Slashdot Mirror


Bernie Madoff's Programmers Arrested

ZipK writes "With their former boss cooling his heels on a 150-year sentence, programmers Jerome O'Hara and George Perez are now in the US Attorney's crosshairs. They've been arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy, and 'accused of producing false documents and trading records at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in New York.' Apparently Madoff's fraud was too large and too complex to be foisted entirely by hand."

280 comments

  1. Moral of the story: by alecto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you destroy evidence, make sure you destroy the backups, too.

    1. Re:Moral of the story: by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Moral of the story: by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you destroy evidence, make sure you destroy the backups, too.

      Also, make sure you destroy evidence of your destruction of evidence and backups.

    3. Re:Moral of the story: by mayko · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If you destroy evidence, make sure you destroy the backups, too.

      Also, make sure you destroy evidence of your destruction of evidence and backups.

      And don't forget to destroy evidence of your destruction of your destruction of evidence and backups.

    4. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Should have used perl.

    5. Re:Moral of the story: by confused+one · · Score: 1

      this things so big, the only way to destroy all the evidence is to hack into Russian missile command and launch the nukes aimed at the U.S. -- Oh, and a well timed trip to a nice country somewhere in the southern hemisphere might be a good idea.

    6. Re:Moral of the story: by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      >>> If you destroy evidence, make sure you destroy the backups, too.

      >> Also, make sure you destroy evidence of your destruction of evidence and backups.

      > And don't forget to destroy evidence of your destruction of your destruction of evidence and backups.

      But always make backups!

      Wait...something's wrong here...

      I know, claim that since your WiFi access point is unsecured, someone could have hacked the system! "Yeah, it was a virus from a popup or a hacker or something that did that!"

    7. Re:Moral of the story: by skine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget to destroy the evidence of your destruction of the evidence of the destruction of the evidence and backups and its backups and its backups.

    8. Re:Moral of the story: by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't forget to destroy the evidence of your destruction of the evidence of the destruction of the evidence and backups and its backups and its backups.

      This is going to turn into one of two things: A painting of Stephen Colbert, or an episode of Black Adder.

      I'm good with either outcome, really.

    9. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

      Don't feel too sorry for Bernie, with good behavior he'll be out in 100 !

    10. Re:Moral of the story: by Wuhao · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

      Polanski's corollary: Stay there.

    11. Re:Moral of the story: by OnlineAlias · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the problem is they were sending out statements. Those statements were theoretically based on input from the markets, after the amounts were made bigger by the black box which was Madoff's investment "strategy". Once the black box was determined to be a fraud, the programmers were done, because they implemented the black box. At that point ,no amount of deleting was going to get them out of being implicated.

    12. Re:Moral of the story: by goga_russian · · Score: 1

      how does it go anyone remember? in Soviet Russia... well no one extradites you ! :) Welcome to Russia. Ahoy Mateys.

      --
      Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
    13. Re:Moral of the story: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Exactly why you create a fictitious contractor.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I was going to start hearing vikings singing.

    15. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then with that logic (which sounds good to me), why weren't these programmers arrested earlier.

    16. Re:Moral of the story: by popo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Popo's corollary: And if you're a far bigger criminal enterprise (cough, Goldman Sachs, cough, JPMC) kick back and laugh as the Justice system locks up the small fry's.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    17. Re:Moral of the story: by ivoras · · Score: 1

      Isn't this turning into a "would you blame the gun factory for murder" kind of thing? If they did what they've been asked / payed to do, from given specification, what exactly are they guilty of?

      OTOH, is a sysadmin taking care of a server (the usual - network, power, disk drives, backups, etc.) guilty if he knows the server issues fraudulent bank orders and doesn't report it? Seems kind of gray area. Possibly varies across jurisdictions.

      --
      -- Sig down
    18. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that, is that most countries without extradition treaties to the US tend to be war torn shit holes. You're probably better off in jail.

    20. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say that again

    21. Re:Moral of the story: by daveime · · Score: 1

      Like that war torn shithole Dubai, with the only 7 star hotel in the world ?

    22. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could have simply written a system that madoff configured himself.

    23. Re:Moral of the story: by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      This is frighteningly close to making me think about automata. I didn't like that class too much.

    24. Re:Moral of the story: by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's like saying if you intend to stick your fingers in the meat grinder, you ought to keep something you can use as a tourniquet handy. It's true, in a completely useless way.

      These guys were helping with the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. The reason that Ponzi schemes are illegal is that *they are destined to collapse*. When you're helping run the biggest one ever, it's going to be the biggest crash and burn ever. Evading the consequences means moving as much cash as you can overseas, planning to change your identity, and getting the hell out of Dodge a *long* time before you think you might need to. And that's assuming you don't trip the money laundering detectors, which you certainly will.

      Madoff and these guys for a very, very brief time had a model nobody else had, and it depended on computation to do things faster than anybody else had ever tried to. But it didn't take long for other people to copy the general idea, Instead of patting themselves on the back for being so clever, pocketing the huge profits they made, then moving on to the next thing, they decided to *pretend* their advantage could go on forever. You have to think they were mentally ill on some level, because they *had* to have known they'd be caught. Somehow they must have had a need that went deeper than money, a need to be regarded as brilliant beyond ordinary mortals, if only for a limited time.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:Moral of the story: by caywen · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they weren't doing just doing svn delete.

    26. Re:Moral of the story: by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      "If you destroy evidence, make sure you destroy the backups, too."

      No, that would be the Immoral of the Story.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    27. Re:Moral of the story: by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      And when a new flu virus hits, remind the Government that they won't get their money back if everyone dies, so you'll get the vaccinations first.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    28. Re:Moral of the story: by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, like someone on the run could afford to stay there. To afford a life like that, you'd have to ... I don't know ... maybe find a way to steal billions of dollars, or work for someone who did. Oh, wait ...

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    29. Re:Moral of the story: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget to destroy the evidence of your destruction of the evidence of the destruction of the evidence and backups and its backups and its backups.

      ...and don forget to DoS /.

    30. Re:Moral of the story: by glgraca · · Score: 1

      Making guns is quite different because the manufacturer can a least say that he doesn't know what they will be used for. They could be used for protection (which is perfectly legal) or they could be used for crime.

      In this case, these men were asked to do something very specific, the consequences of which you don't have to be particularly smart to realise. A printer can't say he was just doing as his client told him if he was asked to print fake money.

    31. Re:Moral of the story: by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Its not remotely the same. The gun maker is not responsible because there are legal uses for the gun and he has no idea it will be eventually used in crime.
       
      If he did say sell you a gun after you showed up at the factory outlet store and said, "hey I need something to kill my wife and knock over the bank afterward can you recommend something?" that would be another matter, they would be complicit in the crimes.
       
      You're sysadmin example is pretty much the same thing. Lets pretend the server was a proliant, HP is certainly not culpable; you are if you *know* or reasonably should *know* the server is being used for crime and you are enabling it to operate.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    32. Re:Moral of the story: by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Popo's corollary: And if you're a far bigger criminal enterprise (cough, Goldman Sachs, cough, JPMC) kick back and laugh

      The guy who came-up with the Bernie-Madoff-stylle pyramid scheme called social security should be shot.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  2. But by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So tell me, when are they going to go after the programmers at Goldman Sachs?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:But by XPeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Goldman programmers aren't the problem. The lobbyists are.

      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:But by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      when are they going to go after the god damn CRIMINALS at Goldman Sachs.

    3. Re:But by J4 · · Score: 1

      Bloomberg is the guy to nail. It all started with his magic box.

    4. Re:But by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1
      You kidding? They're just doing the work of the Lord.

      “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest,” Goldman’s Griffiths said Oct. 20, his voice echoing around the gold-mosaic walls of St. Paul’s Cathedral, whose 365-feet-high dome towers over the City, London’s financial district. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.”

    5. Re:But by khallow · · Score: 1

      So tell me, when are they going to go after the programmers at Goldman Sachs?

      Because the US is a nation of laws and you have to break a law first before they can go after you.

    6. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction.. you have to get CAUGHT breaking the law.

    7. Re:But by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when was it a crime to have a former CEO in charge of the US Treasury, who has an obvious financial interest in the firm's survival?
      Since when was it a crime to be the exclusive market maker in CDS, after your two major competitors go out of business, giving you a completely risk-free profit on bit-ask spreads?
      Since when was it a crime to upgrade a company whose stock offering you are underwriting?

    8. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because the US is a nation of laws

            George Bush proved that wrong.

      you have to break a law first before they can go after you.

            Unless the programmers were committing fraud by asking people for investment money with no intention to return it, how are they breaking the law? I'm unaware that Madoff was hacking people's computers, creating viruses, or even downloading copyrighted movies.

            If you're a programmer hired to write a financial or accounting program, and never given information as to how that program is going to be actually used - how are you breaking the law? Hell if this logic applies, go after Microsoft too because I'm sure that Madoff used Microsoft Word to send mail to some of his clients.

            OK perhaps there's some detail we don't know, and will find out at trial - perhaps some programmers were in on the fact that it was a scam. However this reeks to me of overzealous prosecutors trying to spread as much blame around as possible. Hell they could start with arresting the SEC for never investigating the guy, in that case.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:But by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all."

      Apparently this guy is either in denial or is ignorant about what GS is actually doing -- it is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others. In fact, they provide the reverse -- they impoverish the rest of us.

      But what should we expect from them? When I was young (a long time ago), the banks did not hire the brightest people -- they hired the second rate school leavers -- bright enough to do well at school, but not go on to university.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:But by ShatteredArm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hell they could start with arresting the SEC for never investigating the guy, in that case.

      THIS

      The SEC had been tipped off on this scam at least three years before it "surfaced."

    11. Re:But by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's easy: when there is evidence that they committed a crime.

      Goldman Sachs's behavior is probably completely legal (that doesn't mean it's morally right, just legal). Also, it's extremely unlikely that programmers working in the bowels of the big investment banks (GS, MS, BoA) are in on any lawbreaking that does occur.

      It seems like these guys made several stupid mistakes:
      - Being loyal to Madoff et al once they knew what was going on.
      - Being willing to lie to the FBI and/or SEC.
      - Taking big bonuses to keep their mouth shut.
      - Staying in the country after the house of cards fell apart.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:But by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What law did they allegedly break?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:But by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Informative

      perhaps some programmers were in on the fact that it was a scam

      FTFA:

      [according to the prosecutor] The computer codes and random algorithms they allegedly designed served to deceive investors and regulators and concealed Madoff's crimes

      At one point they tried to cover their tracks by erasing files, but did an incomplete job.

      After that, the SEC said DiPascali convinced the programmers to modify programs so that he and other employees could create [fake] reports themselves.

