• T-Biscuit (unregistered) in reply to Eustace Byrne
    Eustace Byrne:
    Not cigarettes, not since 2004. Now it's mackerel.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290720439096481.html

    I find that illustrations help: http://www.weakcity.com/?p=270

  • ham (unregistered)

    If the server had so many problems, who's to say the records weren't corrupted?

  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to IT
    IT:
    Wow, what a waste. But I guess that's the default mode for any large government agency
    Correct.

    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    Therefore, if there's an allegation that $7.50 was stolen, then the "default mode" for a government department is "do exactly what the taxpayers demand, even if the taxpayers demand spending thousands of dollars investigating a ten dollar problem.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem." If this question is complicated, you can re-read the stopry and see if the TV show occured before or after the large investigation occured.

    Yep, government is bad, the TV show was private enterprise and therefore a paragon of capitalist virtue?

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to ham
    ham:
    If the server had so many problems, who's to say the records weren't corrupted?

    Bet you're the kind of person who can't help but pick at scabs.

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to Nathan
    Nathan:
    Someday Alex and company will learn that the real stories can stand on their own, and are in fact much more funny and believable when they AREN'T embellished with fake details.
    If that's true, then one day a couple of the guys always making that claim will go and start their own site, and because their site will be much funnier, everyone will go there, and "alex and company" will finally understand.

    Of course, it's easy to criticise and hard to do, so I don't expect you personally to do it. But one day someone will listen to you, and give you the site that's perfect for your needs. I hope you don't have to wait too long.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    IT:
    Wow, what a waste. But I guess that's the default mode for any large government agency
    Correct.

    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    Therefore, if there's an allegation that $7.50 was stolen, then the "default mode" for a government department is "do exactly what the taxpayers demand, even if the taxpayers demand spending thousands of dollars investigating a ten dollar problem.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem." If this question is complicated, you can re-read the stopry and see if the TV show occured before or after the large investigation occured.

    Yep, government is bad, the TV show was private enterprise and therefore a paragon of capitalist virtue?

    Of course, you can't win with Shame On You! type programs. If they had just paid the guy the $7.50 then the TV show would have done a shocking expose on how the prison system is just handing money to prisons because they asked for it. The only way out of the Shame On You! spotlight is to hope a bigger, more juicy scandal comes along to distract them.

    Also, I'll bet $7.50 that Shame On You! didn't do a follow-up piece on how the prison system didn't, in fact, owe the prisoner anything.

  • (cs) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    IT:
    Wow, what a waste. But I guess that's the default mode for any large government agency
    Correct.

    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    Therefore, if there's an allegation that $7.50 was stolen, then the "default mode" for a government department is "do exactly what the taxpayers demand, even if the taxpayers demand spending thousands of dollars investigating a ten dollar problem.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem." If this question is complicated, you can re-read the stopry and see if the TV show occured before or after the large investigation occured.

    Yep, government is bad, the TV show was private enterprise and therefore a paragon of capitalist virtue?

    No - the reason the TV show made an issue of it was because of the legitimate possibility that if it affected one inmate it could be an issue that affects all of them.

    TRWTF here is, as has already been said, that they didn't already have all the reports they would ever need from the old system gathering mold in some warehouse.

  • Dr Sixnutz (unregistered)

    trwtf: ice in whisky

  • GrandmasterB (unregistered)

    I'm going to request that eBay add 'Mackerel' as a payment option.

  • Mark (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    IT:
    Wow, what a waste. But I guess that's the default mode for any large government agency
    Correct.

    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    Therefore, if there's an allegation that $7.50 was stolen, then the "default mode" for a government department is "do exactly what the taxpayers demand, even if the taxpayers demand spending thousands of dollars investigating a ten dollar problem.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem." If this question is complicated, you can re-read the stopry and see if the TV show occured before or after the large investigation occured.

    Yep, government is bad, the TV show was private enterprise and therefore a paragon of capitalist virtue?

