Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » article arstechnica regarding IRS lost emails (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: article arstechnica regarding IRS lost emails
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al, I would have rather we just stick to the topics being discussed rather than getting personal at all. Why do you feel a need to constantly add narratives telling us how crazy or unreasonable everything certain posters say is? If it were crazy we'd already be aware of it, wouldn't we?
Seriati, I just wanted to point out that this is an excellent example of what a thread that Noel participates in looks like. It's almost impossible to do anything *except* talk about him, since his statements and reasoning veer so far from the substance as to make other people's arguments on the actual topic appear bland in comparison. Has any post since yours that I quoted above had anything to do with lost IRS mails?

[ September 05, 2014, 08:16 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, do you recall me saying "Lerner" things only just seem to *happen* to this president?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What you actually said was:
quote:
"Lerner" things happen when unlawful children acquire political power.

which is a twisted statement about Obama, not Lerner. Your obsessive need to turn a discussion about a topic (on which you have extreme views) into an even more bizarre attack on Obama is what I was referring to. Thanks for bringing up an example for others to see what I meant.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... which is a twisted statement about Obama, not Lerner. Your obsessive need to turn a discussion about a topic (on which you have extreme views) into an even more bizarre attack on Obama is what I was referring to. Thanks for bringing up an example for others to see what I meant."...

Didn't both you, and Tom, make reference to the impact of this administrations (Barry's) "phoney scandals" upon the next general election, of which Ms. Lerner is but one?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Didn't both you, and Tom, make reference to the impact of this administrations (Barry's) "phoney [sic] scandals" upon the next general election, of which Ms. Lerner is but one?
Isn't that a non-sequitor?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Isn't that a non-sequitor?"...

To your position... no.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Isn't that what you whole social contract theory presupposes?
No. Why would you think so?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:"If you're seriously still unable to understand that -- or why -- someone might be offended by the suggestion that our president has so far skirted scandal only by virtue of having a dusky-skinned, non-native father (and the mythology that thus accrues), it seems to me that you should consider recalibrating your external interfaces a bit."...

Hmm, didn't you tell Seriati that you made no allusion to racism?

Not all Noel. He specifically said that you and he weren't discussing racism at all, though he had to dig deep into the language of obsfucation to try and come up with an unconvincing alternative meaning for his words. Calling you a racist, rather than implying and inferring it, would of course hold the claim up to specific scrutiny, that it would not survive.

It also might lead to questions about why one can say this President has received more criticism because of his race or that any criticism is just disguised racism, but one can not say the inverse that absent a racial issue the criticism would be harsher. One might also ask why someone would go to such great lengths to infer something but deny actually meaning it.

And Al, I do think this thread is a great thread for showing the active bias to derail threads that people find uncomfortable by labelling them as "phony topics" or by deriding categorically posts by posters as ones that should be automatically be ignored (regardless of the actual content - a logical fallacy by the way). I even enjoyed your axiomatic attack on these roads leading to Fox News (as if it's a uniformly bad thing).

The only really surprising part to me, is Scifibum's apparent confusion, I don't personally think Noel is unclear when he posts. In fact, I think he's usually really clear and really good at reducing concepts to short narratives.

[ September 05, 2014, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Calling you a racist, rather than implying and inferring it, would of course hold the claim up to specific scrutiny, that it would not survive.
I'm curious: why do you think I got into this conversation?

Do you think I was so shocked by noel's continued vitriol against the president that I just had to spend two pages easing into an accusation of racism? Or is it more likely that I, as I have said from the start, was merely observing that he tends to make bizarre and offensive comments and, at his request, was explaining to him why people might consider one of his comments in this very thread to be offensive?

quote:
It also might lead to questions about why one can say this President has received more criticism because of his race or that any criticism is just disguised racism, but one can not say the inverse that absent a racial issue the criticism would be harsher.
Sure, it might. That'd be a stupid and boring conversation, IMO, since it would wind up again explaining institutionalized racism and privilege to people who stubbornly resist being educated on those topics, but one could have it. It is not, however, the conversation I have been having.

