Slashdot Mirror


Hans Reiser Arrested On Suspicion of Murder

Many readers wrote about the arrest today of Hans Reiser, author of ReiserFS, by Oakland, CA police on suspicion of murdering his estranged wife. From the San Francisco Chronicle: "Hans Reiser, 42, was taken into custody at 11 a.m., hours after Oakland police and FBI technicians searched his home in the Oakland hills. His estranged wife, Nina Reiser, 31, has been missing since Sept. 3, when she dropped off the couple's son and daughter at his home on the 6900 block of Exeter Drive... Police made the arrest based on circumstantial evidence and have not found Nina Reiser's body, [Hans Reiser's attorney] Du Bois said. 'I have no idea what the circumstantial evidence is,' he said. 'When I hear what the evidence is against him, I'll make a decision as to whether he'll talk to them.'" kimvette writes, "While the disappearance (and possible murder) of his wife is tragic, Linux users will wonder where this will leave Reiser 4. If Reiser is found guilty, will Novell or IBM pick up the pieces and finish up Reiser 4 for inclusion in the kernel or is this the end of the Reiser filesystem project? Will there be any future for the Reiser filesystem, and if Hans is found guilty and the project is continued, will the project be renamed to avoid notoriety?"

1,651 comments

  1. That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they let him code in prison.

    1. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Letting someone do something s/he loves while in prison, will sort of defeat the purpose of prison, i.e. make them wish they hadn't committed a crime.

      Besides, for your average hacker (well, me at least), being stuck in a small room with nothing to do but work on a computer sounds more like heaven...hardy a fit punishment for any crime.

    2. Re:That really sucks by essence · · Score: 4, Interesting

      so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.

      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

    3. Re:That really sucks by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Eh, a computer, some ramen, a fleshlight.
      Good to go. ~

      --
      +5, Truth
    4. Re:That really sucks by PygmySurfer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

      You can't know that. Being he only served 8 years, I imagine it was a crime of passion, rather than a premeditated act. I don't know what set him off the first time, but what's to say he won't react exactly the same way if he's ever put into that situation (or a similar situation) again?

    5. Re:That really sucks by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.

      And no, people with normal value systems do not believe that it makes the state or them "just as bad".

    6. Re:That really sucks by eln · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily believe that people who commit particularly heinous crimes deserve to be rehabilitated, or even can be fully rehabilitated. However, I wouldn't support execution because I see it as primarily an act of revenge by the state. Life imprisonment will keep the criminal away from society where he can't do any further damage. It also eliminates the possibility of the state killing someone who may (no matter how small the chance) be innocent.

    7. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      irrellevant. You are just beating an emotional drum.

      'Normal' people probably do agree with you, but that is because 'normal' people are very stupid.

      Murder is Murder, whether it's the state or an individual doing it.

      You can't be on higher moral ground if the only way you can deal with violence is with more violence.

    8. Re:That really sucks by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.
      So what about if he had imprisoned his mother in a cell for several years? Should the state not be able to give him jail time for it because it would be "just as bad"?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    9. Re:That really sucks by essence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course I can't know it for sure. But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%. That is, most people don't do it again.

      A couple of extra comments for everyone to think about:

      - Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      - Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?

    10. Re:That really sucks by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      If someone is punching you to death you wouldn't hit back?

      --Joey

    11. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course i would, but if they were convicted of this crime I would not go to their cell and beat them as punishment.

    12. Re:That really sucks by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      Jesus H. Christ, can we PUH-LEASE leave this damned stupid argument behind once and for freaking all. SOME murderers, I am sure, feel guilty, but to state that MOST killers are wracked by guilt goes way, way, way beyond what evidence has repeatedly shown. Prisons are full of unrepentent murderers, as are the streets.

      In other words, a healthy percentage of killers don't care for one second what they've done. There are various reasons for this, but look around before assuming that "most" murderers are just good people who have done something bad. The world is full of assholes who are assholes just for the sake of being assholes, and there are countless examples of this extending into the realm of murder.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    13. Re:That really sucks by liliafan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually people with 'normal moral values' do also object to the death penalty. Can you always be 100% certain the person being executed is guilty? Moratoria

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    14. Re:That really sucks by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Funny

      I heard that ReiserFS 4 would be a killer, but this is ridiculous!

    15. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Hey moron, before trying to pass capital punishment as 'normal value system', maybe you should stick your head out of your ass and realize that there's actually people living outside of the US...and the ENORMOUS majority of them are against capital punishment.

    16. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thats the funny thing about punishments for serious crimes...

      All the evidence suggests that the severity of punishments have little to NO impact on the number of those crimes perpetrated. So why do you want to do this again? Revenge? An eye for an eye? Is that it?

      I say lock em up forever if the situation warrants it but capital punishment is always wrong as far as Im concerned.

    17. Re:That really sucks by alamandrax · · Score: 1

      It's all in the context.

      If the person is lashing out because of ignorance or out of frustration, then turning the cheek is good. Remember. You're the morally stronger person. (Think peaceful protest and the army locks you into a closed in compound and opens fire. Refer to the reaction by the Indian leaders.)

      If the person attacking on the other hand is f***ing nuts and there's nothing you can do to dissuade him or her, then to protect yourself is not wrong.

      Either way, using your head right is what is called for.

      Sue me if that makes me sound like a pussy.

      --
      'tis but a scratch.
    18. Re:That really sucks by alamandrax · · Score: 1

      mod parent idiot (or slightly naive).

      Oh wait. that's me.