    Sorry, but your attempt at an anti-capitalist rant is a failure.

  • ping floyd (unregistered)

    Bring back Manadtory Fun Day!

  • (cs) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    I hope the prison numbers were properly changed to protect their identities.
    They were indeed. From #88172 to #882771, even.
  • Zapp Brannigan (unregistered) in reply to dpm
    dpm:
    testx:
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but this site is like "Dear Penthouse" for programmers.
    Dear Forum:

    I always thought those stories posted to TDWTF were fake, until one morning when I showed up at a new site (I'm a consultant) and saw the kludgiest application running on the oldest server I've ever seen . . .

    You've got our interest. Keep going.

  • Don't get it (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    How can this story be correct? How could the prisoner keep meticulous records for 19 years and then complain about $7.50? What news station would make a big deal out of $7.50 claimed by a prisoner? Something's missing here..

  • (cs) in reply to mmm..... scotch
    mmm..... scotch:
    After a hard day of writing code at the Department of Justice, Sabbo settled into his favorite chair to watch the evening news. But instead of his usual glass of iced tea, that night it was a tumbler-full of Johnnie Walker Black on rocks.
    Best. Start. Of. A. Story. Ever
    FTFY ... and I agree.
  • Jess (unregistered) in reply to Random832
    Random832:
    No - the reason the TV show made an issue of it was because of the legitimate possibility that if it affected one inmate it could be an issue that affects all of them.

    If you'd ever seen that program, you'd be well aware they don't investigate things under the premise of "this is a possibility". That show hounds and berates whoever they can under the premise of "someone told us so, so it MUST be true".

    It's absolutely moronic. If I could murder a tv show, it would probably be that one. Or, Flava of Love. (I'm not sure which one annoys me more. All of idiotic "News", or all of "Reality Tv"...)

  • (cs) in reply to Random832
    Random832:
    Bob:
    IT:
    Wow, what a waste. But I guess that's the default mode for any large government agency
    Correct.

    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    Therefore, if there's an allegation that $7.50 was stolen, then the "default mode" for a government department is "do exactly what the taxpayers demand, even if the taxpayers demand spending thousands of dollars investigating a ten dollar problem.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem." If this question is complicated, you can re-read the stopry and see if the TV show occured before or after the large investigation occured.

    Yep, government is bad, the TV show was private enterprise and therefore a paragon of capitalist virtue?

    No - the reason the TV show made an issue of it was because of the legitimate possibility that if it affected one inmate it could be an issue that affects all of them.

    TRWTF here is, as has already been said, that they didn't already have all the reports they would ever need from the old system gathering mold in some warehouse.

    Oh, come on. Only a knuckle-scraper would believe that this is why "TV," that Borg-like amorphous entity, was even remotely interested in this potential $7.50 * 2,000,000 "issue."

    Granted, the voracious appetite for new "customers" of the US Penitentiary System (and, btw, the UK one) makes that $15,000,000 quite believable. I'd guess that it's around about the same cost as an entire series of "Shame, shame, shame!"

    I think you need to reflect on the difference between legitimate public interest and obnoxious public effluent.

  • Speyside Dweller (unregistered) in reply to Dr Sixnutz
    Dr Sixnutz:
    trwtf: ice in whisky
    QFT. One of the two crimes worthy of capital punishment.
  • Jess (unregistered) in reply to Don't get it
    Don't get it:
    How can this story be correct? How could the prisoner keep meticulous records for 19 years and then complain about $7.50? What news station would make a big deal out of $7.50 claimed by a prisoner? Something's missing here..

    Well, I don't entirely believe the whole story based on a couple of factors, but I can see how a prisoner would be all up-in-arms about a missing $7.50. Many of these prisons pay $0.05-$0.10/hour (and, of course, the possibility of working 8 hour days is out of the question)... so that $7.50 is between 75 and 150 long hours of prison labor, spanned over a long time (as much as a year or more).