      ... which indicates that although they might have been bothered by what they were doing, they weren't bothered enough to quit,or call in the Feds themselves, or take any other redeeming action.

      Granted, they're innocent until proven guilty, etc., but it appears they were in this up to their ears.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    14. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others.

            So long as I can still make money day trading on the stock market, I don't care. And I CAN still make money.

            The high speed trading provides liquidity. I need someone to buy stock from me or sell stock to me. Without these traders, I'd place a bid/ask and wait. And wait. And wait. And maybe I'd get my price. Maybe I wouldn't, in which case I'd waste both my time and the missed opportunity. When you're day trading you usually need to get in and out FAST. Doing otherwise is called "investing", not day trading.

            What concerns me is the ability of a multi-trillion dollar company to have access to more information than you (ie, level 3), and since they are brokers possibly the ability to track and uniquely identify shares. So they can, in theory, know who bought what at what price and therefore who is holding what thanks to databases, and thus use their vast resources to pressure people into closing/covering their positions to their advantage. THAT is unfair and should be illegal. It's akin to knowing the order of cards in a deck. It's an unfair advantage. However without breaking into their proprietary computer records, we'll never know if something like this is actually happening. It probably is.

            The good thing is, as a little fish, it's not my 1000 share or so transactions that is going to make them want to single me out to screw me over. I pity the banks and mutual funds, however.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:But by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      They went after a couple executives at GS, and the prosecutors totally botched the case (being a bit of a tin-foil hatter, I believe the Powers That Be might have had a hand in the awful prosecution).

      But GS is above such scrutiny anyway... why would they break the law when they can just make sure the law is changed to benefit them?

      If you're going to prosecute GS, you'd be better off finding a way to prosecute the legislators and regulators who allow GS (and others) to skim the cream off the nation's collective labors.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    16. Re:But by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest

      Ah yes. A great Biblical scholar. All Biblical scholars know that Jesus definitely was trying to protect self-interest. So was Paul, when he said

      Philippians 2:3 (New International Version)
      Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.

      And Jesus when He talked about being meek, humble, lowly, generous, forgiving, feeding the poor, clothing the naked. And the rest of the Bible when it talks about humility, that God hates the pride, that God "sides" with the humble, that God resists the proud, that God sees the poor and needy, that God judges the unjust - especially when they are rich and they unjustly treat the poor ...

      Definitely "an endorsement of self-interest." Frankly, I would guess that Griffiths has never read the Bible but pulled that quote from somewhere because he was in St. Paul's Cathedral and thus wanted to appear religious in some way. To most people that actually have read the Bible and even more so to people that believe it, he only comes off as being ignorant and just using the words of Jesus to excuse his own selfishness and greed (also talked about in the Bible in quite condemning terms). Not sure that's what he meant to do.

    17. Re:But by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 0, Redundant

      When lobbyists are outlawed, only outlaws will have lobbyists.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    18. Re:But by werfele · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless the programmers were committing fraud by asking people for investment money with no intention to return it, how are they breaking the law?

      I understand Madoff would provide quarterly statements showing a more-or-less constant rate of return, listing fictitious trades that would justify the rate of return, using knowledge of actual prices in the past quarter to get the numbers to come out just right (which is easy enough in hindsight). I'm all for presuming these guys innocent, but I think your outrage is misplaced. It's hard to imagine a spec for this software that wouldn't be at least a bit suspicious, so you can hardly blame them for looking into the programmers.

    19. Re:But by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Using day trading to justify the existence of GS... This is an interesting angle, have you considered writing a book?

      --
      +1 Disagree
    20. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Bush proved that wrong.

      Well, I stopped taking you seriously. Thanks for doing that before your long post, though you should have let me know earlier in the thread that you're a moron, since I read through your other post.

    21. Re:But by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Since when was it a crime to have a former CEO in charge of the US Treasury, who has an obvious financial interest in the firm's survival?

      Could be seen as a conflict of interest.

      --
      signature is pants
    22. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, me, me.

    23. Re:But by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that Madoff used Microsoft Word to send mail to some of his clients.

      I'm sure he made his calculations using Powerpoint too.

      Actually, that would explain a lot...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    24. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Using day trading to justify the existence of GS...

            Not at all. Where do I justify GS?

            I am justifying high speed/frequency trading. After all, I approximate it myself, only not with software and special connections to trading computers. Just knowing what I expect, having my closing order set up, going in and getting the hell out the second I've made what I wanted to make. I'd rather make $20 20 times a day than try to make $400 once. It's a lot easier.

      GS is much more than just that high speed/frequency trading. I disagree with companies like GS. I don't believe in "too big to fail", I believe in "too big to exist". I think their very size encourages greed, corruption and the economy of a nation. But that's a whole other argument.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    25. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The basic problem is - how can you write the programs and databases to produce fake trades and statements without having a clue what they are for and that the use is for fraud?
      The only logical defence is "it was an AS400 and nobody can figure out RPG-II code."
      I have trouble imagining that Madoff was such a whiz that he could take a harmless program and use it to construct a $50M fraud.

      If you program this stuff and deliberately ignore what it's obviouly for, then you are either complicit (I hope you got paid big bucks...!) or you are too stupid to be free.

    26. Re:But by ShatteredArm · · Score: 1

      The alleged benefits of high frequency trading are way overblown. It wasn't until the last few years that it became prevalent, and I think it would be very difficult to argue that we're any better off with that "liquidity."

      And the argument really falls apart when you look at which stocks are being traded. The algos all pile onto whichever stock is the worthless piece of paper du jour, leaving the bid/ask spreads on less popular stocks unaffected. CitiGroup and AIG already have enough liquidity.

    27. Re:But by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Honestly. It's a shame Madoff even got caught. 20 billion is chump change compared to the fraud of the big banks who brought down the economy.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    28. Re:But by pla · · Score: 1

      It's hard to imagine a spec for this software that wouldn't be at least a bit suspicious, so you can hardly blame them for looking into the programmers.

      Totally non-suspicious Spec - I want a program that can generate hypothetical quarterly yield reports based on historical or speculative data, for marketing purposes.

      Just about every 401k I've ever signed up for has given me forms that look exactly like that - Basically, "If you had gotten in here and retired here, you'd have made 22.3% per year!".

      That said, the real issue here appears to involve destruction of evidence - Which at the very least counts as a crime in itself, and strongly suggests these guys had more involvement than they let on. You don't commit a crime yourself to cover up for someone else without one hell of a good reason; in this case, either Madoff offering them the world to help him look better, or more likely, hiding the fact that they knew more than they claimed all along.

      And realistically, I can say as a programmer who has helped a company extract meaningful reports from its disaster of a DB (nothing of such a sensitive nature, just for internal inventory management purposes), I can very comfortably say that you simply can't do it without a solid low-level understanding of how things really work - Not just "we buy and sell widgets, track the sales records and do the math", but down to the level of personally questioning some of the handlers and counters to explain discrepancies. "So we started the year with 5000 widgets, bought another 5000, sold 7000, and ended up with 6000?" "Oh, well the vendor changed UoMs mid-year and we didn't know who to tell".

    29. Re:But by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.”

      Defined only for all << World population

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    30. Re:But by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      - Taking big bonuses to keep their mouth shut.

      $60,000 to keep quiet about a $65 billion fraud? Those guys should have either turned informant or held out for more money.

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    31. Re:But by tjhayes · · Score: 0

      t is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others. So long as I can still make money day trading on the stock market, I don't care. And I CAN still make money.

      It is clear that you and many others do not understand the terms "zero sum game" and "providing prosperity for others". Just because YOU or some other bank CAN make money, does not mean that greater prosperity is being created. All that is happening is money is moving from one place to another, aka "zero sum game". Creating true prosperity for others would require companies doing actually innovative work that bring products to market that better the AVERAGE LIVES OF ALL THE WORLDS PEOPLE. Clearly this does not happen by providing day-trading.

    32. Re:But by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Could be seen as a conflict of interest.

      What Paulson did was explicitly against the ethics rules @ treasury. That's why he got a letter from the Whitehouse counsel saying he was excused from ethics violations in this case before he committed the ethical violations.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    33. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one, RICO. They were part of an organization that committed 11 counts of fraud.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

    34. Re:But by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      It's in the summary, you don't even need to RTFA: "criminal conspiracy, accused of producing false documents and trading records at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in New York." Fraud is a generally crime. Conspiring to commit a crime is (generally) a crime. Providing deliberately inaccurate documentation to the stock market is almost certainly a crime under various corporate law. Given that their systems almost certainly produced false or deliberately misleading reports to investor and the market, it's certainly reasonable to suspect that these guys knew something of what was going on. They get their day in court and presumption of innocence.

      In my experience, IT figures often get an extremely good overview of what exactly is going on with data in an organisation simply because that's essential to performing their job. It will be interesting to watch their defence. I expect that "I don't recall", "I've never seen that", "I plead the Fifth" etc. will take a prominent role

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    35. Re:But by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The Goldman programmers aren't the problem. The lobbyists are.

      Then surely the programmers shall hang.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    36. Re:But by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      No, only outlaws will be lobbyists.

      And that's fine by me. Hunt those bastards down like dogs.

    37. Re:But by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

      I think DOJ did look at the Enron Developers to determine if products/services actually existed and worked. If this is a trend perhaps the Galleon programmers could also be examined. Any Ponzi and other Stock schemes revolve around what did they know and when did they know it, programmers and Admins are not magically excepted from being examined as they may be material to the scam being pulled off.

      Scam brokerage applications apparently are built upon business rules which I hope a programmer is willing to question if they are totally without reason and would walk out if they realized the shell game. I self reference to this with a comment I made about IBM's Moffet and the growing scandal of lack of ethics in the IT Business.

      If convicted these guys are going to give a whole bunch of IT professionals a sullied reputation simply by association.

      Where will this end? Will IT professionals soon be the butt of jokes like ambulance chasing lawyers?
      Oh your a brokerage programmer? Hmm What's 100 brokerage programmers at the bottom of the ocean?

    38. Re:But by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "It is clear that you and many others do not understand the terms "zero sum game" [...] doing actually innovative work that bring products to market that better the AVERAGE LIVES OF ALL THE WORLDS PEOPLE."

      It is clear that you do not understand the term "zero sum game" either. If I make 10.000 and 10.000 people get to lose 1 each, it's a zero sum game. If I make 1.000.000 and 10.000 people get to lose 1 each it is not a zero sum game but a net profit game, still 1 person is better and 10.000 people are worse than they were before.

    39. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I've been called a moron by an anonymous coward! I'm SHOCKED!

