Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Minor Computer Flaw Frees State Prisoners

Posted by Zonk on from the prisoners-develope-interest-in-coding dept.

Ruvim writes "A Michigan State audit shows a software glitch let some prisoners get out early. From the article: 'The audit report shows errors in the release dates of 23 prisoners between October 2003 and March 2005. Some were let out early, while others were let out late... A flaw in computer programming caused State jails to release 8 prisoners anywhere from 39-161 days early, prisoners who were doing time for everything from embezzlement and drugs to bad check writing.'"

47 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Gracious Me! by geomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A whole 39 days early? Shit! They ought to hunt that bastard down and horsewhip them.

    I guess I don't see the 'crisis' in this other than these people were low-level, non-violent offenders. If a software glitch had let a Ted Bundy out for another killing spree, I would probably be more concerned.

    Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

    The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

    These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

    Rep. Rick Jones: " 8 people is too many. I understand the department found another 15, that's too many, even 1 is too many."

    Fuck that. Notice he shed no tears for the few that were held too long? I'm glad some of them got out early. The only sad thing in this story is that somebody got held longer than they should have.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Gracious Me! by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit. Considering the fact that theft is already a crime, I can't see how locking up people who are casual users and functioning addicts helps society at all.

      These prison systems are getting too complex, too expensive, and are locking too many people away for "their own good".

      It's essentially the Catholic Justice System. You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz. How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison? It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

    2. Re:Gracious Me! by geomon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's essentially the Catholic Justice System.

      I think the Baptists would take exception at your excluding them from this party. They like controlling people too.

      You're locked away not so much because of offenses you commit that harm other people, but for offenses that upset god and baby jesus and mother mary and all that jazz.

      And it is only getting worse. Every year some dumbass politician screws the whole world up with just six simple words: "There ought to be a law!"

      How else do you explain laws intended to punish 18 year olds having sex with same-sex 15 year olds with 17 years in prison, but punish 18 year olds having sex with female 15 year olds with 15 months in prison?

      You can't. Neither can you rationalize incarcerating a person who does drugs, keeps their job, pays their taxes, and doesn't commit any other criminal offense. They *try* to rationalize it by claiming that "they need treatment" as though the criminal justice system is any substitute for medical therapy.

      It's all about morality and just because something is considered "immoral" by many doesn't make it harmful to anyone.

      Aye. That about sums it up.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    3. Re:Gracious Me! by LaughingCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is

      That reminds me of a funny headline in the NYTimes. Paraphrased it said:

      Jails overflowing despite record low crime rates!"

      I doubled over laughing. The Times brainiacs actually didn't understand how the jails could have so many people in them when crime was down so much. Obviously, they deduced, this proved that the Bush administration was locking up innocent people. In reality they were actually too stupid (or blinded by their biases) to realize that crime was down BECAUSE the jails were full. Cause and affect. Go figure.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    4. Re:Gracious Me! by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fact is, we have WAAAAAY too many people in jail as it is. If we were to only charge and incarcerate those who pose a safety risk to the rest of society then you could probably monitor the entire population in half as many facilities with 1/3 of the correctional officers we have today.

      Unfortunately, some people who are not dangerous are not detered by anything short of prison. Even after some prison time, some will still repeat the offense. Look up Maricopa County's Tent City Jail.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    5. Re:Gracious Me! by geomon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In reality they were actually too stupid (or blinded by their biases) to realize that crime was down BECAUSE the jails were full. Cause and affect. Go figure.

      Yes, crime is down for several categories of the penal code. But if you keep adding categories, then the jails will never see a decrease in prison population.

      There are too many offenses that require jail time.

      --
      "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    6. Re:Gracious Me! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There' one flaw in that argument: If $DRUG was legal, people wouldn't need to give their money to some shady dealer who in turn gives his money to a drug syndicate. The FDA would make sure that there are certain standards it has to meet and the legal system would make sure that the huge corporations owning the market (if $DRUG === "marijuana" that would most probably be the tobacco companies) would stay mostly clean. Shady people would make less money because they couldn't compete with the mass production that the big corporations would do - and the prices associated with it. Especially if production and/or sale are coupled to strong regulation.