    If you were missing a year of wages, you'd probably notice... and if he had any grudge against the prison guards, which he was likely to after serving as an inmate there, he'd take any opportunity to shove whatever he could in their faces.

    I could also imagine a news station, especially one such as 'Shame on You' to play off that angle, and blow things wildly out of proportion with no evidence... though I'm not totally convinced that part actually happened.

    (Also, I'm surprised everyone keeps calling them "meticulous records"... don't forget... he's stuck in prison. What else is he going to do besides write things down that happened during his day, especially when it relates to the prospect of him having money when he gets released.)

  • Neil (unregistered) in reply to Some Guy
    Some Guy:
    Nathan:
    Someday Alex and company will learn that the real stories can stand on their own, and are in fact much more funny and believable when they AREN'T embellished with fake details.
    If that's true, then one day a couple of the guys always making that claim will go and start their own site, and because their site will be much funnier, everyone will go there, and "alex and company" will finally understand.

    Of course, it's easy to criticise and hard to do, so I don't expect you personally to do it. But one day someone will listen to you, and give you the site that's perfect for your needs. I hope you don't have to wait too long.

    Wow. Rant much?

  • Rick (unregistered) in reply to whomp

    Yep, kind of like prosecutors working a bad case.

    (I think it's part of the human condition. Or maybe just more evidence of the arbitrary line between criminals smart enough to go to work for the government and those who are not?)

  • Joe Mama (unregistered) in reply to morry
    morry:
    I find it hard to believe that anyone would complain about being $7.50 short after 19 (?) years of confinement. I call shenanigans.

    I call "Shawshank" on the government. Would you feel the same way if it was your bank and your $7.50? It's not the prisoner's fault it took 300 man hours to figure it out.

    "Shawshank" = shenanigans in a prison setting, whereby the warden is skimming money all along. The person responsible for this taking 300 hours should rightfully blow their own head off.

  • Joe Mama (unregistered) in reply to Bob
    Bob:
    Any government agency, regardless of size, will have several dozen people crucified live on TV if there's any hint that they've done anything that wasn't perfect.

    That's exactly the way it should be.

    Or, to put it another way: was the real WTF "government spends lots of money investigating minor problem" or was the real WTF "TV show hounds government into spending lots of money investigating minor problem."

    Nice anti-capitalist rant. The TV show has nothing to do with it, and it's not the prisoner's fault either for demanding ACCOUNTABILITY.

    The real WTF is "government wastes money with accounting system that can't be easily audited."

  • Joe Mama (unregistered) in reply to Raven Darke
    Raven Darke:
    Why do I think this was more about saying F--- You to the prison system than about the money?

    He claimed he was shorted money in an act of revenge against the people he blamed for his own misdeeds.

    Talk about misplaced anger.

    So it's ok to foist any sort of malfeasance on someone just because they're already incarcerated and paying their "debt to society"? You're probably upset about prisoners who complain about getting raped.

  • foxyshadis (unregistered) in reply to Some Guy
    Some Guy:
    Nathan:
    Someday Alex and company will learn that the real stories can stand on their own, and are in fact much more funny and believable when they AREN'T embellished with fake details.
    If that's true, then one day a couple of the guys always making that claim will go and start their own site, and because their site will be much funnier, everyone will go there, and "alex and company" will finally understand.

    Of course, it's easy to criticise and hard to do, so I don't expect you personally to do it. But one day someone will listen to you, and give you the site that's perfect for your needs. I hope you don't have to wait too long.

    We do. It's called the Sidebar. When I get too disgusted with the main page, I spend a week or two there.

  • Dennis (unregistered) in reply to Speyside Dweller
    Speyside Dweller:
    Dr Sixnutz:
    trwtf: ice in whisky
    QFT. One of the two crimes worthy of capital punishment.