      --
      'tis but a scratch.
    19. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

      I would support the death penalty if it was required that the jury which imposes it must also implement it. Line up 12 switches to trigger the killing machine and make them each flip one. And make it so that if any person on death row is later exonerated that the jury and prosecutors are automatically charged with attempted murder. And make it so that they are all automatically charged with murder if anyone innocent is executed by the state.

    20. Re:That really sucks by st1d · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>> like heaven...hardy a fit punishment for any crime.

      Ah, we can fix that. Hans' computer will be running XP, and the development environment...MS VS Pro. He'll beg for the chair!

      Just joking, I wouldn't even do that to MS execs. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    21. Re:That really sucks by LindseyJ · · Score: 1
      Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?

      We don't. We kill them because we as a society would rather take the easy and more satisfying way out. Thinking that capital punishment is a deterrent is as juvenile as thinking jails are for rehabilitation.

      And the rest of your post is so idiotic, I'm just not going to touch it.
    22. Re:That really sucks by catbutt · · Score: 1
      so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.
      Well, imprisonment of innocent people is bad too (say, if you took someone and held them by force in your basement), but most of us agree that imprisonment of people (by society) is justified in many cases.
      By your logic any punishment is wrong (even fines), since it would be wrong to apply that punishment to an undeserving person.
      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.
      So he's a productive member of society, but his wife is still dead. If the only reason for imprisonment is rehabilitation, how do you discourage people from murdering people in the first place? If you don't beleive in the power of punishment as a deterrent, what do you do, just teach people to be nice to each other?
    23. Re:That really sucks by mccoma · · Score: 1
      All the evidence suggests that the severity of punishments have little to NO impact on the number of those crimes perpetrated. So why do you want to do this again? Revenge? An eye for an eye? Is that it?

      I hear this a lot, but have never seen it backed up with a study and/or datasets. Does anyone have an actual reference? I get a little worried about thing stated with "All".

    24. Re:That really sucks by uufnord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.

      He probably would, of course. When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.

    25. Re:That really sucks by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Oooh. So to punish the criminal we get to turn the family of the victim into sadistic asocial losers, and if they aren't willing, we'll hire our own? So, if someone feels they didn't get a good deal on the oil change do they get to pour hot engine oil on the technician? I know, if someone cuts me off in traffic, I get to waterboard his ass. That will teach him! I truly fear for society if your ignorance and sadism become the norm.

    26. Re:That really sucks by aprilsound · · Score: 1
      Life imprisonment will keep the criminal away from society where he can't do any further damage. It also eliminates the possibility of the state killing someone who may (no matter how small the chance) be innocent.
      So making every last day of their life for 20+ years a living hell is somehow better than an execution? I'm not saying we should execute murders, but by your logic we shouldn't imprison anyone because we can't be 100% certain they commited whatever crime it was.
    27. Re:That really sucks by st1d · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>> All the evidence suggests that the severity of punishments have little to NO impact on the number of those crimes perpetrated.

      All the evidence? As stated, the "severity of punishments" can be explained by the realization that the punishments aren't typically punishments to those involved. As countering evidence, most people don't recommit minor crimes, one night in a cell block is good enough for them. Also, how many of us might have thought about committing violence against someone at some point, but didn't, because we don't want to be in prison or on death row? That a fairly small portion of criminals don't see severe punishment as a deterrent doesn't mean it is ineffective.

      >>> So why do you want to do this again? Revenge? An eye for an eye? Is that it?

      Deterrence. As long as society isn't willing to educate, employ, or provide for all it's members, you're going to need some means of dealing with the folks that put themselves into situations where violent crime is a viable means to an end. Happy, satisfied people don't commit violent crimes. To deter the extremely depressed, scared, and others whose emotions have dropped to a primitive level, you need a threat that catches their attention. Something that threatens to make their existance worse. It won't work for everyone, but not using it at all, because it makes us feel bad, means we're not using all the tools we have to deal with the problem. Currently, it's like we have a $20 set of tools, and we're trying to use them to fix every problem.

      Simply knowing that the punishment is available, even if it's rarely used, is a good thing, if it stops one violent crime. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know exactly how many crimes ARE NOT committed because of the threat of a certain punishment. Which it why it's more important to have a variety of them available, even if we almost never use them. The more we have, the more people will likely find one that convinces them it's not worth it.

      Besides, we're not talking about shoplifters, we're talking about people who take the life of another human. You don't just wake up a murderer, there's a whole lot of things that lead up to the situation, and that means a whole lot of time to convince such people to avoid this behavior. We're simply not convincing enough, currently.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    28. Re:That really sucks by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2

      If they find out they were wrong and he hadn't wrongfully imprisoned his mother, he could be let out of prison and we could apologize for our actions even though we couldn't really make up for it. Can you bring someone back to life 8 years later when you find out that the killer was really the neighbors 12 year old asocial nutcase kid rather than the husband? Thought not.

    29. Re:That really sucks by some+damn+guy · · Score: 1

      You are talking about turning the sight of a person getting tortured into an evening's entertainment, which is usually the sign of a pretty fucked up individual. All that makes you different is how society views your reason for hurting someone. It's interesting to see how dark people's thoughts get when they're imagining they make the rules. Face it, _people_ are violent and instead of trying to overcome our violent tendencies you want to justify them.

      All you prove is that it's okay to torture and kill people, as long as you have a good reason. Think you have to be evil to commit an inhuman act? You don't. Normal people do it every day. You just have to turn your victim into something other than a human being. You show just how easy it is. Think it's a coincidence that most people who get executed are poor and black but get convicted by people who are neither?