      Yes, most drugs (including alcohol and tobacco) are detrimental to one's time/revenue ratio, which is a reason to legislate against them. But "if people buy this stuff the money goes to bad people" is not, because the money only goes to bad people because no one else can sell the stuff.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:Gracious Me! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why, the American legal system certainly does a good job deterring me from ever moving there...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:Gracious Me! by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Meth and crack, at least, create a public safety hazard because users often exhibit dangerous behavior in public. With meth, there's a double whammy, because production is also hazardous. That's the main reason why the penalties for production and distribution of those sorts of drugs are so stiff.

      I don't really think there's a huge public safety hazard concerning weed (no more than alcohol, anyway, and generally only connected with driving), but there may be an economic productivity incentive to keep people off weed. That may be due as much to the stoner stereotype as to anything else, though. If weed is going to remain illegal, then personally, I think a fine and confiscation of contraband is appropriate punishment for possession of weed, up until you get to significant quantities (even street dealers of weed probably don't need to be thrown in prison as long as the fines are stiff enough that they can't make good money off of it).

    9. Re:Gracious Me! by The+Spoonman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they were growing their own drugs you would sort of have a point. But their meth/crack/weed money goes to some fairly nasty people (encouragement and power to them), who don't do drug stuff exclusively.

      Ah, so you're one of those "smoking pot leads to twin towers being blown up" theorists? Always good to get your opinions on drugs from mass-marketing media.

      And if it became accepted to do crack, and more people did it, less cool stuff would be done in the real world, because more people would have fun doing crack instead.

      I'm not sure I follow. You're saying if we can smoke crack absolutely no one would do anything else? I'd have to disagree with you there because I wouldn't smoke it. And, yes, I'm one of those evil potheads who funds terrorism. I did try to grow my own for moral reasons, but was too stoned all the time to get it right. Did I need to put sarcasm tags in there, or did you get it on your own?

      So, stfu.

      Well, you've brought out the "you disagree with me, so I've ceased listening" argument. Good for you! Way to make a point! Woot!

      Just because everyone and their sister smokes pot in the US doesn't mean it's a good thing.

      It also don't make it anything close to a bad thing.

      I'm not a believer in morality as an absolute, aka religious stuff, but if you put it into (beneficial|detractive) for (me|some group|society|the human race), I'd say drugs are on the detractive side.

      Well, congrats, you managed to eek out an opinion. A completely wrong opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. The only reason you believe drugs are on the detractive side of society is because you've failed to do any real research on the issue. Yes, drugs can be devastating to SOME individuals, but not everyone who picks up a crack pipe will end up turning tricks in an alley for their next fix. You take away the drugs completely, they'll find some other way to destroy their lives. You need to fight the root issue, not the symptoms.

      Maybe not for the individual crackhead (probably though), but the laws are (ideally, some crap exists) there to guide society onto a route that is beneficial for society, not dopeheads.

      Well, I'm glad that you're not one of those all-knowing religious moralists who believes that they know the path society should head and wants to implement all kinds of laws that lead it in their direction. No, you're an all-knowing NON-religious moralist who believes that they know the path society should head and wants to implement all kinds of laws that lead it in your direction.

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    10. Re:Gracious Me! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's seemed to work fairly well for the past dozen or so years as prison sentences, particularly for violent felonies, have gotten stiffer and fewer inmates have been released. This tracks reasonably well with the decrease in violent crime. Even as the economy soured at the end of 2000/beginning of 2001 and continued to remain soft for the next couple of years, crimes didn't increase all that much.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    11. Re:Gracious Me! by Chrononium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow. That statement wasn't laced with intolerance. Naw. I mean, heck, you could even be a Chinese army official carrying out the extermination of Tibetans because well ... their system is religious and therefore silly. Why would anyone want religion when you can offer progress?

      Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better. Sounds like you're the same type of person as those other people ... you care passionately about how to determine good from bad. Law is where society as a whole comes together and lays down the morality of the majority because nearly all functioning human beings care deeply about morality.

      To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society. A minor does not necessarily have that same freedom (because of other laws, like child labor laws). That restriction is important because it sends a clear signal to those tempted to drop out of school that there will be barriers (and also theoretically involves the parents, implying a certain strength of the family). Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion. High school drop outs usually are a liability to society, unable to produce much with their lives (they influence limited amounts of happiness). That family having to support their child for a longer period of time will spend less money. Furthermore, this effects the amount of retirement funds allocated to the family and to the child. A high school graduate will not be able to put in as much into the social security system as a college graduate. This stresses an already stressed (perhaps even broken) system. This law is in support of family. And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well. Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.

      Don't assume the problem is so small.