            Seriously, if you think there was nothing illegal about the wiretaps, destroying emails that a court had requested, detaining foreign nationals indefinitely (wait, are they prisoners of war or NOT?) without charges or access by the International Red Cross (this little thing called the Conventions of War), and perhaps the whole Iraq war itself - all the time citing "executive privilege", well, I don't think there's a suitable name for you. The man clearly believed himself above the law, much of the government enabled this behavior, and now a dangerous precedent has been set.

            I'm glad I'm not a US citizen and that way I don't have to share a voting booth with the likes of YOU.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    40. Re:But by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That said, the real issue here appears to involve destruction of evidence - Which at the very least counts as a crime in itself, and strongly suggests these guys had more involvement than they let on."

      Like in "don't ask. You just do it as I say and I won't fire you on the spot"?

    41. Re:But by great+om · · Score: 1

      actually, i know for a fact, the primary applications used at Madoff were custom Lotus Notes Apps. That alone should prove malice.

      --
      ------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
    42. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you are suggesting that somehow you can actually make 1.000.000 dollars while 10.000 people only loose a dollar each? Thus creating 990.000 dollars out of thin air? Perhaps a pure expression of your intellect and hard work? BS. It's a MYTH created to deceive those of us who had to give up the dollar, and to help you who made a million dollars sleep better at night. Just spin to justify greed and corruption. Sure synergy, innovation, and acts that "create true prosperity" do certainly exist... but in reality they are the exception to the rule. Money is exchanged, not made or created.

    43. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're kidding, right? tell me you're not really a day trader, and moreover that you're not doing so for yourself, out of your own money.

    44. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goldman Sachs's behavior is probably

      Don't bother. These claims aren't based on any actual knowledge of anything at all; Colbert or someone told the malcontents about the evil goldman sachs guy and they run with it. Goldman Sach's is their new favorite boogyman.

      Unlike Bush/Cheney there are no term limits for Goldman Sachs so this meme will persist as an easy source of /. karma into the indefinite future.

    45. Re:But by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      If the activity is illegal, there's probably at least one programmer within the company who does, or should, know what he's doing and that it is wrong. To design the system so that each compartment is so ignorant of what the whole is doing that they wouldn't have knowledge of illegal actions would be extremely costly and prone to failure.

    46. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Taking big bonuses to keep their mouth shut.

      $60,000 to keep quiet about a $65 billion fraud? Those guys should have either turned informant or held out for more money.

      Yeah, I'd start at $60,000 PER DAY ($22M/year, or about 0.3% of the total take...) and work my way up. I don't think Bernie had mob connections or the nature to stand up to minor blackmailers.

    47. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let your possessed girlfriend kill you.

    48. Re:But by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The thing with Goldman Sachs is completely different than Madoff. Madoff duped investors in thinking he was making trades when it really was a large Ponzi scheme. Someone had to generate the fictitious paperwork for the investors and these programmers were allegedly behind it.

      Goldman Sachs made huge bets in the housing market. When the housing market fell, Goldman (who had placed a lot of money into this market) lost big.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    49. Re:But by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      it is clear that their high-speed trading is effectively a zero sum game and by enriching themselves, they are not providing greater prosperity for others.

      So long as I can still make money day trading on the stock market, I don't care. And I CAN still make money.

      Honestly, I don't think anyone else in the world would be hurt if you suddenly had to stop day trading. Investing give capital to business, the only service day traders provide to investors is allowing them to do stupid things like panic selling and impulse buying just a little bit faster. I think day trading is the exact type of zero sum industry the grandparent was decrying.

      You make money, but what service do you provide for others?

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    50. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason in general that they will not pursue bankers and their programmers is pretty straightforward.

      Madoff's scheme was in progress, and continuing to grow in terms of money he was stealing from people. It was getting on the scale level of organized crime money laundering, and that will catch several federal agencies attention with a quickness.

      The banks on the other hand.. half of their 'nefarious plans' actually FAILED and wound up putting them in disarray (There is no need to prosecute for this, since they've already failed, right? [not agreeing with this sentiment, but that would likely be our govts stance]).. This enabled the other half of the banks to start a massive round robin of buying the failing banks..thus giving them more money to bribe the people who make the laws with. Catch-22 for the US Citizen, great for the bankers.

    51. Re:But by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind however that Christianity is a double-edged sword, as the Bible was carefully crafted to endorse a strict caste hierarchy, with feudal and patriarchal orders particularly in mind. That is why it was repeatedly used over the centuries as a tool (and a justification) of oppression by tyrants innumerable, who all claimed that they were simply recreating the Biblical order in the image of the "kingdom of Heaven" (with the particular emphasis on the term "kingdom").

      At least that is the interpretation which the hordes of highly-motivated theologians in the service of pyramidal schemes such as the Catholic pope-tipped one or various ones with crown-wearing jerks at the apex came up with.

    52. Re:But by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Money is exchanged, not made or created."

      So there's now as much money (or richness) in the world as it were by 1800?

    53. Re:But by fireylord · · Score: 1

      the problem there is day trading. It leaches real value out of the whole system. Ever wonder where the fiscal black hole the Western capitalist states are in has come from? this kind of thing short circuits the economy

    54. Re:But by Marcika · · Score: 2, Informative

      The thing with Goldman Sachs is completely different than Madoff. Madoff duped investors in thinking he was making trades when it really was a large Ponzi scheme. Someone had to generate the fictitious paperwork for the investors and these programmers were allegedly behind it.

      Goldman Sachs made huge bets in the housing market. When the housing market fell, Goldman (who had placed a lot of money into this market) lost big.

      Hate to break it to you, but Goldman never "lost big" -- that's what the outrage is about. They made big bets with AIG betting against the housing market, and bet against AIG in the CDS market to hedge the risk of AIG collapsing.

      So (1) they won big when the subprime market fell, (2) they won big when AIG didn't fail as expected but was bailed out could repay $17bn worth of bet winnings, (3) they won big when all their competitors who actually believed in the housing market collapsed or suffered, and Goldman was one in maybe three kids left on the block. That's why now they can pay bigger bonuses than ever, in a time where unemployment is worse than at anytime in the last 80 years...

    55. Re:But by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It leaches real value out of the whole system.

            I also imagine that you think that short-sellers are criminals, right? Because heaven FORBID someone be allowed to profit when the value of a stock falls.

            I can't really blame you, after all even banks whined to the government about short sellers last year, and the government temporarily banned short selling certain financial stocks. This is utterly stupid. A short seller by definition is the ONLY person in the stock market who HAS to buy. And they go and remove it. Well done. Oh, short selling is illegal in many Asian markets, yet they also plunged. Explain?

            You have obviously no idea how the market works. I do not "leech" value out of the system. I merely assess the probable movement of the market in the next few minutes. If I'm right, I'm rewarded by a small profit. If I'm wrong, I have to take a loss.

            Now when bank XYZ for some reason has a million shares of a company to get rid of, and I and a thousand other day traders take a 1000 share chunk out of that block of shares, aren't we doing that bank a FAVOR? If we weren't there, who would the bank sell stock to? No one, because there would be no one to buy it. Therefore the bank would either have to wait, until another bank comes along willing to pay the price they're asking - OR they can DROP the price to see if anyone is interested. Oh - wait, do you mean that day traders, and a greater number of traders, actually REDUCE volatility and help maintain price stability? Shocking, you've just been proved wrong.

            Day trading actually adds value to the system because it increases the number of traders, and the amount of capital available for trading (liquidity) in the system. This leads to stability, and decreases huge fluctuations in price under normal situations.

            Not to mention that on top of the money I make, I pay HUNDREDS of dollars in commission PER DAY to my broker (and I STILL make a profit). So I'm actually employing people, while making money. That broker pays staff, and those staff buy burgers at the Wal Mart you work at. So I'm actually helping YOU, too.

            It's true that when I make money, someone somewhere is losing money. But hey, no one is forcing them to buy/sell stock. Just like no one is forcing me to. If they put a bid/ask on the market, they're awfully happy when a day trader like me snaps it up within a second or two.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    56. Re:But by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      It is a matter of self-interest. Most religion to some degree is based on "do this or you won't get this", "behave this way or you'll be left out". Some religion like *coughs* Catholicism, shell out "eternal paradise" and "eternal suffering" and "immortal soul" for following their rules strictly.

      I was raised Catholic with a heavy hand, I mildly learnt about Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhism, Shinto, Wiccan, mostly out of curiosity and comparison purposes. Even read through half the bible mostly out of boredom, but parts of it was "required".

      Be meek, humble, generous.

      Matthew 5
      "When he saw the crowds, he went up the mountain, and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him. He began to teach them, saying"

      The Beatitudes
      Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
      Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
      Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land.
      Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
      Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
      Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God.
      Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

      It's all about self-interest, our immortal soul, etc. Sure some are zealots taking the word of prophets too far. Sure some self-interest isn't particularly bad, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's not self-interest.

      Even the most benevolent, they help the poor and needy because it makes them FEEL good and they want to feel GOOD. That they're doing good, that they're helping others. That's self-interest. It's not particularly selfish or self-centered.

      But when you had those "behavior" brow-beat into you for fear of god, or love of god, or who knows what you delude yourself into thinking. It became self-interest.

      A nice segway, I like using TV as an example on life. Friends episode with Phoebe and her obsession with a selfless deed.

    57. Re:But by mahadiga · · Score: 1
      --
      I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  3. Another case of bad parenting? by jhfry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always tell my kids that "so-and-so made me do it" is no defense. And I'm sure nearly every parent has taught their children that for generations. I hope these guys roast for not listening to their parents!

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    1. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by XPeter · · Score: 1

      I always tell my kids that "so-and-so made me do it" is no defense.



      Oh boy your one of those fathers who always goes in to check the "collaborative shindig" for liquor, aren't you?
      --
      "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Assuming they knowingly did something illegal.

      Of course, they work with computers, so they will probably get 450 year and have their jury railroaded.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong, a recent study shows that candy is the culprit here, the more candy you are given as a child the more likely that you'll become a criminal.

    4. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by Toonol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh boy your one of those fathers who always goes in to check the "collaborative shindig" for liquor, aren't you?

      You mean "a good father?"

    5. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      [sarcasm] Oh, whatever. You know very well that your kids need parties and alcohol in order to get proper social interaction skills! Because once they get to the business world, they need to know how to interact with people while getting drunk! Or something like that. [/sarcasm]

      (I agree with the "good father" bit, by the way. thanks for being one of the few...)

    6. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Being a good father isn't about micro-managing your child's day to day activities (and let's face it, if they're being dropped off at a party that has booze, chances are they aren't all that young). It's about teaching that same child that whether there's booze there or not that he shouldn't partake. And that, worst case, if he is going to drink that he needs to do so in a responsible way.