    30. Re:That really sucks by penix1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      - Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?


      If your sentence is "life" then yes. I do think our system needs revamped in that a person who served their FULL sentence (not on parole / probation) honorably should, after a short time (say 5 years), have that issue expunged from their record. It is IMO unfair to continue to punish a person for things they did 20-30 years ago.

      Let me give you a true story that I think is tragic. I have a co-worker that was convicted of felony possession in Florida 25 years ago. He served his entire sentence without ever looking at another drug and in fact is so anti-drug today it is nauseating. The reason he is anti-drug isn't because of the drugs but because of his experiences to this day of the conviction and continued punishment. He applied for a job at one of the counties in my state that is identical to the one he holds now that he has been doing for 6 years. They dug up that 25 year old conviction because it was the only distinguishing detail between him and the other person applying for the job. Guess who got the job. He is also barred from participating in elections because of it. His conviction happened in another state 25 years ago and he is barred from elections in this state!

      Having said that, if you have not served your full sentence honorably, then you still owe that to society as deemed by the courts. OTOH, if you did serve your time then you should be allowed to move on.

      B.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    31. Re:That really sucks by 'nother+poster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt. Come on. You said you had evidence.

    32. Re:That really sucks by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, just ignoring the problem will drive some of those people to revenge killings - this is what happens in societies that break down, like Iraq. The government is seen as powerless or uncaring, so people take matters into their own hands...

      And that is really bad, for the reasons you state.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    33. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?
      I picked a shit university and a useless major. Odds are, I will suffer the consequences and be judged for it for the rest of my life.
    34. Re:That really sucks by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see with that is that it costs 2-5 times as much to keep them alive as a normal person will make in their entire life. I think we need to get back to a system where the prisoners have to support themselves - don't work, don't eat. Really, that's how it is on the outside, right?

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    35. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > I hope they let him code in prison.

      He'll be banging out all sorts of codes in prison... if you count license plates.

    36. Re:That really sucks by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      It certainly does when they kill people who aren't actually guilty. You're a pretty wretched excuse for a human being if you think we should continue executing people when they're killing people who are innocent. Not to mention the significantly higher cost of actually getting someone to execution and doing the deed over life in prison or that the death penalty is completely pointless since it neither brings back those who were killed nor does it deter those who would do murder. As a punishment, which an enlightened society should be well beyond, it fails miserably.

      So you're right, the state isn't "just as bad" as a murderer for executing them. It's diminishes all of us, not just the murderer.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    37. Re:That really sucks by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      So where does that leave the victim? There was a victim initially that shouldn't be forgotten.

      Even if he's guilty, he's probably not a threat to you or me.

      Charles Manson on the other hand, had lots of victims, random victims, and would be a threat to you or me. Why is that dipsh*t still alive?
      He isn't worth the money spent on his `rehabilitation`.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    38. Re:That really sucks by slavelayer · · Score: 1

      Ummmm... 5% is not a low number. Imagine living in a population where 5% are murderers!

    39. Re:That really sucks by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow. I'm not sure I could say much more then WOW.

      Chances are the person you know of who only served 8 years wasn't a murderer but commited a homicide of some sorts. Now there is a difference between killing, murder and homicide. I can tell you didn't know that because of your reply here.

      Murder is the killing or taking the life of a person unjustly/unlawfully and involves the intention of doing so. You can kill someone unlawfully and still be justified and it not be considered murder. Homicide is the killing or taking of a life usualy without intention. There are several degrees of homicide in that how you acted before the actions interpret the amount of liability a person might have. Of course killing is the taking of a life.

      Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.

      Now, as for a person who murdered someone (not killed or was involved in a homicide) making thier own punishment. I don't think it is enough. It is like asking a kid what thier punishment should be for chewing gum in class and him saying spitting the gum out after it took an hour to decide and the flavor is gone. A murderer took a life intentionaly and probably for greed, he should have more punishment then living with the knowledge that he succeeded. As a matter of fact, I belive he should have his own life taken (wich isn't murder) from him so he isn't ever "five times more likley to recommit if released".

    40. Re:That really sucks by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      ? no, it'd be more like living in a society where 5% of the people who murder once, will murder again.

      The % of people who murder once is pretty low. 5% of that is even lower

    41. Re:That really sucks by penix1 · · Score: 1
      I picked a shit university and a useless major. Odds are, I will suffer the consequences and be judged for it for the rest of my life.


      The difference is you control the circumstances for that decision. The fix is easy by you. Simply go to another University and get another degree. A felony conviction is with you forever and there is nothing you can do to erase it. See my post above for just one example.

      B.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    42. Re:That really sucks by bendodge · · Score: 0
      And you probably sight the Sixth Commandment. But what about Genesis 9:6?
      "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
      --
      The government can't save you.
    43. Re:That really sucks by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>> Can you bring someone back to life 8 years later when you find out that the killer was really the neighbors 12 year old asocial nutcase kid rather than the husband?

      Yes we can, but the damn things keep chewing on people's brains.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    44. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. As far as I'm concerned, for example, a fifteen-year sentence is equivalent to a life sentence or the death penalty--any sentence of that severity or greater is equal to any other sentence of that severity or greater. The key here is that anything that will push me to risk fifteen years in jail will push me to risk execution. The lines are different for many people, but I'm willing to bet that they're usually drawn before life/death penalty.