[ September 05, 2014, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

posted September 05, 2014 10:24 AM
quote:

N- Isn't that what you whole social contract theory presupposes?

T- No. Why would you think so?

Reference:

"Not wanting to understand the effect of our statements on others -- not believing that we should try to anticipate our impacts on the people around us and mitigate the ones that might be individually harmful -- is in my opinion a serious breach of the social contract on which our functionality as humans utterly depends."

Compare:

"Nope. This is where being human gets complicated. Sartre wrote a whole book about it, in fact. You cannot demand that people experience the world in the way you do, or form the opinions that you form based on your premises and personal observations; each person has an internal context that cannot be shared, and which is ultimately the context that supplies them with meaning and interpretation."

Do you see the problem?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No.
You are confusing our ability to enforce the social contract with what it entails.

The social contract assumes that you take an interest in the thoughts and desires of the people around you, while recognizing that you cannot control their thoughts or desires. You can choose to not take an interest, and people are powerless to force you, but this decision on your part is a breach of that contract.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The only really surprising part to me, is Scifibum's apparent confusion, I don't personally think Noel is unclear when he posts. In fact, I think he's usually really clear and really good at reducing concepts to short narratives.
Perhaps it's a preaching to the choir effect.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You can choose to not take an interest, and people are powerless to force you, but this decision on your part is a breach of that contract."...

Okay, let's "take an interest in it". Square your hypothetical "offense" with an "internally consistent world-view".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah! I see the problem! You've obviously missed the places where I have said repeatedly that I'm not interested in justifying the feelings and beliefs of other people to you, but have suggested that you try to come up with justifications on your own as an exercise.

But let me turn back a couple pages and point to my original explanation: "I felt it might well resonate among certain of Obama's defenders with a 'well, you poor people don't even have to buy food, so you have it so easy!' layer of unintentional irony."

Can you extrapolate from that statement what I believe the most likely source of legitimate offense would be? You should try. But I repeat myself.

[ September 05, 2014, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You've obviously missed the places where I have said repeatedly that *I'm not interested in justifying the feelings and beliefs of other people to you*... "...

Then it is you who are violating your, so-called, "social contract"... correct?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
The only really surprising part to me, is Scifibum's apparent confusion, I don't personally think Noel is unclear when he posts. In fact, I think he's usually really clear and really good at reducing concepts to short narratives.
Perhaps it's a preaching to the choir effect.
You imply automatic agreement where I said understanding.

I don't find it challenging to understand what Al says either, and that's not preaching to the choir (at least on most issues so far). Tom in this thread, on the other hand, seems to me to be deliberately speaking to avoid being clear. A couple other posters do it from time to time as well.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Then it is you who are violating your, so-called, "social contract"... correct?
Nope. I have struggled repeatedly to understand your desires and motivations, here, especially since the things you've been asking of me have proven to not actually be the things you're wanting from me.

The social contract does not demand that I give you what you want or acquiesce to your desires; it demands that I try to understand and care about what you want (and, even more importantly, the reasons you might have for wanting what you do).

[ September 05, 2014, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The social contract... demands that I try to understand and care about what you want (and, even more importantly, the reasons you might have for wanting what you do)."...

I want to understand the "internally consistent world-view" that is *externally absurd* in its demand for exemption from moral consequence. Please have some empathy, and act upon our "contract".

For example; why are riots in Ferguson seen as secondary to alleged civil rights violations by local law enforcement? This is especially perplexing when Eric Holder assumes the prosecutor role in place of chief law enforcement officer in our nation.

Shouldn't he be especially "empathic" to Caucasian police threatened by drug-dealing, Crip affiliated, violent teenagers... who by chance of birth happen to be, to use your term, "darkly complected".