    TRWTF: Thinking Johnny Walker is whisky

  • (cs) in reply to Jess
    Jess:
    (Also, I'm surprised everyone keeps calling them "meticulous records"... don't forget... he's stuck in prison. What else is he going to do besides write things down that happened during his day, especially when it relates to the prospect of him having money when he gets released.)
    Me, I like to blink. If you get lucky in the UK, this apparently makes you a celebrity.

    Alternatively, there's always masturbation. I think masturbation is underrated; it does at least pass the time.

    Or you could shoot for the stars (no, this isn't a TV joke. It's not even a masturbation joke. Well, awlright, it's both). You could write a sequel to Milton's Prometheus Unbound.

    Try it in Alexandrine meter.

    You are Laurence of Arabia, and I claim my $7.50.

  • Speyside Dweller (unregistered) in reply to Dennis
    Dennis:
    Speyside Dweller:
    Dr Sixnutz:
    trwtf: ice in whisky
    QFT. One of the two crimes worthy of capital punishment.

    TRWTF: Thinking Johnny Walker is whisky

    Black Label might just be considered whisky, it's not that bad.

  • (cs) in reply to Kermos
    Kermos:

    I like this part:

    Ethan Roberts knows about mackerel discipline first hand. Mr. Roberts, who was released in 2007 after serving eight years on a methamphetamine charge at prisons including the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in Texas, says he got busted for various piscine transactions. "I paid gambling debts" with mackerel, he says. "One time I bought cigarettes for a friend who was in the hole."

    Maybe they should have used tuna as currency instead?

    Tuna is called Atun in Spanish, and Tuna actually referrs to the Nopal plant's fruit. I wouldn't use that as currency, unless you like getting spined by these!

  • (cs) in reply to testx
    testx:
    Maybe you haven't noticed, but this site is like "Dear Penthouse" for programmers.
    I only read TDWTF for Irish & Finnish Girl.
  • iMalc (unregistered)

    What some of you don't realise is that handing over $7.50 rather than spending thousands to work out that it wasn't owed afterall would have set a very dangerous precedent. Give an inch and they'll take a mile!

    Of course the best thing to do would have been to have them sign something before looking into the records that says that if they are not in fact owed that amount (or greater), that they will instead pay for the costs of going through the old records. I wonder how insistent prisoner 781227 (or whatever the number was) would have been then.

    Someone gonna bash the head in of that Japanese spammer?

  • icywindow (unregistered) in reply to BV
    BV:
    Mark:
    Sabbo dove straight into the current ERP system, pouring though five years of transactions made by the accuser.

    Too bad Sabbo's superpower of turning himself into liquid shorted out the old server!

    It's "pored", not "poured".

    Then it's no wonder they lost transactions, every time they dropped a transaction, the poring though five years!

  • (cs)
    Apparently, the Shame On You! "investigative" reporting team from the local news ambushed the Department director with question after question about Inmate #88172, Inmate #88172's family, and, most importantly, why Inmate #88172 wasn't getting the money the Department owed him. The director could say little more than "I don't know", which was exactly the sound bite Shame On You! wanted.
    >sigh< That's not how you deal with the press. *This* is how you deal with the press:
    Journalist:
    Director! Director, what do you have to say about the shameful case of Inmate #88172?
    Director:
    Sorry, what was that? Did you say "Inmate #882771"?
    Journalist:
    No, director, Inmate #88172. What happened to the money the state owes him, director? Where's it gone?
    Director:
    Well, gee ... [ takes imaginary notebook out of pocket and starts flipping through it ] .. let me just see right here ... Inmate #4729 ... Inmate #27249 .... Inmate #99329, whoops! Too far [ starts flipping back through imaginary notebook ] ... 88175 ... 88174 ... 88173 ... 88172, ah! Here we are. [ pause, inspects imaginary notes for a moment, feigns surprise ] Well, wow, just look at that, would you believe what it says here?
    Journalist:
    Well, that's what me and my viewers want to know, director. What does it say, director?
    Director:
    >shouting< It says you're a fricken' moron! Do you think I carry the entire departmental records around with me everywhere I go? What are you, stupid or something? Now sod off and stop playing the damn fool. [ walks away ].
    *That*'s how you deal with the press.
  • James (unregistered)

    Am I the only one who thinks TRWTF is that they didn't migrate all the itemised records when they upgraded the system?