      Another problem is that total punishment (Life without parole, death sentence) removes most of the ability of authority to threaten further. I hesitate to point to a fictional example here, but look at the movie Heat, when the bank robbery goes bad. As soon as the main characters are forced to kill a cop, they open up with everything they have--they're already in as deep as it gets, past that point not getting caught is all that matters.

    45. Re:That really sucks by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

      Prisons are full of unrepentent murderers, as are the streets.

      You make it sound like one can't walk down the street without meeting one.

    46. Re:That really sucks by monoqlith · · Score: 0

      - Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      Oh, so they feel really bad about the fact that they murdered someone. Why, that's punishment enough! I don't see why we even punish them at all!

      Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?

      If the worst thing that I've done is murder someone, then yes. There are two dimensions of this problem.

      First, the moral standpoint. the victim of a murder has lost their life, and along with it their capacity for new experience, accomplishments, and other future pleasures that living can confer upon them. If the murderer has got off scot free, then this person's has basically been rendered worthless. Punishing the murderer is an acknowledgemnet of the value of the victim's life - and the value is one that our government is based upon, and has promised to protect, even if it is too late to protect the life itself.

      From a practical standpoint, the 5% number is still too high. I don't want 5% of released prisoners killing again. That's an extremely high body count when you consider how many people are released from prison everywhere.

        But rehabilitation is besides the point. We must pre-empt the murder, not treat it after the fact. The idea is make the act of murdering someone - - and any crime which incurs suffering - so costly that it will be highly undesirable to do so for the rest of us. The only way we can do this is to make known that the person who commits a specific crime invariably afterwards experiences things so unpleasant that it would a foolish economic decision to commit a similar act.

      So what exactly is your argument? Doesn't society have some interest in severely punish those who rob others of their rght to live? If not for moral reasons, then for practical reasons, surely, we an obligation to show that murder is not tolerated.

    47. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the world suffering from over-population already? And now we are trying to find more exuses to let people live. Let the killers kill. Then kill then. Each time that is at least two less people for the world to worry about.

    48. Re:That really sucks by megaditto · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Got it wrong once with Jesus...

      Anyone willing to take another chance at the death penalty?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    49. Re:That really sucks by penix1 · · Score: 1
      Murder is the killing or taking the life of a person unjustly/unlawfully and involves the intention of doing so. You can kill someone unlawfully and still be justified and it not be considered murder.


      Then let's analyze the death penalty using your definition to see if it is murder. I think it is.

      In your definition you claim you can justify unlawful killing without it being murder but for it to be murder you have to have the "intent" (aka premeditation) to do it. Given that a death sentence is not only planned but scheduled, I think that just made it murder by your own definition. The method of death is also planned well in advance and worse, the victim knows when it will happen and can do nothing to stop it when the appeals expire. Sure sounds like murder by your own definition to me.

      B.
      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    50. Re:That really sucks by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yes we can, but the damn things keep chewing on people's brains.

      Mmmmmm, BRRAAAAAIINS!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    51. Re:That really sucks by JackieBrown · · Score: 1
      I would support the death penalty if it was required that the jury which imposes it must also implement it. Line up 12 switches to trigger the killing machine and make them each flip one.
      All that for 6 dollars a day to serve jury duty.
      If they chose jail time would they also have to serve that side by side?

      And make it so that if any person on death row is later exonerated that the jury and prosecutors are automatically charged with attempted murder. And make it so that they are all automatically charged with murder if anyone innocent is executed by the state.
      And if the person they decide is incocent turns out to be guilty and kills again would they also be charged for that persons murder?

      I don't think I would want to live in a world whose judicial system you created.

      I however have convieved the perfect legal system but my patent is pending
    52. Re:That really sucks by Wolfbaine · · Score: 2, Funny

      But his crime was faking a sign-off from Christoph Hellwig. Is this the example we want for young kernel programmers?

    53. Re:That really sucks by trenien · · Score: 1
      Well, on the other hand, except for one, you can backtrack on all kind of punishment if, say, you realize you convicted the wrong person.

      The one exception is, of course, the death sentence.

    54. Re:That really sucks by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1
      Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      Have any evidence to back up that claim? Several police officers I know would disagree with tou.

    55. Re:That really sucks by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Given that a death sentence is not only planned but scheduled, I think that just made it murder by your own definition.
      In your zeal to hastily support your erroneous claim, you missed one key thing. Capital punishment isn't unlawful. Homicide must first and foremost be unlawful to be murder.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    56. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, great idea, waste another 4 years of my life, and loose not just the money but also 4 years of experience in whatever field I'd be going into.

      Also keep in mind that brain plasticity decreases with age in many ways.

    57. Re:That really sucks by slavelayer · · Score: 1

      Yes, but for a population of murderers to be 'rehabilitated' the re-murder rate should match that of the society they are moving back into. If it is higher than that then it's too high.

    58. Re:That really sucks by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some murderers might be "rehabilitated" according to the justice system, but the fact remains that the flaw exists in their personality that once drove them to kill someone. If you were angry enough to actually kill someone (not out of self defense), I'm sorry, but that's a major flaw in your mental makeup. You can't magically change someone's brain or their personality. I understand the need to feel sorry for someone who sat in jail for 8 years and is now "being a productive member of society," but that doesn't change the fact that their victim had their life taken from them, and the judicial system protects society from that threat by jailing these murderers because the risk is too great to hope that they aren't driven to that point again.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    59. Re:That really sucks by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.
      I personally would hope to be as enlightened as those Amish folks when that nutcase killed all those young girls. They actually invited the family of the nut to come pray with them, realizing that the guy was sick and that being angry about it won't bring back the dead. Seriously, thirsting for revenge doesn't make any aspect of such a bad situation any better. Finding compassion in the face of personal loss might be extraordinarily difficult, but letting anger rule your life essentially flushes a second life down the drain after the first.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    60. Re:That really sucks by catbutt · · Score: 1

      True. And I am not necessarily for or against the death penalty. I am, however, against dumb logic, hence my post.