    12. Re:Gracious Me! by Scaba · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's the Corporate Justice System. Prisoners make fine cheap laborers for a good number of American corporations, as well as a profit center for said corporations and privately run correctional facilities. Now do you understand why having some reefer is an imprisonable offense? It's always the dollars. (Not surprisingly, Tom DeLay has profitted from prison profit centers. Hopefully someone will now profit from his imminent incarceration...)

    13. Re:Gracious Me! by HoboMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, moral stewardship is a Calvinistic holdover from the Puritans who came to America. The whole "we need to make sure everyone else does the right thing" way of thinking is what our country was founded on. Yay Puritanism! Today's history lesson brought to you by the letters W, T, and F.

      --
      Remember kids, tin foil doesn't work, so use LeadHat.
    14. Re:Gracious Me! by Black+Diamond · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is something that has always bothered me. Working at a movie theatre, the subject of high popcorn prices has always been near and dear to my heart. I can tell you that movie theatres pretty much survive based on the profit they can extract from the concession stand. The reason prices are so high are so that the theatres can actually stay in business. If everyone stopped buying from the concession stand than movie theatres would go out of business. Oh, but you'll say what about the $10 ticket prices. Well, fine you want lower ticket prices, I'm sure you personally are willing to write a letter to Tom Cruise and ask him not to want so much money for the next movie he does. That's right, nearly all the money from ticket sales goes straight to Hollywood(or whoever happened to make the movie).

      While, yes, there are definitely some problems with movie theatres on the whole. I don't think we're at a point where the movie experience can realistically be simulated in the home. Yes you can get a HD 42" plasma and a sweet 6.1 channel surround sound system, however it still doesn't compare to the awesomeness of seeing a movie at the theatre.

      So, if you don't want to pay the ridiculously high price for popcorn than don't. That's entirely fine with me. Just don't cry if/when you're local cinema goes out of business. Also, don't bitch about it to other people.

    15. Re:Gracious Me! by Martz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One excellent argument I have heard regarding the decriminalisation of drugs was from Howard Marks while he was giving a talk at the Glastonbury Festival.

      The main argument was that Heroin and other Class A drugs should be made freely available to addicted abusers. At first I was stunned, and thought "Why the hell should we?" However, when explained further it made perfect sense. Any heroin addict who can register for free with his Doctor/GP and can get his hit on time 7 days a week - isn't going to go out stealing from homes and robbing people in the streets. Without the need for money to fuel their addiction, there would be less minor crime. Since the addict wouldn't be paying 100x the real price for the drug from a drug dealer - there would be less organised crime. There wouldn't be as many gangs who control distribution of drugs throughout areas, there would be less money to go around and they would have to find some other way to make their money illegitimately. There should be less of an insurance premium to pay on cars, houses and personal property because of the reduction of crime. There was some statistic thrown about that around 40% of crime is due to drug addiction.

      In the end, regardless of the details - we have a choice to make for society as a whole. People will become try and become addicted to substances no matter how illegal we make them or how severe the punishment. So given the choice - who would you like to see sell drugs? A regulated goverment controlled industry? Or drug dealing gangs who use violence and crime to achieve their control over the drug abusers? Us, or them? - so to speak.

      And of course, to give away hard drugs like heroin doesn't mean that you should give a 12 year old girl a bag full of crack if she happens to want to try it for the first time. Addicts need treatment by professionals, and getting them to the Doctors to get their hit would allow for control, monitoring and hopefully treatment in the future. With less dealers, there should be less of a temptation for first time users to become entangled in that lifestyle.

      Most people I have tried to "sell" this idea too think I am crazy, and that drug addicts should all be shot and removed from the planet - until it's their son/daughter/brother/sister who is laying in a heap in the middle of the road, eyes rolling into the back of their heads and dribbling vomit onto their dirty clothes. When that hits, and you hear of an alternative to their destructive lifestyle - you wonder why we don't change societies ways.

    16. Re:Gracious Me! by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better.

      Law and morality, althoug related, are not the same thing. If you think that actions which don't harm others are nonetheless wrong, then fine, that's your opinion. But you need a stronger argument than that to show why we should put such people in prison.

      If one's argument is that the law should enforce (your interpretation of) God's will, then sure, you can say their opinion is just as valid as my opinion of what the law should be. But that's exactly what the OP was pointing out when he called it the "Catholic Justice System" - ie, law which enforces the rules of a religion.

      To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society.