      It's not so much that going in, seeing alcohol and dragging him back home is such an awful thing to do. It's that all you're teaching him is to resent you. There will be other parties, there will be booze, and one way or another it's going to happen sometimes when you don't or can't stop it. Better to deal with that inevitability than to pretend you can control the circumstances.

    7. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      So, you're basically suggesting that one should Teach one's child to recognize harmful situations, and avoid them, but not micromanage them so much that they hate you. I agree with the former, and question the latter. Yes, teach your child the dangers of alcohol (and other substances available at parties ...), both medical and legal. Hopefully, your child will respect your wishes and stay away from that.

      On the other hand, peer pressure is strong. If they felt that no one (with power) would know, or that there were no immediate consequences, many children would be tempted. Knowing that you're going to check up on them (whether it's making sure the parents are there, or asking afterwards whether booze/etc was there), helps them know both that you care about their wellbeing, and also are watching to make sure they don't screw up. :)

      Trust, but Verify. They have to see that you trust them to be mature, but that you're also not going to be a complete sucker. ;) It helps if you yourself can set an example for being trustworthy too, of course.

    8. Re:Another case of bad parenting? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, turns out that attitude is horrible wrong and harms a child in the long run...but you keep with your pet theories.
      I can't wait for my offspring's taxes to pay for your offspring's welfare~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. crontab by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently Madoff's fraud was too large and too complex to be foisted entirely by hand

    And that's why we have cellscripts and conjobs

  5. Right after the revolution by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You realise GS pretty much pwns the US government.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Right after the revolution by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You realise GS pretty much pwns the US government.

            And the stock market. After all, if they have a program that 'can' be used to 'manipulate the stock market', are we to take Goldman's multi-billion dollar a quarter profit making word of "oh, but HEAVENS NO, we're not manipulating the stock market, that would be illegal - perish the thought!" word for it? Arrest those programmers too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Right after the revolution by tomhudson · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ... and also arrest the programmers at Moodys, Standard and Poors, Fitch, and AIG. I'm sure they'd be willing to cooperate in return for consideration.

      That won't happen, because people like Warren Buffett made out like bandits under the bail-out.

    3. Re:Right after the revolution by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you're reading too much into it.

      The idea being that a large investment firm, and possibly others and their clients, are all using certain code to help them decide when to execute trades. An unscrupulous third party could use knowledge of that code to place investments that trigger trades by GS, which is large enough to affect the market. In effect manipulating the market by manipulating GS.

      The market gets manipulated by the sheer size of GS, and the main loser would be GS, as well, since they're already using their software to maximize their own benefit.

      Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Right after the revolution by WarwickRyan · · Score: 4, Informative

      > That's 10% 10% barely covers overhead, and employee salaries.

      Put simply, Profit = Revenue - Costs.

      All overheads, salaries etc ARE costs. So Dell's $1.5b profit on sales of $14b isn't at all bad at all. It's very good.

      What you're talking about is margin - the difference between the cost price of something and the sale price. The figure of "30%" is a generally accepted minimum margin for a business. I think it's based on a reseller. If you buy a box of paper in at $10, then you should have to sell it for $15 (plus tax if applicable) in order to survive. That $5 should cover all of your costs, with a little left over for profit.

    5. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why isn't profit figured after things like salaries and infrastructure overhead? Isn't that all under operating costs? Profit should only be what is left over after all accounts are paid and all money is in.

    6. Re:Right after the revolution by geeper · · Score: 1

      Profits are the monies kept AFTER paying overhead, employee salaries, cost of goods sold, etc. A company can survive easily on a single digit profit percentage.

      --
      Error reading device 'Signature'. (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?
    7. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.

      There's the old joke (updated for today's numbers) - "if you owe the bank $100,000 that's your problem. If you owe them a billion dollars, that's their probelm."

    8. Re:Right after the revolution by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate articles filled with lies.

      Buffet routinely lobbied against the bailout legislation.

      Buffet did lobby for bailouts of a different nature, in which the government would get voting stock in the companies they bailed out, there were clear stipulations on where money was spent (so it didn't go into pockets like his), and there was massive accountability.

      When Buffet bailed out GE, he laid out such a framework and encouraged the government to follow suit. And while Buffet has a high personal worth because of stock he owns, he has always been know to live frugally, and is now giving away the massive bulk of his wealth.

      However Buffet is a known conservative, so a liberally-slanted website is all but obligated to go on a character assassination for no good reason. (I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I just hate lying. If anything, I support true liberalism, in which there is less government restriction period, and personal liberties are protected as much as possible).

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    9. Re:Right after the revolution by Z34107 · · Score: 0

      Profits are the monies kept AFTER paying overhead, employee salaries, cost of goods sold, etc. A company can survive easily on a single digit profit percentage.

      This is only partially true. A firm may still be "profitable" at single percentage profits. But, why go through all the hassle of running a business, paying employees, maintaining equipment, finding customers, etc. when putting your money in a savings account would give you a better return?

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    10. Re:Right after the revolution by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Buffet routinely lobbied against the bailout legislation.

            Buffet is a smart man. And everyone was against the bailout legislation. Except of course those to be bailed out, and the Pelosi inspired politicians.

            I still remember the reports when it was first mentioned. "All my constituents aren't saying "No", they're saying "HELL NO!"". All that got swept under a pile of money however.

            It's curious for me that, living in Costa Rica, the US dollar has plummeted against our local currency - to the point where a can of Coke is now twice as expensive here versus in the US (due to local inflation continuing despite our currency appreciating against the dollar). I think soon US citizens won't be able to afford to travel outside the US. It's a real pain in the ass for me, because I earn in dollars, so I'm becoming relatively poorer too compared to my wife who earns in local currency. We're talking 10-15% poorer in the past 3 months alone. Running the money printing presses in the US has everything to do with this. But no one listened to Ludwig von Mises the first time, anyway.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Right after the revolution by Ansonmont · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have been a reseller of many things. A profit margin of 10% is amazing in the computer business, Dell being no exception. I sold a lot of Dell stuff (*shudder*). And I am not talking about net, but gross profit. Sometimes 4% was considered worth it. It all comes down to volume, ease of delivery, and credit. Everything else is just a guideline at best. If you worked at a company that only made a 1% net profit, but invested in its people, its infrastructure and its goals, would that be worth it? Supermarkets operate at low margin, but have high volume.

      -A

    12. Re:Right after the revolution by Zalbik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      . If you worked at a company that only made a 1% net profit, but invested in its people, its infrastructure and its goals, would that be worth it?

      It may be worth it to work there, but solely as a return on investment, no it is not "worth it". There are numerous other items that could be invested in (bonds, real estate, commodities) that offer far better that a 1% return with far lower risk.

      So no, it isn't worth it if you believe the sole function of a company is to generate profit. Thankfully there are a few people who believe creating great products is more important than great profits.

    13. Re:Right after the revolution by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you're talking about is margin - the difference between the cost price of something and the sale price. The figure of "30%" is a generally accepted minimum margin for a business.

      It depends - enormously - on turnover.

      If you turn over your inventory (on the average) in a week or less, like a grocery store, a 1% profit comes out to over 50% in a year (and that's not counting compounding). This is why grocery stores are VERY sensitive to shoplifting and spoilage costs.

      If you turn over your inventory in a couple quarters or a year, you'd better be making margins in the 30-50% range if you want to stay viable.

      Fast nickels are a LOT better than slow dimes.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    14. Re:Right after the revolution by ShatteredArm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buffett is a Democrat.

      And yes, Buffett did benefit from the bailouts... Not to mention Buffett recently tried to back Goldman's recent proposal to buy tax credits from Fannie Mae. He's not the boogeyman, but he's not the nice, friendly man with a sincere belief in capitalism that he is sometimes made out to be.

    15. Re:Right after the revolution by bws111 · · Score: 1

      This is a central point that many slashdotters miss. Yes, you can technically run a business with little profit, but without profit you are not going to attract investors, and without investors you are going to die.

    16. Re:Right after the revolution by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is only true of they are not hiding all their losses off of the balance sheet, refusing to recognize them until years down the road, etc. In that case, they would need the government's help to sur....

      Come to think of it, you have a good point...

    17. Re:Right after the revolution by Capt_Morgan · · Score: 1

      Um Warren Buffet is not a conservative at all. Where the hell did you get that idea?

      --
      It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
    18. Re:Right after the revolution by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's not Republican. That's pretty much the definition of a conservative these days.

    19. Re:Right after the revolution by PeanutButterBreath · · Score: 2, Informative

      If anything, I support true liberalism, in which there is less government restriction period, and personal liberties are protected as much as possible).

      I hate to break it to you, but what you are describing is Libertarianism, not "true liberalism". My condolences.

    20. Re:Right after the revolution by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It is. GP is a moron.

    21. Re:Right after the revolution by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1% profit is not the same as 1% ROI. The first 1% is out of gross receipts, the second is out of initial investment which are two completely different numbers. 1% profit can easily be 20-30% ROI depending on the structure of the business (grocery stores come to mind).

    22. Re:Right after the revolution by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "If you worked at a company that only made a 1% net profit, but invested in its people, its infrastructure and its goals, would that be worth it?
      It may be worth it to work there, but solely as a return on investment, no it is not "worth it". There are numerous other items that could be invested in (bonds, real estate, commodities) that offer far better that a 1% return with far lower risk."

      The point is that there are investments and investments. You surely can find places to invest you money and get better than 1% profit but... what money? Unless you are rich by birth it will be the money that you gain in excess to your living expenditures so since you must work somewhere, do you prefer to work for a company that invests in its people and still manage to make a net profit so it's sustainable or anywhere else?

    23. Re:Right after the revolution by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "if you turn over your inventory (on the average) in a week or less, like a grocery store, a 1% profit comes out to over 50% in a year (and that's not counting compounding)."

      That must be why all grocery tenants are uberbillionaires. Or is it any flaw in you argument (like limited market expansibility)?

    24. Re:Right after the revolution by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Yea, and Libertarianism is more of a "true conservativism"

    25. Re:Right after the revolution by peragrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple gets 25-30% on it's computers.

      think about it. apple sells less computers but makes more money than dell.

      which company is doing things right as a business and which one is working hard for scraps?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    26. Re:Right after the revolution by adavies42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and if you owe them 100 billion dollars, that's everyone's problem.

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    27. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However Buffet is a known conservative.."

      Since when?

    28. Re:Right after the revolution by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Which brings to mind the issue that the sheer size of GS is the real issue, not the software that they use. Someone here once
      > said, "too big to fail? More like too big to be allowed to exist!" Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into
      > smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.