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For example; why are riots in Ferguson seen as secondary to alleged civil rights violations by local law enforcement?
Why is this question related to the issue of whether it is possible for someone to reasonably and logically be offended by the assertion that the only thing protecting Obama from the repercussions of scandal is his ancestry?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why is this question related to the issue of whether it is possible for someone to reasonably and logically be offended by the assertion that the only thing protecting Obama from the repercussions of scandal is his ancestry?"...

Please explain the apparent ease with which this prep-school elitist, who has zero personal street experience in the American black ethos, stirs up irrational racial tension via his justice department without a major rebuke?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, why would that be relevant? I don't mind answering it, I guess, but I thought we were talking about whether a reasonable person could be offended by an earlier specific statement of yours, not the entire racial/sociographic background of modern American politics.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread is becoming hilarious. How is it possible that a handful of supposedly intelligent people (one of whom may or may not have Aspergers), who all pay careful attention to political and social issues, CANNOT explain to each other what they mean or even what they are talking about? [Smile] [Big Grin]
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Again, why would that be relevant? I don't mind answering it, I guess... "

Good, proceed!

"... I thought we were talking about whether a reasonable person could be offended by an earlier specific statement of yours, not the entire racial/sociographic background of modern American politics."...

I would be pleased with a response to that also, but it seemed unmanageable for you. If you were simply holding out on me, take that one instead.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do we need to understand the motivations of people here when commenting on that is expressly against the forum rules? It seems such knowledge would only be useful for poisoning the well and attacking a person and ignoring what they actually say and their points. Of course those who wish to continue attacking others in lieu of actual substantive discussion will blow smoke and claim it's about getting "context" but that is transparently false.

We should discuss topics, not people here. It might help discussion if every post was anonymous with no name attached. It could prevent the endless personal attacks that go on here.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, what are you actually trying to talk about?

I think I've been pretty clear re: what I was talking about, which was this: that you frequently make bizarre and/or offensive statements, and that -- in response to your question -- it is easy to understand why some people might be offended by a specific statement of yours in this thread.

From my POV, you have been repeatedly challenging the last half of this "thesis." Initially I wondered whether you simply couldn't understand why it'd be offensive; now I think you're trying to argue that it's unreasonable or hypocritical for someone to be offended by your statement, a response I anticipated and frankly think I dealt with considerably earlier in the thread.

Are you going to try to make this thread into a conversation about racial politics in the Obama administration? That's not a topic in which I'm particularly interested, personally. If not, what are you trying to talk about?

----------

quote:
Why do we need to understand the motivations of people here when commenting on that is expressly against the forum rules?
Because "close your eyes while driving" is a stupid rule, even if some legislature passes it.

Specifically, in this situation, it would help to know what noel is trying to talk about because I've been answering every single question he's asked and yet he's still talking in circles.

[ September 05, 2014, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't realize sticking to subject matter and not deviating into personal attacks was akin to reckless driving. Interesting.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have answered every single question noel has asked, completely and succinctly (but for the one specific that I've been clear I think he should try to answer). But we're clearly not going where he wants to go. If turning left when he says to turn left isn't getting there, perhaps we can reach his intended destination more easily if he'd just say where he's trying to stop.

[ September 05, 2014, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why do we need to understand the motivations of people here when commenting on that is expressly against the forum rules? It seems such knowledge would only be useful for poisoning the well and attacking a person and ignoring what they actually say and their points. Of course those who wish to continue attacking others in lieu of actual substantive discussion will blow smoke and claim it's about getting "context" but that is transparently false.
There's some slight irony there. [Smile]
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah I understand. Life is so much simpler when we ignore what people are saying and instead respond to what we "know" they really mean. After all, who are THEY to tell us what they're thinking?! Clearly others know best.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What do you think that noel has been saying that I have ignored?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah I understand. Life is so much simpler when we ignore what people are saying and instead respond to what we "know" they really mean. After all, who are THEY to tell us what they're thinking?! Clearly others know best.
That sounds like exactly what you do with people whose opinions on guns don't line up with yours. Are you really unable to see that?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"noel, what are you actually trying to talk about?"...