    61. Re:That really sucks by denebian+devil · · Score: 1

      You conveniently neglected to consider his use of the term "unlawful" in his definition of murder. The death penalty is lawful in that it it state-sanctioned killing of someone as punishment for a crime they committed. Therefore it is lawful and by his definition not murder.

    62. Re:That really sucks by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. ;)

    63. Re:That really sucks by penix1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To both of you look here:

      http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles /2006/01/01/a_chronology_of_the_death_penalty/

      In my state of WV it is unlawful. So it by far is not lawful everywhere.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    64. Re:That really sucks by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      It costs even more to execute them.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    65. Re:That really sucks by AI0867 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But rehabilitation is besides the point. We must pre-empt the murder, not treat it after the fact. The idea is make the act of murdering someone - - and any crime which incurs suffering - so costly that it will be highly undesirable to do so for the rest of us. The only way we can do this is to make known that the person who commits a specific crime invariably afterwards experiences things so unpleasant that it would a foolish economic decision to commit a similar act.

      Beyond a certain point (which is around 5 years IIRC), increasing punishment does not increase deterrent, people just try to avoid getting caught.

    66. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, let me get your what you're saying straight, you're saying that the crucifiction made a martyr out of that megalomanic lunatic and enabled his cult to cause as much damage as it did?

      Yeah, I suppose I wouldn't have been a good idea to have risked excecuting L. Ron, or the leader of falun gong, or ... holy fucking shit, they are going to excecute that sarin gas guy in Japan!

    67. Re:That really sucks by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      No country in history has ever passed a law that states that their government can't kill people. Even the free spirited liberal countries I love reserve that right for their governments. How fucked up is that? Not only do we feel the need to grant power to an elite to rule over us, but we can't even agree to limit their power to less than murder.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    68. Re:That really sucks by visgoth · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, turning the other cheek is never an acceptable response. You'll just end up with two bruised cheeks. Instead, use only sufficent force stop their attack. Read up on the Continuum of Force concept. If someone starts slapping my face, I slap em back. A little feedback will let them know I'm not to be trifled with. Most civilized people will desist. If they don't, then you knock em unconsious, and move on.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    69. Re:That really sucks by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know for sure that I've never been put into a situation that would set most passion killers off, I've never been repeatedly abused or had an adulterous spouse or anything. So I'm unwilling to yell "fry 'em" at everyone who kills someone when they get mad and go nuts because I'm not 100% sure I wouldn't. Of course I don't think I would, but neither do most people who do such things. If you can honestly claim that you would never kill someone for any reason you just don't understand what fear, anger and emotional rationalization can do to the nicest people.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    70. Re:That really sucks by MarkRose · · Score: 3, Funny

      Should we accord such freedom to a guy who took the law in his own Hans?

      --
      Be relentless!
    71. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    72. Re:That really sucks by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>> As soon as the main characters are forced to kill a cop, they open up with everything they have--they're already in as deep as it gets, past that point not getting caught is all that matters.

      Your last point is pretty much where I was trying to head. It's not so much about dealing with people once the deed is done, it's dealing with them before they put them in that situation. Not whether they're thinking about facing life when they rob the bank, but the options they might be thinking about before they even start planning the crime.

      A more finely grained system of punishment, at the "high end", might deter folks who would otherwise face one of two punishments, neither of which approaches the damage they might do to society by their actions. Sitting around or dying aren't punishments, they are just part of life. In the example, you'd have robbers telling themselves, "Well, I'll rob the bank, I'll even use the gun, but if it comes to killing a cop, I'm not killing more than one." Not good for the one cop, might save the life of the others.

      Being in acute misery for a long, long time might cause someone to take up a hobby to keep themselves from following through with their nutty fantasies. Or better, perhaps seek some sort of help.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    73. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you always be 100% certain that someone at whom the evidence points to as the culprit won't commit the same crime again and again if set free? Just as there are cases of the innocent being mistakenly imprisoned, there are cases of the guilty being set free on technicalities or "good behavior" only to commit their crimes again. In the end, what must be done should be in the greater good of the community; hence, being judged by a jury of one's peers.

    74. Re:That really sucks by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Brain plasticity decreases with disuse. I know over 60s who can out-think twenty somethings in their sleep. I also know twenty somethings who couldn't think their way out of a cardboard box if they had a boxcutter and a flashlight.

      --
      I hate printers.
    75. Re:That really sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      You want to murder someone for commiting a murder?
      I would want to remove a person found to be extremely dangerous to the society. Premediated, cold-blooded murder certainly falls into that category. And once there, I see no real difference between life sentence (a real life sentence) and death penalty.
    76. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't really matter whether the person is 100% guilty, it is still a horrible penalty.

    77. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Prisons are full of unrepentent murderers, as are the streets.

      I'm never leaving the house again.

    78. Re:That really sucks by QuantumG · · Score: 1
      Great. You forgot:

      • wars
      • spies
      • protection of the king/whatever


      A blanket ban on murder, of any kind, by anyone, including state officials, has never been enacted anywhere.
      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    79. Re:That really sucks by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      "I don't know what set him off the first time, but what's to say he won't react exactly the same way if he's ever put into that situation (or a similar situation) again?"