      As someone who loves to jump back and forth between realism and idealism, I have pointed out to a few friends that if a law were ever enacted that simply laid out a bright line for what "too big to fail" meant... and stated that the government would instantly assume control of ANY entity that fell under such criteria....

      Within a very short time frame, businesses would be built up around every institution making sure that they never come close to that and risk being taken over.

      In short, it would prevent such institutions from existing.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    29. Re:Right after the revolution by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      If anything, I support true liberalism, in which there is less government restriction period, and personal liberties are protected as much as possible).

      I hate to break it to you, but what you are describing is Libertarianism, not "true liberalism". My condolences.

      he might be European, in which case he means free-market liberalism.

    30. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I think he really meant to say Classical Liberalism

    31. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

      Well, I don't really think it's fair to call Classical liberalism "true liberalism" but at the same time I do see how the terminology is confusing (the various liberalisms do not look much like each other just like how the various conservatisms don't resemble each other, but... ah, screw it.)

      But yeah, please respond to people without the snark.

    32. Re:Right after the revolution by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      I own (one share) of Buffet's little stock, I support his efforts to protect and grow my investment.

    33. Re:Right after the revolution by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Within a very short time frame, businesses would be built up around every institution making sure that they never come close to that and risk being taken over.

      Which ultimately defeats the entire effort. If you have a bunch of small institutions that don't really act independently because they are all under the control of the people, you don't really have a bunch of small institutions. Image if we had Goldman Investment Advisers, Goldman Savings and Loan, Goldman Broker Dealer, Goldman Investment Insurance Corp, Goldman Funds, etc etc. Now imaging all these companies are strategic partners utilize each others services almost exclusively for their needs in those respective areas and pretty much have the same people serving on each companies' board of directors. I suspect you would pretty much have the same GS you have today.
      What we need to do is boil the taxes code down to something very simple, like a pure sales taxes with perhaps some exemptions for food, residential logging, and basic transportation. These exemptions would only be applicable when a purchaser is a private individual not acting as a corporate agent. I suppose we might want to make these exceptions for charities as well. I know there are some hardliners out there who say no exceptions but I think a totally non progressive tax policy would place to much burden on the bottom rungs.

      Once you have a tax policy that is pretty narrow in scope and pretty well void of nuance; you can eliminate cheating though enforcement. It would actually be possible to catch and identify cheaters and prosecute them quickly and easily. You can than impose an other tax on top of the sales tax, a total CONTROLLED assets tax. This would only kick in at an inflation level that is generally considered to-big-to-fail. This tax penalty would be massive, and provide a slow and controlled bleed these institutions until they were no longer subject and therefore not to-big-to-fail.

      This I think is fair because the public gets to benefit from the profits of the increased risk associate with such an organization existing.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    34. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he might be describing Classical Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

    35. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually classic liberalism.

    36. Re:Right after the revolution by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Grocery stores are highly competitive, because shoppers are very price-sensitive. The prices are driven down to very thin margins. Result is a robust profit - but not a bonanza.

      This is what you expect. If it were a gold mine there'd be a gold rush and the competition would increase, driving the prices down further, until it was "mined out" back to where all but the most competent went bust.

      As it is you end up primarily with a few big chains running their own warehousing operations (to save on a middleman's fee) taking the bulk of the business, plus convenience stores, mom-and-pop outlets and specialty stores, where people are willing to pay more for convenience, special services, special goods unavailable at the big-boxes, better control of the business, etc., plus co-ops, outlet stores, and membership stores, which are other special cases.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    37. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple gets 25-30% on it's computers.

      think about it. apple sells less computers but makes more money than dell.

      Don't forget Apple does their own retail, and walk-in support. Don't they finance their own extended warranty plans too? Isn't that what Apple Care is? Then they also sell software, consumer, prosumer, pro alike. and music... and tv..

      It's really no wonder they are making so much bank when you break it all down and compare to competitor's businesses. Strategy: Does it have high profit margins? Tie into existing business? Do it.

    38. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Going anonymous because my response isn't necessarily on topic, but related to your last statement. Liberals want less government?! That's crazy! It's the conservatives that want government out of our lives and our pockets. The liberals are most interested in taxation and redistributing that to those who do very little to nothing. This gives them a massive amount of control and say-so in other people's lives.

      I can agree that liberals do want personal liberties protected. So do conservatives. We just want to go about it in different ways and, probably, disagree on the methods of doing so.

    39. Re:Right after the revolution by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      So you are part of the problem.

    40. Re:Right after the revolution by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The conservatives have spent how much on two wars? An honestly reported Defense budget, where costs such as medical care for wounded vets aren't shuffled over to HEW, makes military spending well more than 50% of the total. You could completely close all federal programs except prisons, war on drugs and defense, privatize everything there that you could, and you still have an incredibly bloated federal government at zero % liberalism.
            And it was conservatives that rushed through the biggest single spending program ever, a bank bailout with no strings attached. The 'liberals' have spent less on this, taken more time for rational debate, and demanded more accountability. (And still ended up giving away our money to parasites and freeloaders, but at least at a slightly lower rate than your beloved conservatives).
            You do know, don't you, that it's conservative drug war policy that drives over 90% of our foreign aid to South and Central America? See, when we give Colombia modern troop transport helicopters for anti-drug use, we have complaints from their neighbors that those choppers could be used for other activities, such as a nice little invasion, so we give the neighbors aid to buy more military hardware too, whether they have the same drug problems or not, until there's a balance of power restored. It's conservative mandated spending, and really spending driven by the DEA, but it gets blamed on the 'liberals', since it goes on the books as foreign aid, and 'everyone knows' that's them bleeding heart do-gooder types.
            Education? No Child Left Behind is a conservative program. How much did it add to government controls and the tax and spend mentality? Has it worked?
              Why are there now 17 federal agencies where there are firearms carrying agents (and yes that excludes the military)? Are liberals the ones giving out more guns to BATF, DEA, Dept. of the Interior, and so on, and how does that fit with getting government out of our lives?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    41. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think soon US citizens won't be able to afford to travel outside the US.

      Yes, because Americans are so big on international travel ...

      "You're from Austria ?! Do you own a kangaroo ?"

    42. Re:Right after the revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link is terrible. With quotes such as

      a collection of filthy whores and pederasts who were one of the main contributors to the economic collapse

      it hardly lends itself out as a reliable, fair analysis of what happened.

      Here's the link to bloomberg article (which doesn't even mention Buffet or Berkshire Hathaway)
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adO7ckroZNOc&pos=6

    43. Re:Right after the revolution by fireylord · · Score: 1

      Everyone that received bail-out money should be broken into smaller entities on a staggered basis when the economy recovers.

      and funnily enough here in the UK that is exactly what is being forced on the banks and government by the European Union, those well known purveyors of bad ideas (or not in this case. . .) The nationalised merged entities are being forced to split up. One good mark for europe, not that the anti european lobby in the UK will paint it as that. Personally my concern is that these nationalised banks should be handled in such a way as to maximised the return on investment that we the taxpayer have been forced into providing. Splitting them up is going to cost way more money, and possibly return less to us than other wise may have been the case

    44. Re:Right after the revolution by fireylord · · Score: 1

      Within a very short time frame, businesses would be built up around every institution making sure that they never come close to that and risk being taken over.

      In short, it would prevent such institutions from existing.

      -Steve

      and this is bad why, exactly?

    45. Re:Right after the revolution by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Bad? Its not bad, its the point. A control on how much the collective "we" trusts any single organization, aside from the government... which is a separate problem.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    46. Re:Right after the revolution by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if you owe a trillion dollars, the debt gets cancelled and you get a bonus.

      Really, these things happen all the time. This was just the most public one lately. It's only humans who are actually stuck with their debts, not businessmen.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    47. Re:Right after the revolution by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

      It was called "liberalism" long before it was called "libertarianism". Now that 'liberal' means something different, libertarians needed a new word. I don't hate to break it to you, because the only time it's fun to correct someone else is when they smarmily did the same thing first.

  6. What's the motivation? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are so many great opportunities out there for making a legitimate living programming that it makes me wonder why these guys volunteered to spend the best years of their lives stealing from people.

    1. Re:What's the motivation? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are so many great opportunities out there for making a legitimate living programming that it makes me wonder why these guys volunteered to spend the best years of their lives stealing from people.

      Something like this, they'd have to be paid a lot better than what they could make legitimately.

    2. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine in a 50 billion dollar ponzi scheme, they are probably going to pay these programmers more than 100k.... even at a lowly $1 million, that's still 10 years worth of work for a programmer. And I'd also imagine if they were aware of what they were helping in, that they would ask for substantially more than just a million. I'm just not sure why they're still in the States and not on some beach in Venezuela or something.

    3. Re:What's the motivation? by khallow · · Score: 3, Informative
      From the article:

      Madoff told DiPascali to pay the programmers "whatever they wanted in order to keep them happy," the investigators said, and the programmers received pay increases of about 25 percent and net bonuses of about $60,000.

      Pay increase of 25% above what was probably already a good salary and a bonus that alone matches or exceeds what a lot of programmers make in a year.

    4. Re:What's the motivation? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're a computer programmer, in your mid 40s. Finding work is difficult for a programmer after 40, every one around you is becoming stinking rich, law enforcement seems to not pay attention when things go well, you have kids in college, and you boss is pressuring.

      Every day you go in and deal with these people, everyday they lie and cut corners and get rich without any legal issues.

      What they did was wrong, but I can certainly understand why they did it, and I can't say for 100% I wouldn't have done the same thing. I like to think I wouldn't, but still.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those numbers are not terribly out of line for what a good programmer makes on wallstreet. These guys worked cheap given what they enabled. Unless there are a whole different set of books where they were getting mid six figures or better each year in some offshore account, then I have to doubt whether these guys are really culpable to any significant degree.

      Anyone who really was working to defraud the SEC should have known what the real numbers were, and anyone with half a brain would have demanded a larger piece of the pie in return for the risk they were taking. I bet it turns out that these guys had no idea of the scope of what was going on. But, I bet they end up taking a big fall anyway. Easier to beat up a couple of relatively poor technicians than go after all the well-monied architects.

    6. Re:What's the motivation? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Some people don't have your morals, and might actually find a high paying job like this desirable: (cnn) "A new lawsuit alleges that convicted swindler Bernie Madoff financed a cocaine-fueled work environment and a "culture of sexual deviance," "

    7. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you mean? So a good software guy makes some low 6-figure salary, Madoff's guys made close to 7-figures, if not more. Even the secretary there made over 200k..