  • RiX0R (unregistered) in reply to DaveK

    You must be a big Dr. Cox fan.

  • csours (unregistered) in reply to Kermos

    the only problem is that people actually eat tuna. mack is a very oily fish that is an ahem acquired taste. thus the mack packs stay in circulation longer

  • sampi (unregistered)

    OUCH!

  • Watson (unregistered)

    "Sadly, since there were no inconsistencies in the new system ... he was going to have to ressurect[sic] the old ERP system...."

    Can't do without those inconsistencies!

    "It's quiet .... too quiet." -- Colonel White

  • VB 101 (unregistered) in reply to North Bus

    Oops, the latter number is probably the correct number.

    Somebody does not know how to do a 'find and replace' in their text editor.

  • Level 2 (unregistered) in reply to Random832
    Random832:
    No - the reason the TV show made an issue of it was because of the legitimate possibility that if it affected one inmate it could be an issue that affects all of them.

    No, they showed it because it was a nice juicy story.

    Remember, commercial tv-stations are here to sell audiences to advertisers, not to make programs for those audiences.

  • (cs) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    Of course, you can't win with Shame On You! type programs. If they had just paid the guy the $7.50 then the TV show would have done a shocking expose on how the prison system is just handing money to prisons because they asked for it. The only way out of the Shame On You! spotlight is to hope a bigger, more juicy scandal comes along to distract them.

    Also, I'll bet $7.50 that Shame On You! didn't do a follow-up piece on how the prison system didn't, in fact, owe the prisoner anything.

    I call BBCode!

  • chrome (unregistered) in reply to Satanicpuppy

    They probably did, but the guy that knew where it was left right after the migration.

  • (cs) in reply to RiX0R
    RiX0R:
    You must be a big Dr. Cox fan.
    I don't watch a lot of tv, but if that's how he deals with the media, he has my respect.

    I'm more a fan of the other Good Doctor:

    Journalist:
    Doctor! Doctor, what do you have to say about the shameful case of Inmate #88172?
    Doctor Hunter S. Thompson (for it is he):
    Eh? What? What? Did you say "Stab the president through the eyeballs with an icepick"?
    Journalist:
    No, doctor, Inmate #88172. What happened to the money the state owes him, doctor? Where's it gone?
    Doctor:
    Well, gee ... [ takes small bottle of pills out of pocket and starts flipping through it ] .. let me just see right here ... reds ... blues .... methamphetamine, whoops! Too far [ starts clawing at own face ] ... 88175 ... 88174 ... 88173 ... 88172, aaaaah! I'm getting the fear... [ pause, inspects imaginary lizard for a moment, feigns surprise ] Well, wow, just look at that, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT GIANT LIZARD DOING OVER THERE? *gibber*
    Journalist:
    Well, that's what me and my viewers want to know, doctor. What does it say, doctor?
    Doctor:
    >shouting< It says it can see right into your dark filthy soul, you scumsucking swine! Bourbon! I must have whiskey. Bring me three cases of Wild Turkey at once. ... [ swallows another handful of pills, starts sweating ] whoAAH! [ reels ] *grin* Hey, those little yellow suckers got quite a kick on them ... [ stumbles away rambling to self ].
  • Javert (unregistered) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    I hope the prison numbers were properly changed to protect their identities.

    Pah. I know #24601 when I see him.

  • (cs)
    >shouting< It says you're a fricken' moron! Do you think I carry the entire departmental records around with me everywhere I go? What are you, stupid or something? Now sod off and stop playing the damn fool. [ walks away ].