      Who's to say you wouldn't murder in such a situation?

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    80. Re:That really sucks by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      So, you're essentially saying that it's ok for 5% of the worlds population to be at risk?

      Possibly even more, if one of them ends up liking it a little bit much, and gets carried away?

      -Fred

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    81. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have any evidence to back up that claim? Several police officers I know would disagree with tou.

      They have personal experience? In that case, why are they still police officers, and not locked up somewhere?

      Because they are definitely not strong enough with the force to be able to read the minds of murderers. Even psykologists or psykiatrists cannot do that, even if they claim they can.

    82. Re:That really sucks by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      AC: Is the world suffering from over-population already?

      No it isn't. It is suffering from unfair distribution.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    83. Re:That really sucks by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      One sometimes has to wonder if the same set of thoughts in the US that allows for the death penalty also contributes to the nation's staggering crime rates.

    84. Re:That really sucks by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      A blanket ban on murder, of any kind, by anyone, including state officials, has never been enacted anywhere.

      Well, it's just semantics but technically when the state/supreme ruler does it within the bounds of the legal system, it's not murder, as that's unlawful killing by definition.

      I do see your point though. Many countries no longer have the death penalty (I believe the UK abolished the last capital punishment in the 1980s), but I'm not aware of any that explicitly outlaw state-sanctioned killing.

    85. Re:That really sucks by Urkki · · Score: 1
      No country in history has ever passed a law that states that their government can't kill people.

      Plenty of countries have laws that don't allow the government to order killing any of their own people, nor any civillians at all. Only exception would be ordering to fight (ie kill) attacking foreign military. And plenty of people would consider it immoral to not defend their country if somebody wants to come and kill its people...
    86. Re:That really sucks by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Unlawful for the state or anywere? Because the state made a law against it? Federal jurusdiction can superceed state rule in some cases so a lawful execution could happen in WV. Actualy, when you had that guy shooting random people from overpasses and along freeways or other hidden yet accesable places, the state asked the federal government to take jurisdiction because of wanting the death penalty. This guy, I forget his name but turned out to be the one shooting along the outerbelts in columbus ohio too that eventualy was caught in las vegas after his parents figured it out and told the police. Actualy, After looking, the WV shootings are consider unsolved but they have stoped when ohio started and hasn't surfaced since ohios guy was caught.

      However, this is kind of an "exorcise of stupidity". If it is illegal to execute a person in some state, country or whatever without some overriding power, then the government or courts aren't going to be executing anyone. If they do, they will either have the law on thier side, or be commitung murder wich isn't an execution. Generaly, if a city or area wants a person executed when no law allows, they let the citizens form a lynch mob and storm the place the criminal is being held while offering no resistance. This is considered murder and usualy/historicly goes unpunished because of the amount of people involved.

    87. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So making every last day of their life for 20+ years a living hell is somehow better than an execution

      Yes. Not perfect, not good, but better than killing them. Because when you find out that you have the wrong guy, you can let them back out. When you kill someone, and find out that you killed the wrong guy, you can't bring him back, even if you find out that it's the wrong guy five minutes later.

    88. Re:That really sucks by petteri_666 · · Score: 1

      Can you always be 100% certain the person being executed is guilty?

      Two wrongs don't make a right, that's the point why most people are agains the death penalty, globally I mean, don't know about the U.S, since they seem to justify all kind of killings.

    89. Re:That really sucks by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      What I think is great is the way presidents get on tv and declare they are going to hunt down and kill some foreign enemy. If you or I did that we'd be arrested for conspiracy to commit murder.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    90. Re:That really sucks by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lawful killing to me.

      Killing people because society determins it neccesary is something that has gone one since the begining of time. Almost every bible (choose the religion) has references to it. Every war ever needs it. It isn't something thats bad either. It is something that when used sparingly and appropriatly does the greater society good. While I wouldn't advise everyone run out and kill someone, I would suggest they be prepared to do so.

      Now, If you were to take my life because I murdered your mom or dad, it would be considered murder. If we let the state do it, it is just an execution/killing. Now if you kill me after seeing I just murdered your mom in order to stop me from murdering your dad too, then it is unlawful, justified and not murder. If a person with the proper authority (like a cop) see me just murder your mom, kills me before I can murder you, then it is lawful, justified, and still not murder.

      I hope this helps you understand it a little better.

    91. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donno, might be safer to stay in the box, wouldn't want the DHS to arrest me, would I?

    92. Re:That really sucks by fferreres · · Score: 1

      And what's the % of released prisoners in general. I don't care much if it is 100%, 5 times, or 10^5. WHat's important is how likely is the released murdered to recommint a crime, compared to the general population.

      > As a matter of fact, I belive he should have his own life taken
      > (wich isn't murder) from him so he isn't ever "five times more
      > likley to recommit if released".

      Yes, but can never be sure if you are convicting the right person. There should be a 1/1000 or 1/50 or 1/100,000 ratio of failure. We don't even know what the ratio is.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    93. Re:That really sucks by Heretik · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cool, so if we make murder legal, there's no such thing as murder anymore!

      Duh.

    94. Re:That really sucks by pluther · · Score: 5, Funny
      Got it wrong once with Jesus...

      That case was an aberration.