      Not when they're in prison they don't. If you're so worried about people's productivity, why are we so eager to put them in prison because their actions might have led to someone getting pregnant whilst as school, and then might drop out of school?

      Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion.

      Yes, it's well known that sex between same-sex members can produce children, that's why we punish them even more harshly!

      Don't you see? Try to justify it all you like, but these laws are not explained by the problems of teenage pregnancy.

      And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well.

      I take it you've factored in the productivity lost by locking up people (even where it didn't result in pregnancy), or the cost to keep them in prison?

      Also, do you advocate raising the age of consent to 21 - after, we can't have people dropping out of University. Perhaps we should clamp down on it altogether - we can't have people's careers being affected by childbirth.

      Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.

      Erm, evidence? Here in the UK our families are doing quite well, and our national health system, though under strain, is still something better than the US.

      As for retirement, that is a problem due to having too few children! If anything, we need to encourage people to have more children, even at a younger age.

    17. Re:Gracious Me! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a different story. California for the last year or two has been experimenting with a mandatory detox program for first offenses (and I think also first offense past the date of passage in case of repeat offenders). I'm not sure how well that's done at this point. I should go look.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  2. If I had to code such thing... by mi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I too would be tempted to, say, compare a hash of the prisoner's name with that of mine...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Consolation. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    On the bright side, they'll be getting their free subsidized digital television converter boxes any day now. Welcome to freedom, gentlemen!

  4. It must have been Linux by Omnieiunium · · Score: 4, Funny

    because it is free!!!!

    I am sorry. Very sorry.

  5. Minor Flaw? by futurekill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the hell is considered a major flaw?

    --
    The gates in my computer are AND, OR and NOT; they are not Bill.
  6. Minor glitch ? by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope the software is run on Windows... If my bank was off by that much even once, I'd get a new bank!

    I'm not saying that mistakes don't happen, but that's bad! Fortunately no one like John Wayne Gayce was let out mistakenly.

    What are the odds that the 'software glitch' has a SSN and enjoys fast food?

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:Minor glitch ? by TheGavster · · Score: 2, Funny

      If I were the guys released late, I'd definately get incarcerated in another jurisdiction next time ... maybe someplace with the early release bug instead.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  7. now if only..... by dclaw · · Score: 4, Funny

    they would end my probation early!

    --
    feeling lonely? grab a balled up pillow for company
  8. Well... by Chickenofbristol55 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even though it was only a month early, who is to say this "minor.... ahem" computer glitch couldn't let people go years earlier than planned. Also, shouldn't jails use both computer and physical data to make absolutely sure they are doing things properly? I know someone is going to comment to this saying that I'm wrong and that it would take too much space for all those filing cabinets, but I say that this is a perfect example of how I'm right. If they had another medium to check their data, this minor computer glitch could have been found and fixed, with no mess-ups.

    --
    public class null extends java applet { System.out.print ("Tabula Rasa"); }
  9. Obligatory Remix by BandwidthHog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft: Minor Computer Flaws Imprison Free States

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  10. Released prisoners late? by totallygeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Uh, if I were doing time, you better believe I would be aware of my official release date!

    --
    Click here or here.
    1. Re:Released prisoners late? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having had a "friend" involved in the corrections system I find the article missing some key information. Most states hand out time with both a minimum and a maximum sentence. So, far example, one might get a 3 1/2 to 7 year sentence. This means you may get out on parole after 3 1/2 years but if they don't want to let you go they can keep you 7 years. Also, sometimes one could get time taken off the minimum sentence for participating in various "programs" or for "good behaviour" but the max usually stays where it started. So, what I want to know is this: Did they keep them earlier/later than their minimum sentence or maximum sentence? If one got kept later than their minimum sentence, there is no legal recourse because technically they can keep you to the max. If they let you out before your minimum sentence then they really screwed up in letting you out earlier. If they let you out later then your maximum sentence then they really screwed up and could face a lawsuit. Anything in the middle would just suck for one side, but not be a legal issue.

  11. More technical information? by CyricZ · · Score: 2

    Can anyone provide more technical information regarding this flaw? What sort of hardware were these systems running on? What operating system(s)? Who wrote the software itself, what language was it written in, and what was the exact cause of the flaw? Was it a database flaw? If so, which database product was it?