What, actually, have you been avoiding?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh* I really need to teach you how to actually use the Socratic method. Simply asking a question in response to a question is not the way.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So this friday, just before the federal government shutdown, an info. dump from the administration casually revealed that the 2 agents from Cincinnati who were supposed to be the fall guy & girl have now lost their relevant emails.

But don't worry, the IRS evaluated all of this and determined that the IRS committed no wrongdoing.

Wouldn't trials be faster if we let the accused simply exonerate themselves?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, this seems just as suspicious as previous claims of intentional destruction of emails. It can't be random that all of these potentially relevant people independently and proactively lost their emails before any investigation was launched. It had to have been coordinated, which means the IRS uses some sort of software/hardware disablement protocol, since not all of their personnel are as computer-savvy about information destruction as Lerner. I would imagine the driver-virus-kernel-ware is installed surreptitiously on all federal computers and is triggered remotely by NSA operatives.

I can't think of any other more likely scenario why it keeps happening to just the right people at just the right time. That is, there is no other possible explanation beyond the expected failure rate (~2000/yr) of aging computers used by 90,000 individuals managed and overseen by underfunded IT using antiquated and inadequate technology.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So this friday, just before the federal government shutdown, an info. dump from the administration casually revealed that the 2 agents from Cincinnati who were supposed to be the fall guy & girl have now lost their relevant emails.

But don't worry, the IRS evaluated all of this and determined that the IRS committed no wrongdoing.

Wouldn't trials be faster if we let the accused simply exonerate themselves? [/qb]

Do you mean to say that they had their emails when the investigation started, but since that time their emails have disappeared, or that the emails have been lost, but investigators just now announced that information?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it means that anytime the IRS is asked about emails relating to this, that persons hard drive will have crashed (I lost count, is that a dozen now?) and the mandated backups are either lost as well or too hard to retrieve. It seems that everyone connected to the illegal activity the IRS engaged in had a faulty hard drive. Every. Single. One.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think it means that anytime the IRS is asked about emails relating to this, that persons hard drive will have crashed...
You may be underestimating just how many people investigators have demanded email from, and over how much time. Issa is forcing the IRS to spend a lot of time and money on this.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I read that in the course of this "investigation" it was found that 86 IRS computers belonging to people whose computers were looked at had been found to have suffered some sort of information loss in the previous 3 years. Most of the time emails during the span when the computers were out of action were found on other computers. In the case of these few newly reported - and astoundingly coincidental - cases, most of the emails were recovered from other people's computers or from servers.

Clearly, Lerner should have anticipated that, too, and found a way to destroy *everybody's* hard drives. What was she thinking?!?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We should do a math problem.

Suppose there are 90,000 employees, each has a hard drive with a mean time to failure of 5 years

Here is a typical pattern for hard drive failures,

quote:
For the first 1.5 years, drives fail at 5.1% per year.
For the next 1.5 years, drives fail LESS, at about 1.4% per year.
After 3 years though, failures rates skyrocket to 11.8% per year.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-long-do-disk-drives-last/

So lets do cumulative failures by year

Year Percent of fails Cumulative fails # employees
0-1.5 5.1% 5.1 4,590
1.5-3 1.4% 6.5 5,850
3-4 11.8% 18.3 16,470
4-5 11.8% 30.1 27,090
5-6 11.8% 41.9 37,710
6-7 11.8% 53.7 48,830
7-8 11.8% 65.5 58,950
8-9 11.8% 77.3 69,570
9-10 11.8% 89.3 80,370
10-11 10.7% 100% 90,000

So, after 11 years, essentially every person would be expected to have a hard drive failure.

However, the hardrives of the IRS had a shorter mean time to failure of 5 years (backblaze was using industrial drives, engineered for greater durability, not the cheaper crap that comes with most computers). So, instead of 11.8% per year, it was probably closer to 20% per year. Which would result in 100% failure around year 7.

So, given the known failure rate - there is inevitably a huge number of lost emails, not requiring any sort of bad faith on the part of the IRS.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1