      A good software guy can buy a house in the suburbs, not too far from the office and maybe drive a Lexus. These guys lived in Manhattan and drove $100k+ cars, probably had a couple. You might have a babysitter or day care, they have au pairs. You have some 401k matching up to a few percent, they get maxed out and then they get to invest in the hedge fund that was doing consistent over 12% returns, as a perk.. Of course there are opportunities... your wife might work while theirs can stay home with the kids (when they aren't at the gym) and they still bring home more money. Your kid turns 16 and you might buy an old beater car to work on and get them around, they can get their kids brand new Mercedes with all the safety features you can imagine. We're talking about lifestyle altering amounts of money here. The kinds of money that alters you kids' lifestyles.

      What's funny to me, so the engineers take the drop, they take notes, they knew what was up, they probably helped cover it up. Damn near everyone in the office knew what was going on and probably the managers of most of the feeder funds did. At least a couple did some due diligence, they had to, competitors suspected it was a scam. If they were remotely intelligent about it, they hid some cash away somewhere so their families will be taken care of. You'll see very few bankers go down for this though.

    8. Re:What's the motivation? by NoYob · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not necessarily.

      After the Y2K and the 2001 tech crash, there wasn't as much of a demand for coders, especially with most of the new projects being web based - if you were a C/C++ coder, there were more coders than jobs.* Also, offshoring was picking up steam and then there is the age factor. When you get above 40, folks start wondering why you're still wanting to code or they think you're too old to be doing the 80+ hour week crunch periods or you're not willing (or too smart) to do that - either way, there is some age-ism in tech. Yeah, yeah, I know there are folks who are in their 60s working at jobs coding - I knew one myself, but they're not the norm.

      Now, when your back is against the wall and someone puts a shit load of cash under your nose doing something that may or may not be ethical or even legal, you may do it. I wouldn't judge these guys unless you've been in their shoes.

      The other thing is, I'm sure Madoff did NOT tell them upfront that what they were doing was illegal. He or his cohorts just gave those guys a programming assignment and didn't give specifics. Later on, those guys probably had a good idea what was going on, though but then, who knows what was going through their heads. Maybe, "Hey, we haven't been caught after all these years. WTF!"

      *Look now, Microsoft has even laid people off! Times are rough! There are job postings at a few companies I know of and they're telling me that they're getting bombarded by very qualified people. To weed them out, they're getting ridiculously picky.

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    9. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA says they paid 25% more plus 60000 in bonuses. How much of the Bonuses and raise would have been paid even if not hushmoney? Who knows. Maybe these guys just wanted to keep their jobs. They are just generating reports. What the boss does with them is not their concern. Programmers are like janitors. Maybe the company is a criminal operation, but are you going to put the janitors in jail because they aided and abetted in cleaning the toilets?

    10. Re:What's the motivation? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      If your only motivation is money, even the IRS would rather see you do the right thing:

      http://www.irs.gov/compliance/article/0,,id=180171,00.html

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    11. Re:What's the motivation? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      A good software guy can buy a house in the suburbs, not too far from the office and maybe drive a Lexus. These guys lived in Manhattan and drove $100k+ cars, probably had a couple. .

      Houses in the suburb can be pretty expensive. By me, in a mediocre neighborhood (middle-middle class) you're still talking 500k for a 2-3 bedroom house in the suburbs. Heck, 1 bedroom condos are often 275k.

    12. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly and you're not in Manhattan.

      It's no secret, coders on wall street can earn big bucks, these guys got a 25% boost over that (probably near 7-figures like the other poster said) The bonuses did sounds smallish though.

    13. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie was a demented asshole, we can clearly see from his behaviour. It's not too big a surprise that the people working for him were also demented assholes. If Bernie employed people with morals, and those people understood what Bernie was doing, then those people would have quit. It's kind of a selection bias--all the people who worked for Bernie in the end were guys who didn't have ethical problems with stealing millions and millions of dollars from people.

    14. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus?????!!..aren't those thing extinct? I haven't seen one of them things in over a decade.......

    15. Re:What's the motivation? by babblefrog · · Score: 1

      Good money, plus hookers and blow. What's not to like?

    16. Re:What's the motivation? by malakai · · Score: 1

      A 60k bonus for a good 'lead' programmer working in the financial industry is very low. If your building a trading app for a hedge fund, your bonus better be in excess of 100k.

      In the last five years I've worked solely on CMBS/ABS/REIT risk management software. Every system I built had overrides for building reports that went to investors. There was nothing 'shady' about it. Many of the more complex deals didn't fit a common template and needed an analyst to hard code in some value. Without the overrides, the reports would never total correctly or represent the true risk.

      Yes, that analyst could have lied and used the override to mislead investors. This is where auditors come in.

      Don't blame the software, or the programmers.

    17. Re:What's the motivation? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That doesn't apply here, that's only about fraudulent reporting of taxes. Interesting, the IRS doesn't communicate your income to the feds unless the feds show up with a court order OR you fail to pay your taxes and the go to the feds for collection.

      They do NOT care if you sold drugs to preschoolers dressed as a Nun while making your money,. only that you report it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:What's the motivation? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 60k bonus for a good 'lead' programmer working in the financial industry is very low.

      Maybe they weren't good programmers. Programmers with mediocre skills (or something else that would have looked wrong on a resume) and flexible morality might have been exactly what was bought here. They'd be paid more than they could get anywhere else so less worry that they'd run off. And because Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme, he didn't need high quality programmers (or other staff on the financial side) any more. He just needed enough staff to make it look good. The sales end would be the only place he'd need quality people (since he's still selling his fund).

    19. Re:What's the motivation? by cowdung · · Score: 1

      Programmers are like janitors.

      I beg your pardon, but programmers have to analyze the problem given, come up with a solution and write the code.. they don't just clean toilets. And they DO have to understand the problem.

    20. Re:What's the motivation? by vaporland · · Score: 1

      These guys were stupid. Madoff made off will literally billions based on their efforts. They ended up with a six-figure salary and impending jail time...

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    21. Re:What's the motivation? by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      exactly. all of those things are awesome. *sniff*

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    22. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have done it too - but I would have checked my code in under some elses name... someone who was here for the day ;) ;)

    23. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting is that the characterization of Madoff focuses on non-related issues and issues of other people, some of which are criminal and others which are perfectly legal. The quote could be considered as an artifact of sexual discrimination in the society as well. When your brain does the wrong thing, your perfectly good heart and genitals take the blame, unless the cocaine has done its job already.

    24. Re:What's the motivation? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      I am completely with you on that one. It took me many years to loose my illusions of youth about any sort of "justice" or "meritocracy" as applicable to our societies. These days if I were ever to be placed in the position of these dudes, the only difference between me and them would have been the scale of my demands (they were just waaaay too meek) and an elaborate exit strategy. In short, either you are in all the way and plan for the inevitable hasty and elaborate (and thus very expensive) exit, or you do not play along at all. Anything else is just stupidity of small-time crooks who go to jail for 20 years over stealing some pathetic sum of few thousands bucks.

      But then again they were lulled into complacency by the very fact that they were working with Bernie the Financial Star, who appeared to an untrained eye as just "too big to fall", he with all of his apparent connections and stature (and the fact that SEC has been deflected on multiple occasions only reinforced that impression in his code monkeys and other lackeys). With my life's experience with the worshippers of Mammon and the corporate dystopia, I would have known better.

    25. Re:What's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are so many great opportunities out there for making a legitimate living programming that it makes me wonder why these guys volunteered to spend the best years of their lives stealing from people.

      Because they weren't stealing from people, at least directly.

      They were programming for someone who was stealing from people, and were getting paid a hell of a lot more for it too.

  7. Well, of course. by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you've followed the details of the Madoff scandal, it was obvious that it required substantial computer support.

    Each month, Madoff's investors got statements which showed fictitious trades and fictitious profits. The phony trades were for real stocks, with prices which were (almost) real. But the trades were chosen retrospectively, which is like betting on a race after it's run. So superficially reasonable statements came out. This was all generated on an AS-400 that had been in use for this for several decades.

    The software wasn't very good. If they'd been better at it, they could have generated statements which showed trades which exactly matched real trades of others (from the "tape"; trades are public but traders are anonymous), delivered trade confirmations every day, and still shown phony profits just by picking trades randomly distributed around the 75% of each day's trades. That would survive external examination, but not a real audit. Close looks at Madoff statements show trades which could not possibly have occurred; the price is outside the day's trading range. Sloppy.

    1. Re:Well, of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang dude, you've thought this out!

    2. Re:Well, of course. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you've followed the details of the Madoff scandal, it was obvious that it required substantial computer support.

      Each month, Madoff's investors got statements which showed fictitious trades and fictitious profits. The phony trades were for real stocks, with prices which were (almost) real. But the trades were chosen retrospectively, which is like betting on a race after it's run. So superficially reasonable statements came out.
      This was all generated on an AS-400 that had been in use for this for several decades.

      The software wasn't very good. If they'd been better at it, they could have generated statements which showed trades which exactly matched real trades of others (from the "tape"; trades are public but traders are anonymous), delivered trade confirmations every day, and still shown phony profits just by picking trades randomly distributed around the 75% of each day's trades. That would survive external examination, but not a real audit. Close looks at Madoff statements show trades which could not possibly have occurred; the price is outside the day's trading range. Sloppy.

      YOUR HIRED!

      your friendly Goldman Sachs recruiter,

      Beelzebub

  8. interesting by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I went to an engineering school that was founded in the aftermath of WW2, so had a strong ethos of: "scientists and engineers need to understand what we're doing and why, not just implement stuff other people tell us to". I.e., don't assume the people above you are in charge of the "why" and as the scientist/engineer all you need to care about is the "how". Usually it's seen as more of an ethics thing, but interesting to be reminded that on occasion it can be a matter of self-interest, too, since you have a legal responsibility to know what you're doing and why, at least to some minimum degree.

    1. Re:interesting by systemeng · · Score: 1

      Are you at Harvey Mudd?

    2. Re:interesting by PitaBred · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Unfortunately, programmers aren't licensed and accountable like real engineers are.

    3. Re:interesting by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Good guess! Though I'm not there anymore; graduated in '04. =]

    4. Re:interesting by Trepidity · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most real engineers aren't either--- only a small fraction of engineers who work for large corporations have P.E. certification.

    5. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was just talking to a project manager who left her job because of corruption she perceived. According to her, the company was providing specs for its programmers to implement modules that were NEVER intended to make it into the final product. None of the underlings could figure it out because none were permitted to see it how it all fits together. Why were they giving programmers work that would never be used? So the company could bill the client for more hours.

    6. Re:interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still great for pissing off annoying lusers who are absolutely certain they need to use program x to do task y.

      Of course, when you try to figure out what "y" is those lusers go on to places like slashdot to whine about how OSS support is terrible and cruel and refused to just tell them why their gcc doesn't work when all they wanted to do was get gcc to compile the php file they got from some website.