    Indeed, we need more technical details.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  12. Programmer was obviously just having some fun with by Corun · · Score: 2, Funny

    if((rand() % 2) == 0) sentence -= (rand() % 123 + 39); Either that or memory corruption. I'd bet on the former :-D

  13. The opposite happened In Dallas TX by billsoxs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About 9 months ago, The Dallas (county) Sheriff's office installed a new prisoner tracking program and LOST some of the prisoners. No, they did not let them out, they were still in jail but they could not find them. (Even the prisoner's lawyers could not find them!) Here is an example: http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stor ies/052905dnmetjailstuck.f2f1f79c.html

    --
    This message was brought to you by "Lack of Sleep."
    1. Re:The opposite happened In Dallas TX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Me. The Third World consists of countries aligned with neither the United States nor the Soviet Union. The United States is by definition a first-world country and will always be.

  14. Let out late... by sholden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd be more worried about those that got let out late. Surely that's ground for a lawsuit and some damages. Not to mention ciminal charges against those that illegally kept people in prison.

  15. Human rights issues by infolib · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real victims in this case are the ones who were kept longer in jail without conviction. It's quite scary that no one at WLNS apparently cares about them. A toast to the future of the american justice system. I hope it has one.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  16. Summary of PDF someone linked by xenotrout · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem seems to be more than software or hardware. A state law created a sentence-length committee or ruleset that was not fully communicated to the Department of Corrections (DOC). The DOC tried to interpret the information they had and came up with a manual for calculating a prisoner's release date. This manual includes two non-automated methods of calculating a simple release date, and some informal rules for calculating release dates in general. The DOC later wrote (or contracted out the writing of) the program that automatically calculates release dates.

    The audit being reported compared the computer computation with the two non-automated methods and found that none of the three gave the same results. Not only was the software inconsistant with the manual, but the manual was self-inconsistant. The software may have actually used the right calculation, but the audit seemed unable to determine what the right calculation was (because of the confusing state law mentioned earlier).

  17. computer flaw? how about organisation flaw? by J0nne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have two questions:
    1. Why don't they check the (paper!) documents they got from the judge or whoever to check if they really were sheduled to go out that day?
    2. Why didn't those let out late complain? I'm sure the first thing they did when they got there, was circling the date they were sheduled to get out on their calender. (or whatever paper they have handy). How can they not notice that they passed that date by x weeks?

    This story as usually raises more questions than it answers...

    OT rant: Damn you, shallow news outlets! If a plane crashes, we get every small detail about what happened on which second, and what systems failed, but when it's about computer problems, all they can tell us is a 'glitch' or a 'crash' happened because they think it would be 'too technical'. Just tell exactly what the problem was, and if people don't understand completely, it's not going to kill them.

    1. Re:computer flaw? how about organisation flaw? by KylePflug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but your latter complaint is mis-directed. News outlets dumb everything down, not just computer stories. You only think they don't dumb airplane stories down because you're (apparently) not a pilot. I am, and I can tell you that very rarely do they give much useful information in a news report -- you have to go to the NTSB for that, and half they time they don't explain well either.

      The problem is, of course, audience. News outlets don't report to computer nerds or to pilots, they report to everybody. If plane crash stories had all sorts of mechanical details about the engine or talked in detail about IFR flight plans, angles of attack, ground effect, wingtip vortices, airspace restrictions, etc., the average computer nerd would be bewildered.

      It took me a year and a half to get my pilot's license, a few months to get my A+ cert. They leave out just as much in reporting the former.

  18. Re:IANAL So Questions For Those Who Know by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why wouldn't it? Yes, it's fraud - unlike situations where you were *voluntarily* extended credit. If you don't repay a debt, it's ultimately the problem for the person or business that chose to take the *risk* that you'd repay as promised. If you write a check, you're signing a paper promising that the amount of funds written on it will be paid. If those funds really aren't there, you've misrepresented the situation. In a way, it's much more akin to paying with counterfeit money you printed up in advance than to refusing to pay on a loan.

  19. The story is -way- to vague... by stvangel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This says nothing about the underlying problem. Was the release date incorrectly scheduled from the start? Did it change mysteriously while the person was incarcerated? Did the system just incorrectly say "Release this guy" on a random day? Did it give the wrong person to be released? If so, was there any similarities between the two inmates? There just isn't enough information here to make any guesses.

    Was it a contractor or an in-house developed project would also be interesting. As well as what happened to the inmates who were released late? Is it just "tough luck" for them?

    Does anyone have any additional information?

  20. Re:hmmm by drooling-dog · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure he was referring to people who steal $100 or less, or can't afford bail. If you grab $10 million or more, you're not a criminal, you're a prospective campaign contributor...

