Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: it worked (Score 2, Insightful) 47

On 30 August 2012, Hollywood star Clint Eastwood took the stage to lambast President Obama. What ensued was an odd, 11-minute monologue where Eastwood conversed with an empty chair upon which an imaginary Barack Obama sat.

it wasn't odd. it was the perfect distilled essence of the conservative movement - an elderly white guy yelling at his own imagined version of a black person.

Comment: Re:Massive conspiracy (Score 0) 465

by hamburger lady (#47259929) Attached to: IRS Lost Emails of 6 More Employees Under Investigation

i think you're misinformed. both Tea Party group and progressive group applications were scrutinized. no Tea Party groups were denied their application from what i remember, but at least one progressive group was. so no, this isn't the powerful silencing opposition and not approving one side whilst rubber-stamping the other.

Comment: Re:Massive conspiracy (Score 1, Insightful) 465

by hamburger lady (#47259925) Attached to: IRS Lost Emails of 6 More Employees Under Investigation

The IRS is hopelessly corrupt.

because they did their due diligence when it came to applications for tax-exempt status, or because of the lost emails?

if the former, why shouldn't the IRS scrutinize applications for a tax-exempt status which disallows political activity* where the applicant group has 'Tea Party' in its title and description? isn't the Tea Party pretty much by definition a political movement? they also scrutinized 'progressive' groups for the same reason (IIRC 'progressive' groups were the only ones denied status), but you don't hear people on capitol hill yelling about that.

should 501(c)(3) status just be handed out without the application receiving any scrutiny at all? or should conservative groups get a pass and only 'progressive' groups get scrutinized? i honestly don't understand what's the actual scandal here.

*substantive lobbying and campaigning IIRC.

Comment: Re:Sounds awesome except.... (Score 1) 191

that isn't true. under the new examiner count system allowances are weighed less. besides, you can easily get at least one continuation out of every application. so that's a count for the FAOM, the RCE, the subsequent FA and then maybe an allowance. hell, sometimes you can get 2 or more continuations on a case and something like 80+% of your counting is rejection-related.

Comment: Re:Well... (Score 4, Insightful) 493

by hamburger lady (#47119759) Attached to: Mutant Registration vs. Vaccine Registration

You should be able to go to a government web site and enter a persons name to check and see if they have vaccinations, STDs, etc.

nobody as far as i know is advocating a publicly-accessible database here, are they? we already have large data stores full of patient information and i still am not able to look up my neighbor's medical records on the internet.

Comment: Re:danger will robinson (Score 1) 688

by hamburger lady (#47066779) Attached to: Professors: US "In Denial" Over Poor Maths Standards

when i was in high school calc and we first learned derivatives, on the first exam i saved time because i happened to already know the power rule. fucking math teacher marked me wrong even though i got the right answer because we were supposed to do it the long way.

clearly, the way calculus is taught in schools is wrong and confusing. why not go right to the shortcut? it's the american way, after all.

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.