    7. Re:interesting by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Not yet.

      APEGBC (Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia) has a Software Engineer designation, and that's a real one; B.Eng, four+ years of EIT time, and P.Eng registration. One of my friends was one of the first software P.Engs in Canada. (I'm an Electrical EIT working on my P.Eng. My alma mater was one of the first institutions to offer a Software discipline in the Engineering faculty.)

      At some point, the law is going to catch up and have similar rules to the building code. Basically, you'll be able to work on your own house or an immediate family member's house without a licence, but to work on other houses you require a contractor's licence and insurance. (This is a gross oversimplification, but good enough for /.)

      When they brought in licences for Opticians in BC, some people who'd been working in the field for years failed the test repeatedly. You don't know what you don't know.

      I _can_ build boxes that disrupt a lot of stuff. $100 worth of parts and a busy weekend would let me disable all the police radios in town. (Scary thought, isn't it? Worse, this would work in just about any town with a specific type of radio setup.) I can also use my tools to, say, make a diving light or repair just about anything that requires power.

      Code writers can do lots of things like that. You can play memory rodeo on your home computer all day and risk nothing but a few bucks if you blow something. You could also write code that creates fraudulent trades. One of these things should put you in jail, and one of those counts should be "writing public software without a licence".

      It is way too late in the week to edit this post so it makes sense.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:interesting by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope that never happens, and would strongly campaign against it. The government should be able to tell people that only an anointed priesthood can write software? Maybe for some critical infrastructure I could see that--- air-traffic control software or something can plausibly have a licensing process. But I should have to get a license to write a videogame? To contribute a patch to Slashcode? To write a freeware app that helps people maintain their TODO lists? Etc. Absurd and oppressive.

    9. Re:interesting by AEC216 · · Score: 1

      In my anecdotal experience, business rules and knowledge are 90% of business/normal programming. You cannot code without it. I think this is why so many off-shoring projects have problems.

      --
      May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
    10. Re:interesting by PPH · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for all jurisdictions, but odds are that there will be enough exceptions written into the law to allow practically anyone to be employed as a s/w engineer. Just as there are exceptions for engineering done within a company for the purpose of designing their own products. This is why, as a previous poster mentioned, very few 'engineers' within companies are actually licensed. Or have actual 4 year engineering degrees from acredited universities.

      Licensing requirements exist for two primary reasons: To ensure that people or companies that offer engineering services to the public are in fact capable of doing so. And to ensure that engineering produced for facilities within public rights-of-way or that directly affect public safety are done by competent engineers.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:interesting by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      That's true, and Trepidity (597)'s comment downstream of yours is also true. Although he mentions, "real engineers".

    12. Re:interesting by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I am a designer. I design things, and I'm good at it. For what I design to be fabricated/built, I need an accredited engineer (not just someone who has the company-assigned title of engineer) to stamp and sign my design.

    13. Re:interesting by systemeng · · Score: 1

      I'm class of 1997. Good to meet you.

  9. Chump Change Compared To by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the trillions stolen with OTC Derivatives.

    "We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?" (more )

    Yours In Petrograd,
    Kilgore T.

  10. Mock Objects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats Mock Objects for you. I guess they were using it for real deployment too!

  11. The REAL lesson of this. by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Funny

    When you are a little fish . . . run to your lawyer, then together make yourselves the very best friends that the FBI ever had.

    1. Re:The REAL lesson of this. by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you are a little fish . . . run to your lawyer, then together make yourselves the very best friends that the FBI ever had.

      Yes, run. It is official Justice Department policy that only the first conspirator to report a criminal conspiracy gets off:. "(the) Division frequently encounters situations where a company approaches the government within days, and in some cases less than one business day, after one of its co-conspirators has secured its position as first in line for amnesty. Of course, only the first company to qualify receives amnesty. "

  12. "Computer Wizards" by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    "Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides"

    ++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  13. M.O.N.E.Y. by wiredog · · Score: 1

    That's the usual reason.

  14. Who The Fuck ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are Jerome O' Hara and George Perez ? Should have mentioned that in the article summary for the uninitiated.

  15. But I was just following the specs... by sprior · · Score: 1

    So apparently "I was just following the specs" doesn't work any better than "I was just following orders"...

    1. Re:But I was just following the specs... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      They're programmers. Everyone knows if they claim they're following the spec, they're lying.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Sloppy huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's so sloppy - make a better one then!
    Just kidding.

  17. Alan Johnson is a twat by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    ... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

    Northern Cyprus or Somalia. Marvelous. Every other country just goes "You think he might have been naughty? Well here he is - any particular kind of metal you'd like the chains made from?"

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Funny

      any particular kind of metal you'd like the chains made from

      Mercury.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Somalia

      I hear there are a lot of copyright infringers there!

    3. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Rakishi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very far from true.

      The list of countries with no extradition treaties with the US is, more or less:
      Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, the Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), the Union of the Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, the Maldives, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, the Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Bhutan, Iran, Taiwan, Korea (North).

    4. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i.e., the ass cracks of the world...

    5. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by TheModelEskimo · · Score: 1

      "Cool, I pick Korea!!! No extradition for me!"

      *reads closer*

      "OH CRAP"

    6. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Korin43 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For some reason I don't think we need an extradition treaty with Afghanistan..

    7. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1
      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    8. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Informative

      "i.e., the ass cracks of the world..."

      You don't know Andorra, do you? Imagine Switzerland, only shorter and more friendly.

    9. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I bet you're wondering why your prisoners always escape, eh?

    10. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Almost all of those have no treaty because they will hand someone over without question.

      Some will even imprison and get information for you, you kniow, becasue without a treaty there nthing from stopping them from torture.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ: Micronesia is a collection of nice islands in the south Pacific. Think Hawaii, only without the American sense of modesty.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by rastilin · · Score: 1

      You could probably survive China, Moldova or Vietnam. For that matter the United Arab Emirates would be wonderful if you could afford it.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    13. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Andorra:

      After reading your post I was inspired to wikipedia Andorra. I am a US citizen. Now I want to move to Andorra. Thank you =)

    14. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by IorDMUX · · Score: 1

      And, in a few decades, move on to somewhere that is no longer underwater.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    15. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      ... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.

      Northern Cyprus or Somalia. Marvelous. Every other country just goes "You think he might have been naughty? Well here he is - any particular kind of metal you'd like the chains made from?"

      is that how Polanski lived openly in France for decades? The government was sourcing some obscure iridium alloy for his handcuffs so that he wouldn't escape into the twelfth dimension with his bottle of quaaludes and a box of condoms?

    16. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Not a problem we'll just put you in this -425C hole in this here ice on Titan and you can have your shiny Mercury chains. Extradition won't be a problem then after all.

    17. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by sbeckstead · · Score: 1

      Ok Taiwan is decent the rest are nearly hell holes. Yeah ass crack does about describe that. But hiding out from the law isn't supposed to be comfortable.

    18. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And, in a few decades, move on to somewhere that is no longer underwater.

      eh, if you're running from the US government, that ought to be plenty of time.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      i.e., the ass cracks of the world...

      Matter of taste, but the world restricted to: Brunei, China (People's Republic of China), Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Russian Federation, São Tomé & Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Togo, Vanuatu, Taiwan doesn't look like a bad way to spend the next 50 years and a billion dollars to me.

      I doubt Bernie was that generous from the goodness of his heart, but if you were inside that scam and you didn't extort more than 2% of the haul for yourself, you really are dumb enough to deserve what's coming next.

    20. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You could probably survive China, Moldova or Vietnam.

      China is nice enough. However, in the case of China, if your country starts telling them that you stole billions of dollars, they're going to deport you for overstaying the visa that they just terminated. If your own country says "we want him back so we can kick his arse", then it is really not worth the effort for the Chinese government to argue with your government about a potential criminal they don't care about anyway. The US has sent Chinese embezzlers back to China, I'd imagine they would repay the favor. In fact, you'd have a very hard time finding a country that will knowingly take in a fugitive unless they can prove that they are a political refugee. Agreeing to repatriate suspects is an easy and popular way to get shady people out of your own country and keep the other country happy. You have never actually needed an extradition treaty to do it. Chinese law prohibits the extradition of Chinese citizens, which means that they will probably be tried by a local court instead, doubtfully a better outcome.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    21. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      Samoa? That's surprising. I'm sure the Samoans would be willing to work out any kind of deal. Same with Vietnam, and a few others on that list.

    22. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      is that how Polanski lived openly in France for decades?

      Someone fiddles with your kiddies, so you lock him up then you let him out. If, once he is out of prison, he decides to piss off to France, this is a good thing. If he was going to get a prison sentence he would still be in there, so he would have either got probation, (i.e. keeping him in the country) or deported (i.e. an expensive way to send him out of the country). I don't get it, the judge told him he was going to be deported for being a pervert, so he left the country at his own expense. Now the United States government wants him back? This sounds like the old chestnut education anecdote about being suspended for truancy. Someone's just mad that the tough hand of justice didn't get to administer its pathetic slap on the wrist and now probably want to give him the hugest sentence they can to justify the time and money they spent getting him. Seriously, some people in the department of justice have got to grow up.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    23. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There was a case here where a Chinese citizen killed his girlfriend and ran back to China.
      The compromise reached between Canada and China is that he will be tried in a Chinese court with no death penalty.
      Not sure about the status of extradition treaties between Canada and China.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting is that the USA has agreements for mutual extradition and/or prisoner-transfer programs with countries, where the USA doesn't bother honoring their side of the deal, yet they get awfully irate if the other parties hold back...

    25. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bit of a special case: rich, famous and at least partially French.

      I doubt you or I would get the same treatment. Egalité my ass.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Hah! That's what you think. We don't have an extradition treaty with anything or anyone in the Saturnian system, so I'll finally be safe.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    27. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The guy drugged and anally raped a 13 year old girl(*). And by "raped", I don't mean "had sorta-consensual sex with", I mean "she said 'no' a lot and tried to get away". He deserves more punishment than whatever +/- 40-50 days in a psych facility he initially did in the US, followed by an extended vacation in Europe. The reason he didn't serve more time is he ran before a judge incarcerated him longer, and he ran because he knew it was coming.

      If it had been my daughter I wouldn't care how rich & famous the guy was, how many people loved his movies, or felt sorry about the whole Manson/Tate thing, or how long he had been on the run. I'd want the coward to come back and face the music.

      In my mind, the ONLY reason to consider dropping the case is the victim's preference to put all this behind her.

      (*) According to her grand jury testimony.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    28. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      this -425C hole

      Physics, you're doing it wrong.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    29. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by andreyvul · · Score: 1

      this is why us Russians say 'Fuck US IP law'

      --
      proud caffeine whore
    30. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Exactly the real crime is that Louisiana is the only state in the union that has the death penalty for rape of a child, and I am not even certain they still do.

