From: Ken Tilton
Subject: [OT] Free Software Strikes  Again?
Date: 
Message-ID: <fomLi.326$j56.145@newsfe12.lga>
"The stay for the Texas execution was issued two days after the court 
did not stop Texas from executing another inmate, Michael Richard, 
leading to some confusion about its intentions.

Lawyers in the case on Tuesday said their appeal had been turned down 
because of an unusual series of procedural problems.

Professor Dow said the computers crashed at the Texas Defender Service 
in Houston while lawyers were rewriting his appeal to take advantage of 
the high court�s unexpected interest in lethal injection.

Because of the resulting delay, the lawyers missed by 20 minutes the 5 
p.m. filing deadline at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, 
where the appeal had to go first before moving to the Supreme Court.

The Texas court refused their pleas to remain open for the extra 
minutes. Because the lawyers missed that crucial step, Professor Dow 
said, the Supreme Court had to turn down the appeal, and Mr. Richard was 
executed. "

I have to assume they were using Emacs+Slime. My only question is why 
they considered a software failure unusual. And why a reboot takes 
twenty minutes. Sure, Windows can take twenty minutes to /shut down/....

:)

kenny

-- 
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut

From: Leandro Rios
Subject: Re: [OT] Free Software Strikes  Again?
Date: 
Message-ID: <46fe47ea$0$1340$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com>
Ken Tilton escribi�:
> "The stay for the Texas execution was issued two days after the court 
> did not stop Texas from executing another inmate, Michael Richard, 
> leading to some confusion about its intentions.
> 
> Lawyers in the case on Tuesday said their appeal had been turned down 
> because of an unusual series of procedural problems.
> 
> Professor Dow said the computers crashed at the Texas Defender Service 
> in Houston while lawyers were rewriting his appeal to take advantage of 
> the high court�s unexpected interest in lethal injection.
> 
> Because of the resulting delay, the lawyers missed by 20 minutes the 5 
> p.m. filing deadline at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, 
> where the appeal had to go first before moving to the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Texas court refused their pleas to remain open for the extra 
> minutes. Because the lawyers missed that crucial step, Professor Dow 
> said, the Supreme Court had to turn down the appeal, and Mr. Richard was 
> executed. "
> 
> I have to assume they were using Emacs+Slime. My only question is why 
> they considered a software failure unusual. And why a reboot takes 
> twenty minutes. Sure, Windows can take twenty minutes to /shut down/....
> 
> :)
> 
> kenny
> 

I am puzzled: Being the life of a man at stake, the court didn't want to 
  wait another twenty minutes?
Being the life of a man at stake, the lawyers couldn't get another 
computer to write the appeal on? A classic typewriter? By hand?

Oh, the humanity!

Leandro
From: Timofei Shatrov
Subject: Re: [OT] Free Software Strikes  Again?
Date: 
Message-ID: <46fe9312.33937098@news.readfreenews.net>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:41:08 -0300, Leandro Rios <··················@gmail.com>
tried to confuse everyone with this message:

>
>I am puzzled: Being the life of a man at stake, the court didn't want to 
>  wait another twenty minutes?
>Being the life of a man at stake, the lawyers couldn't get another 
>computer to write the appeal on? A classic typewriter? By hand?
>

Maybe he was a really bad guy and no one really cared enough?

-- 
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless              ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... |  ue     il   |
|But we can take them on!                               |     @ma      |
|                       (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)    |______________|
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: [OT] Free Software Strikes  Again?
Date: 
Message-ID: <4dBLi.100$R77.60@newsfe12.lga>
Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:41:08 -0300, Leandro Rios <··················@gmail.com>
> tried to confuse everyone with this message:
> 
> 
>>I am puzzled: Being the life of a man at stake, the court didn't want to 
>> wait another twenty minutes?

Probably one factor was that they had already waited twenty years and 
the only thing at dispute was the /method/ of execution, not the guilt 
or sentence. So...
>>Being the life of a man at stake, the lawyers couldn't get another 
>>computer to write the appeal on? A classic typewriter? By hand?
>>
> 
> 
> Maybe he was a really bad guy and no one really cared enough?
> 

In Texas there is certainly that, but I wager it was more that he had 
strung things out for twenty years by leveraging the system's rules and 
as one wag noted turnabout is fair play.

kenny

-- 
http://www.theoryyalgebra.com/

"We are what we pretend to be." -Kurt Vonnegut
From: Rob St. Amant
Subject: Re: [OT] Free Software Strikes  Again?
Date: 
Message-ID: <fdllcq$5cd$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>
Ken Tilton <···········@optonline.net> writes:

> Professor Dow said the computers crashed at the Texas Defender Service
> in Houston while lawyers were rewriting his appeal to take advantage
> of the high court’s unexpected interest in lethal injection.
>
> Because of the resulting delay, the lawyers missed by 20 minutes the 5
> p.m. filing deadline at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin,
> where the appeal had to go first before moving to the Supreme Court.
>
> The Texas court refused their pleas to remain open for the extra
> minutes. Because the lawyers missed that crucial step, Professor Dow
> said, the Supreme Court had to turn down the appeal, and Mr. Richard
> was executed. "

Holy crap.  I guess this is the kind of scenario that corporate
lawyers think about when they're writing the boilerplate for
shrink-wrap licenses.