eliminating the role of evidence is easier than shifting their positions a little bit.
The weird part to me is how it happened in Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia all on pretty much the same time scale. I can't come up with any theories that don't seem excessively paranoid as to why.
You asked me to back up my claim. Which has been thoroughly demonstrated, whereas yours is reaching bullshittery, wherein you try to imply simultaneously that undue scrutiny was placed on these organizations for being "political" in primary purpose just due to a conservative nature, while simultaneously playing up the importance of an election.
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months, 2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued. Although the processing of some applications with potential significant political campaign intervention was started soon after receipt, no work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.... For the 296 total political campaign intervention applications [reviewed in the audit] as of December 17, 2012, 108 had been approved, 28 were withdrawn by the applicant, none had been denied.
treasury.gov
I'm sorry, but "it's really good if you find a good source" is a claim that applies to every single foodstuff. I can compare supermarket apples to supermarket oranges, and still know my local farmers market does both better.
So... you give no justification, evidence, support, for this sub-theory, just assert it and act like you won? I mean, I made an honest attempt to read up about it, and I can't find anything substantive to support this claim(much less a meaningful claim that it was one sided, and affected "conservative" groups alone).
I mean, it's not "grilled chicken breast" level of flavorless that it can't stand on it's own, but even from pigs, bacon doesn't stand up to a good rib or loin.
Inviting the most downmods in my entire history of posting to slashdot, but bacon isn't that good, in fact being one of the least flavorful cuts of meat, and I wish the internet would come to terms with that fact.
So, you're saying that the organizations were illegally dedicated to political purposes, in spite of their application for tax exemption?
I don't get the logic here... are you trying to say how unfair it was to scrutinize people for a felony so they couldn't commit a felony?
Well, the trick is that being mostly new organizations, they hadn't done anything yet, that was actually political. There wasn't a meaningful history to judge them on.
I'd wager my last dollar than any that actually raised any money did so entirely for political reasons.
I don't know if you've noticed, but "the economy" when taken as a widescale, averaged thing is doing just fine, and has been since at least 2010.
I assume this is a evidence substantiated sub-theory, rather than absurdly shifted goalposts when reality shows to be the opposite of paranoid claims. Right?
Now this isn't even true, and I'm pretty sure you felt quite stupid after submitting. /. is your comment actually showing up, that's it.
The 'success message' you get from
I did, didn't I?
Or, maybe, you know, an armed society is a murderous barbaric society.
And notably, every single conservative political group eventually got their tax exempt status, even before the "scandal" broke, while at least a few liberal groups got denied, in the end.
I think we can all dream of a world where all those groups got denied the ability to influence our elections while not paying taxes, but no luck yet.
I'm not sure your "friends and family" want a copy of your Star Wars branded dildo collection.
Well, yeah, that's not really the fault of the people. Game theory dictates that the kind of electoral system we have in the US pushes towards large, dissimilar alliances being able to capitalize on division of others into smaller groups. Political parties evolve and reproduce like a living thing, and success at elections drives that meme reproduction.
If you burned the two existing parties to the ground, made a law that said "you can't identify as democrat/republican, liberal/conservative, whatever" and somehow prevented the two from rising from the ashes you might get 2 different parties down the line, but there'd still be basically 2 parties.
It's a constitutional issue, and not a human one.
It's also not a tradition we can stop in Washington, if you haven't noticed.