      He should have been kept in that psych ward under guard until the trial if convicted taken directly to prison to prison and placed on death row, than executed the day after he exhausted his final appeals. We screwed up by letting him go walking about. He was obviously a menace and a flight risk the people handling the case especially the judge could have and should have seen that.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    31. Re:Alan Johnson is a twat by RenderSeven · · Score: 1

      Sounded good until I read: "Responsibility for defending Andorra rests with Spain and France."

  18. Hmmm... by tds67 · · Score: 0

    Madoff's long-time deputy's name is Frank DiPascali? I would have figured he would be the computer programmer.

  19. The two programmers are off the hook by tds67 · · Score: 0

    DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY. The software is licensed “as-is.” You bear the risk of using it. Madoffsoft gives no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. To the extent permitted under your local laws, Madoffsoft excludes the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.

  20. Have they not seen Office Space? by PeterChenoweth · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's all about the decimal places.

    I hope they enjoy their stay at Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Prison.

    1. Re:Have they not seen Office Space? by nycguy · · Score: 1

      Not all federal prisons involve surprise butt sex. The one Bernie got sent to has been described as "like a college campus" (in which case there might still be butt sex, but it would hardly be a surprise).

  21. Re:I'm disappointed at /. mods :( by Mitchell314 · · Score: 0

    int grumpyMod(int score)
    {
    printf("Redundant");
    return grumpyMod(score-1);
    }

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  22. "Bernie Madoff's Programmers Arrested"???... by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...Oh My God! Does this mean Bernie Madoff was a robot?

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    1. Re:"Bernie Madoff's Programmers Arrested"???... by pravuil · · Score: 1

      Shame that one of the programmers wasn't named Will Robinson.

    2. Re:"Bernie Madoff's Programmers Arrested"???... by RDeichsel · · Score: 1

      Yes, he's a gay robot.

    3. Re:"Bernie Madoff's Programmers Arrested"???... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Mod parent Funny, RvB fans!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  23. And this, boys and girls.... by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is why you write in bash, and only key it in on the command line.

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    1. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      And here I was expecting a Perl comment... at least then you can use an editor and it won't matter ;-)

    2. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better throw "export HISTFILE=/dev/null" in your .profile then...

    3. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      export HISTSIZE=0;

      Just saying...you don't want them to start with cat ~/.bash_history > /EVIDENCE

    4. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and hope nobody comes in after you and types:

      history

    5. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is why you write in bash, and only key it in on the command line.

      Do you also disable all logging including shell history and disable /swap as well as flush RAM after every command completes?

    6. Re:And this, boys and girls.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and end every command line with ; rm -f ~/.*history

  24. Standard press-release sound at the moment. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Granted, they're innocent until proven guilty, etc., but it appears they were in this up to their ears.

    Remember that what we're getting, so far, is the stuff from the investigation / prosecution side. Their job is to make the case that the accused were in it up to their ears.

    No surprise if they were. But it will always sound that way at this stage, if the prosecutors think they have enough of a smoking gun to go ahead.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  25. Daytrading is for coked-out 80s rejects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny that you use a casino analogy, since that's essentially what day trading is. The only people that reliably get rich in the day trading business are the brokers.

    And yes, I'm sure you've got a "system" that will "never fail" to make money. So does the shlub that's about to get his legs broken by Vinnie the Fish after one too many "sure-fire" sports bets...

    1. Re:Daytrading is for coked-out 80s rejects by gknoy · · Score: 1

      If he's able to support his lifestyle by daytrading (which he didn't claim, he just said he made money), then I'd consider that Sustainable Enough, or as much as nearly any other job.

    2. Re:Daytrading is for coked-out 80s rejects by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      And yes, I'm sure you've got a "system" that will "never fail" to make money.

            It's not a system, it's momentum.

            It's not a casino - in a casino the house pays out less than what you would get through probability. In roulette, (to keep it simple), you can bet on red or black. The fool thinks the odds are 50-50. However the fool forgets about the green 0 and 00 slots, where the house wins either color.

            I lose money quite often when trading. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. There is definitely risk involved. However I consistently earn more than I lose - enough to make a living from it. The "secret" is not to bet the farm. Yeah, you can make more, if you risk more. But you're risking more. I keep the trades small. I trade based on what the market is DOING, not what I "think" it's going to do (no one can see the future). And I get out in a hurry.

            But it's not like a casino at all. I can take my money off the table at any time. At a casino, once the bet is placed, you're stuck with it for better or for worse.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. What about his banker, Chase? by technobabblingfool · · Score: 4, Informative

    Madoff kept all of his billions of money in a single account at JP Morgan Chase bank. If they are going to bust his programmers, they should bust his bank too. Even for a bank the size of Chase, Madoff just leaving billions of dollars sitting in the account instead of investing it like he claimed to be doing must have gotten their attention one or a hundred times. If the bank looked the other way to hang onto a lucrative cash deposit, they are just as guilty as the programmers.

  27. George Pérez going to jail? by JoshDM · · Score: 1

    Oh no! Now how will comic book readers get new awesome multi-page spreads of thousands of comic book characters intricately detailed all posing in action shots and/or interacting?

  28. Gun or bullets or people? by ivoras · · Score: 1

    Do guns kill people? Do bullets? Do people kill people?

    This looks like a very gray area - is the gun and bullet factory to blame for each murder? Did the programmers have direct positive benefit from the code besides their salaries? Who is actually "running" the "black box" - the programmers? The sysadmins? Madoff? His company? ... ethical mine field.

    --
    -- Sig down
  29. Anyone with grad-level know-how in Infotheory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anyone with grad-level know-how in Information Theory knows that the banks aren't breaking the law. (Unless a swarm of GS mathematicians have pushed the field forward without letting me know).

    It's called Optimal Causal Analysis (a method of determining the most likely subsequent state from a series of previous states, without any knowledge of the underlying mechanism). In this case, you'd let it model a few thousand states, and propagate those states forward and backward in time a bit.

    Then you plant computers doing this right next to the exchange computers, because any predictions more than a few hundred milliseconds and the model is too complex for your computers.

    Viola! Super-fast trading using I-Theory. (The prof. teaching this has never graduated a PhD, because they all get recruited away from her veeeery quickly.)

  30. Incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Hi. I teach comparative politics for a living. Your attempt to place a single definition on the word liberal(ism) is just as incorrect as the parent's.
     
      Liberalism was in fact once (17th through 19th centuries) used almost exclusively to describe exactly the situation the GP was referring to ( Liberal => libre => freedom ). In revolutionary America, the two major political philosophies were Liberalism thus defined versus Conservatism (ie, those who wished to conserve the monarchy). This led to a change in the popular use of the term Liberal in America to mean those who support change, whereas conservatism retained its, well, conservative meaning.

    This change in meaning is by no means universal. In the political systems I am familiar with outside of the United States (UK, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain), the word retains its earlier meaning. The English Liberal Party is, by modern standards, a conservative, pro-business party and this is by no means a misnomer. In fact, in France many people use Liberal as a insult meaning roughly "right wing capitalist pig".

    So, you see that words can legitimately have many meanings and political philosophy is by no means subject to the pedantry that serves computer science so well. You knew what the GP meant, as did everybody who modded you up, but you chose to be asses instead. Congratulations.

    1. Re:Incorrect. by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      I was with you to the end when you started insulting everyone. That just killed your argument, despite the well written and obviously researched rebuttal.

      The only thing I would ad is that the term given to liberals and conservatives in today's United States of America have varied since the early days of the country, even as recent as 40 years ago it has changed much.

    2. Re:Incorrect. by arminw · · Score: 0, Troll

      ....the term Liberal in America to mean those who support change....

      A liberal is a person who is liberal in spending other people's money. A conservative is a person who wants to keep liberals from being too liberal with spending the conservative's money.

      Right now, Obama is liberal with your grandchildren's money.

      --
      All theory is gray
    3. Re:Incorrect. by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Liberals want to be liberal with conservative's money, and conservative with liberal's money.
      Conservatives want to be conservative with conservative's money, and liberal with liberal's money.

      Every "class" or group wants to spend more of other peoples' money, and less of their own, and they all have rationalizations to justify their individual positions.

      Me, I'm a true egalitarian - I want to spend EVERYONE's money! :-p

  31. Re:I'm disappointed at /. mods :( by kclittle · · Score: 1

    I knew it -- Slashdot needs closures!

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
  32. You say you hate articles filled with lies . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . and then you come up with some bullshit about how Buffett is a "known conservative," and that is the reason for a "character assassination"?

    And of course you get modded up to +5. Only on Slashdot . . . Doubleplusgood!

  33. This is Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody cares about the truth, as long as the lie fits the prevailing political fashion.

  34. Blackjack? by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    We're going to start a company...with blackjack and hookers - heck, forget the blackjack!

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  35. A blatant disregard for due diligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would survive external examination, but not a real audit.

    For all the times that the SEC was warned / tipped-off about Madoff's returns
    being fishy, and all the other fund managers that invested their clients'
    funds into Madoff's pyramid, NOBODY looked for the simplest "tell" of all - look
    at Madoff's trading records: he made NONE - ZIP - ZERO - NO TRADES on behalf of
    his clients. The statements that went out should hundreds of trades per week,
    but the exchanges did not show a single transaction by Madoff!

  36. Bah, they'll just... by caywen · · Score: 1

    Bah, they'll just blame it on Bernie Madoff's QA like they always do.

  37. Somalia? Bad choice! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Somalia has no (real) government. Any government with the physical capability could kidnap you from Somalia and you'd be SOL. There isn't even a government to yell at the US about it after the fact. Going to a country with no laws seems like a worse option than going to one with a US extradition treaty...unless you think you're really good at hiding, or better armed than your pursuers (LOL!).

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Somalia? Bad choice! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I guess the real question is our government going to bother pursuing a white collar criminal to Somalia. When said criminal is in hiding and recovery would require a kidnapping operation where agents certainly could get hurt or killed executing.

      My guess is no they wont do that not for just securities fraud any way. Arrange for running an airliner into a office complex or something and that puts you in another sort of league where the public would demand justice despite the additional cost beyond that of your original crime.
      I think most people government included would say enjoy your voluntary exile to the war torn disease ridden paradise that is Somalia, when you get tired of it just book a flight home or to any other NATO country for that matter and we will be happy to toss you in the clink upon arrival with a few extra years for obstruction of justice, resisting arrest, and failure to comply with a lawful warrant.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  38. In my University.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... all Engineering students had to study Ethics as part of their Engineering studies.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.