    It's almost 2010. iPhones are everywhere. The warden damn well should be able to carry the entire department's records around with him everywhere he goes, or at least be able to pull them up over a VPN connection. This crap about firing up an ancient, half-broken system and unsticking and piecing together reels of tape just to pull up some records on a prisoner is... the real WTF!

    I mean, some of these guys serve sentences of half a century. Is this really the first time someone's had to look back five whole years for something?

  • Astro (unregistered)

    Long ago I worked at an aircraft company in their IT payroll / time keeping department. It was not unusual for a floor worker to come and say that their check was off by 2-3 cents. Rather than researching the claim, I'd just reach into my jar of change and give them the money. Back then life was much simpler.

  • v (unregistered)

    They are prisoners. They stole something or killed someone. C'mon! And you give them candies and money? Give them a piece of stale bread and a cup of water for a day. Stop wasting tax payer's money!

  • (cs) in reply to DangerMouse9
    DangerMouse9:
    If I was Sabbo, I'd have just given the guy $7.50 and saved myself and the company thousands of dollars.

    I find it funny that a cost analysis wasn't done, and that the media went crazy over $7.50. Maybe that's an arbitrary number, but still. There's got to be a time when the cost just isn't worth it.

    Speaking as someone who currently works for a company that provides systems to handle this exact thing I am not surprised at something like this happening.

    As others have said it has nothing to do with $7.50 or $.01 or $5000 for one inmate. It has to do with the media jumping on a band waggon for ratings and forcing the government agency into wasting time. By creating a hype story news shows like that generate ratings.

    Although a programmer may not care about the $7.50, his boss, boss's boss and boss' boss' boss probably do because they receive the heat when the company comes under fire for 'stealing' inmate money. It's also likely true that the hours spent to resolve this issue were nothing compared to the cost to the company had the county/state decided that they didn't like software that made it easy to 'steal' inmate money.

    In this case the client is the county/state and keeping them happy is far more important than just pulling the $7.50 out of pocket.

  • (cs) in reply to clm
    clm:

    The trouble is that, once the media got involved, especially a program with a name like Shame on You!, the issue was no longer about $7.50. It was about OMGCORRUPTION and the implication that they were skimming money from all of the prisoners' accounts. They needed to prove that #88172 wasn't owed any money at all in order to invalidate the accusation that they were skimming. Nothing else would have done.

    No, the trouble is that the inmate's complaint wasn't addressed until it became a PR nightmare. Anyone that's had someone in broken English tell them over the phone, "That's what the computer says, and it doesn't make mistakes." should understand that.

    And the cost of completely transparency must be paid to operate a Criminal Justice system. OMGCORRUPTION is real - how many teens and their parents complaint's fell on deaf ears in Pennsylvania the past 5 years?

  • (cs) in reply to WayneCollins
    WayneCollins:
    >shouting< It says you're a fricken' moron! Do you think I carry the entire departmental records around with me everywhere I go? What are you, stupid or something? Now sod off and stop playing the damn fool. [ walks away ].

    It's almost 2010. iPhones are everywhere. The warden damn well should be able to carry the entire department's records around with him everywhere he goes, or at least be able to pull them up over a VPN connection.

    What, so he can get pissed and leave all those security-sensitive personal data records in a pub or the back seat of a taxi? No thanks. I'm not in favour of making access to that kind of stuff that wide open, it's not secure. Keep that shit on a seriously fenced off intralan.
    WayneCollins:
    This crap about firing up an ancient, half-broken system and unsticking and piecing together reels of tape just to pull up some records on a prisoner is... the real WTF!

    I mean, some of these guys serve sentences of half a century. Is this really the first time someone's had to look back five whole years for something?

    Yeh, not transitioning legacy data to a modern format when you still have the system running is TRWTF, and keeping the old hardware around isn't the solution.

    Now, I've got some old punched cards to decode. Has anyone seen my Jacquard loom?

Leave a comment on “The Prisoner's Dilemma”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article