      Almost every executed criminal since then as stayed dead.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    95. Re:That really sucks by s4m7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What this example has is no place in a discussion about murder. The fact that our government continues to wage a failed war on drugs, a war on our own citizenry, involves so much less of a conscious decision and VASTLY LESS SIGNIFICANT moral conflicts on the part of the offender that it isn't even remotely applicable. At all.

      --
      This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
    96. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Of course I can't know it for sure. But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%. That is, most people don't do it again.

      It also means that murderers are far more likely to commit murder than the average person.

      It's all about your perspective.
    97. Re:That really sucks by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention the fact that some people actually deserve to be removed from the face of the earth forth-with, regardless of the consequences to those doing the removing.

      "He needed killin'" is an acceptable defense. At least, ya know, in some of the southerns states of the USA.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    98. Re:That really sucks by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      Even if your state opposes the death penalty, The punishment for treason is the death penalty, enforcable in every state of the Union. So even in your state, a person COULD be put to death. Since it is outlined in the constitution, it isn't therefore unlawful.

      Of course this is a pretty obscure exception and probably doesn't count in casual speech. :)

      Disclaimer: I could be wrong, and if so, meh.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    99. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would want to remove a person found to be extremely dangerous to the society. Premediated, cold-blooded murder certainly falls into that category. And once there, I see no real difference between life sentence (a real life sentence) and death penalty.

      You are under arrest for murdering someone in India. You will be executed, by shooting at dawn...

      *bang*

      Wait, you weren't even in India at the time? Oh, so sorry, we better let you out of prison immidiately. Oh, wait, we can't.

    100. Re:That really sucks by ettlz · · Score: 1

      Well in the UK, at least, there's thing thing called "lawful killing" which kind of helps when dealing with nutters running around with guns and shooting people. Unfortunately, it's also sometimes used in error to take out innocent Brazilians.

    101. Re:That really sucks by memprime · · Score: 0

      Actually, some people seem to do things just to get into prison (to get medical care, a roof over their heads, etc.), and they get cable TV and three meals a day, so I don't know about how their lives are a living hell.

    102. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take the filesystem, thank you. There's no shortage of mothers on this planet, in fact, there are way too many of them, which is the main reason the environment is going down the drain.

    103. Re:That really sucks by elucido · · Score: 0, Troll

      You can't.

      Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath

      We call these people psychopaths/sociopaths, and you know some of them, in fact some may be posting on this forum, you may even have family members and best friends who are psycho. Take a psychology course, educate yourself before you post on a subject as complicated as emotion. We don't all have the same emotions, not everyone feels guilt, or love, or hate, as each person has their own set of emotions, their own emotional profile.

      Psychopaths in specific, they don't feel guilt or empathy for anyone.

    104. Re:That really sucks by oddfox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a lot of reading material. Some more. A little more. And to top things off here's another article.

      Are there plenty of people who feel remorse for killing people if it was a crime of passion or one that they didn't truly want to do but felt compelled to anyways? Sure. But it goes both ways, and there are plenty of people who quite honestly are so deranged that they don't feel any remorse for what they've done. A peer-reviewed scientific study showing that most killers aren't wracked with guilt? I doubt anyone has the time or inclination to play Search-Engine-Monkey for you. Go ahead and get evidence your evidence before you start demanding it from other people. There are plenty of cases where the fact of the matter is that these killers are remorseless, you only have to know an inkling about psychology to understand that. In fact, plenty of these murderers feel justified fully in their actions.

      Listen to elucido, he's trying to help you understand the situation. Most people who kill do it because they have serious problems.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    105. Re:That really sucks by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      I don't numbers for murderers because some are multple murderers and some are multiple victims.
      USA .005% of the population is murdered each year.
      Canada .0014% of the population is murdered each year.
      USA .6% of murderers paroled commit another murder. 76 year study of 12 states
      Canada .39% of murderers paroled commit another murder. 24 year study

      The rate of Repeat offences of murder are the lowest of all crimes.
      The number of repeat homicide offenders after parole is very low, but the percentage of paroled murderers committing another homicide is a lot higher than the percentage of population committing murder in the first place.

      There's a bit of data to play with.

    106. Re:That really sucks by elucido · · Score: 1



      How could anyone think it's rational to make murder legal? do you have any idea what would happen if murder were legalized even for a day?

    107. Re:That really sucks by julesh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.

      Well said. This is precisely why I oppose current British government moves to "put the victim's needs at the centre of the criminal justice system." The victim has no part in the criminal justice system... they're too biased.

    108. Re:That really sucks by julesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, just ignoring the problem will drive some of those people to revenge killings - this is what happens in societies that break down, like Iraq. The government is seen as powerless or uncaring, so people take matters into their own hands...

      And of course this is a real problem in the EU where the death sentence is illegal because of a variety of treaties. Revenge killings are commonplace and ... oh, hold on, no they're not. Must be something wrong with your logic.

    109. Re:That really sucks by elucido · · Score: 1

      Where do you get your statistics and how exactly can we know exactly how many people are murdered? Do you work in a funeral home or something?

    110. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, don't forget, Hans shot first!

    111. Re:That really sucks by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      "He needed killin'" is an acceptable defense.

      You'reoversimplifying that quite a bit. Under Texas law (and I don't think any other states allow this), it's permissible to introduce evidence to impugn the character of the deceased as a murder defense. Basically, it's a justifiable homicide theory, and you have to convince the jury that the person killed presented a danger to the defendant or to the community. It's rather harder to win an acquittal that way than it would be (say) to claim self-defense.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    112. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they let him not e-mail in jail - he could only harm himself ...