  21. Someone should remind Representative Rick Jones... by kronocide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...that once you have served your time you are again a citizen. So why is it more upsetting that criminals are released early than that citizens are kept locked up in prison? I think that is at least as problematic.

  22. Re:Terrible representative by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    No, he really meant bad check writers.

    No; he really meant bad Czech writers. It was a reference to Tedd Sallay and Josef Simanek.

  23. This would suck... by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Finally, my parole hearing has come and I'm ready to see my family again!"

    "No, actually, it says here that you're scheduled for execution. Any last requests?"

  24. Well, sorta... by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, you don't give a shit about that. Just so long as some person next door isn't getting shitfaced on dope. He can get drunk off his ass, but God Forbid that he do meth.

    Just my prospective: personally, I think abusing anything of any kind (drugs, alcohol, food, gambling, Japanese school girl panties vending machines, whatever) is bad for the mind and body--but also for any kind of close relation, especially children... Without getting into morals and that crap, my argument is based on the relative damage an activity can do to a person.

    I've seen too many people taken out by some of the more common stuff: alcohol, gambling, tobacco, marijuana (often as the gateway drug to other worse stuff), and it sucks. These are all things that can be done casually, but too much of it destroys people, families, and sometimes even generations. However, the speeds at which these things destroy a person/family vary greatly. Meth and other hardcore drugs, which significantly alter brain chemistry instantaneously, should be policed very tenaciously, because there is no way to use them casually.

    I'll limit myself to two anecdotes: 1: these guys who used to own an engine machine shop I frequented somehow got involved with meth. It was an instant and violent transformation. One month, they were regular Joes, hardworking, and successful. The next month, they didn't do much work at all, the month after, they would take customers money to pay for their habits. In the period of six months, the once previously very beautiful (model quality, honest) wife of one of the greasers looked like she would pull tricks on the local boulevard for a high (no doubt in my mind that this is the case), and every one of their three (14, 16, 18 y.o.) daughters was pregnant. Ouch. Shortly after this, they got busted for making meth, and last I seen them, the daughters were looking quite a bit like your average geriatric. These guys were above average intelligence, but they still managed to destroy at least a dozen lives--in less than a year.

    The other: the older brother of my grandmother. He's been a pothead since way before it was fashionable. Apparently, back when my great-grandmother was still alive, the whole of our family was fairly well to do, and they could afford all of the toys they ever wanted. When he got into weed (not alcohol, or anything else), he proceeded to fuck up every classic car the family had. 50's and 60's Corvettes, Cadilacs, Chevy's, anything you can imagine, they had it, he mangled it. Since great gamma died, he's squandered literally tens of millions of dollars of property, antiques, cars, and businesses. It's really too bad she was so senile when she wrote the will, because he got most of what was left over. Like I said, he's always been a pothead, but his daughter is now a meth head with 4 kids: one pregnant 13 year old, one incredibly obese 15 year old son, a 17 year old with 2 kids of her own, and one dead.

    And this is why I say that anyone who says that weed doesn't fuck some people over is full of BS. Indeed, I've smoked, at first just to see what it was all about, and just because it's not a one-way road to misery like some other drugs. I must say that I'm not especially impressed, but it's fun to do socially anyway. No doubt, there are people that can handle it but there's always some weak willed asshole that will succumb to even mildly addictive behaviors. This is why I'm NOT against legalization. Once people get over its taboo quality, they'll realize it's just not that great.

    --
    Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  25. Re: administering controlled drugs by Slayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Repeatedly I read the theory that all (or most) drug related crimes and activities would misteriously go away if those drugs would be administered by trained professionals who would only give them to those who really need them.

    There exist drugs which are handed out like this (all prescription drugs) and yet there also exists a blooming black market for those. Just read your favourite spam if you don't believe me. So if the concept doesn't work for Cialis, Viagra, Prozac and whatever they are called (I'm just citing from the spam I get), why would this suddenly work with heroin, crack and cannabis ?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most addicts start thinking about ending their addiction for the first time once they are confronted with a criminal court (i.e. get a drastic picture of their situation) ? The vast majority of drug addicts will only go to those doctors voluntarily if no questions are asked but certainly not to break with their habbits or to go through often painful treatment (just read the conspiracy theories about methadone as substitute for heroin out there!).

  26. Wow... by TheLink · · Score: 3, Funny

    Talk about free software :).

    --