    113. Re:That really sucks by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

      Well I believe P.I. is going high tech these days... ;)

      --
      Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
    114. Re:That really sucks by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your evidence is mostly about serial killers. Most murderers are not serial killers. Crimes of passion like this one (if it was one; we don't know much about the case yet) are usually committed by people who have never killed before rather than psychopaths. Certainly these extreme cases exist, but they are a very different case study than the overwhelming majority of murders.

    115. Re:That really sucks by Clopy · · Score: 1

      You didn't get the point. The state's decision should not be "an eye for an eye", but should be based on the fairest solution for the society and the individual. Rehabilitation, etc. This does not mean in any way that if a person imprisons someone, the state cannot imprison him. But we shouldn't kill someone because he killed too. Nor jail someone because he did too. We should base our judicial system in what is best for everyone. If that means jail time for someone that "had imprisoned his mother in a cell for several years" then that's what it means.

      Also, let me point out that in the U.S. you have very high rates of murders comparing to Canada or the E.U. Why do you insist on believing that capital punishment is reducing murder rates? We seem to do much better without executing people.

    116. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people living outside of the US...and the ENORMOUS majority of them are against capital punishment

      I wouldn't draw that conclusion from the fact that capital punishment is not legal in many countries. It is well known that in some countries capital punishment has the majority support of the populace (at least for extreme crimes), but is still not legal because a negative attitude towards capital punishment is positively correlated with education, and governments tend to consist mostly of educated people. What this says about the US I don't know. Draw your own conclusions.

    117. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt anyone has the time or inclination to play Search-Engine-Monkey for you. Go ahead and get evidence your evidence before you start demanding it from other people.

      Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person doubting it.

      Most people who kill do it because they have serious problems.

      You are making a claim. The only thing that will make your claim worth listening to is if you have evidence to support it. The onus of proof is on you, since you are the person making the claim. Put up or shut up.

    118. Re:That really sucks by Marcion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Holy reiserfsck, how bizzare, how fscking bizarre.

      Read this for another side of the story:
        http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/09/ 13/n/HeadlineNews/HOME-SEARCHED/resources_bcn_html

      There are some other strange aspects to all this, the wife may have been having an affair, but (at least in UK) often divorce lawyers encourage clients to do a 'kitchen-sink' approach to try and wrest custody of the children, so her affair and his domestic violence are both suspect until we get more info.

      It will all come out if there is a body, or the wife turns up in Russia.

    119. Re:That really sucks by oddfox · · Score: 0

      If you can't make the distinction that murdering someone is wrong, then you have serious problems. My point stands. Common sense has never been common, though.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    120. Re:That really sucks by Znork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As the right to life is one of the most fundamental human rights, and one of those most often considered inalienable, there are compelling arguments that any state legalizing the death penalty is overstepping its authority.

      You can make excuses for anything from genocide through torture to slavery, which is essentially what laws legalizing such atrocities are. This does not change the fact that any observer can easily condemn the crime for what it is.

    121. Re:That really sucks by stupid_is · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant this guy? :-)

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    122. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why most legal systems have stopped relying on religious texts for guidance. Nominally.

    123. Re:That really sucks by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 4, Funny

      My version of heaven does not include forced anal sex. Maybe I'm weird.

    124. Re:That really sucks by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Not for nothing, but how can you be a victim of multiple murders?

    125. Re:That really sucks by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So making every last day of their life for 20+ years a living hell is somehow better than an execution?

      Imprisonment doesn't make anyone's life a living hell, at least here in the civilized world where prisons are staffed and controlled adequately to prevent abuses by the other inmates or the staff. Dunno about how it is in the US: the prison system there is certainly infamous for its abuses and inability to control the inmates - prison rapes being prime examples of that - but it is hard to say how much of that is based on fact and not fiction.

      Besides, the fact that most prisoners don't end up killing themselves certainly seems to indicate that life in prison is better than none whatsoever, even in America.

      --

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

    126. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After all, every murderer when he kills runs the risk of the most dreadful of deaths, whereas those who kill him risk nothing except promotion."

      -- Albert Camus

    127. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, being stupid is not yet criminal.

    128. Re:That really sucks by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0

      How could anyone think it's rational to make a point in an amusing way by stating an exaggerated form of the opposite? Do you have any idea what might happen if the message was read by someone who totally didn't understand the concept of irony?

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    129. Re:That really sucks by Znork · · Score: 1

      "Sounds like a lawful killing to me."

      Sounds like a weak excuse to me.

      "Is something that has gone one since the begining of time."

      As has murder, rape, torture, genocide, etc. Ever consider that maybe it's time we grow up and actually stop repeating every evil atrocity our primitive ancestors engaged in?

      "does the greater society good."

      An excuse used by more or less every evil bastard throughout the history of mankind to justify their actions. And one which is rarely accompanied with any sort of empirical evidence.

      "I would suggest they be prepared to do so."

      Perhaps. But dont kid yourself, any way you try to rationalize it to yourself to make yourself feel better, it's most likely going to be exceedingly unproductive and serve no actual good in the end.

    130. Re:That really sucks by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      If he killed his wife and disposed of her body with forethough it was not a crime of passion. That phrase doesn't mean you kill someone you love, it means you kill in a fit of rage.

    131. Re:That really sucks by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Some murderers might be "rehabilitated" according to the justice system, but the fact remains that the flaw exists in their personality that once drove them to kill someone. If you were angry enough to actually kill someone (not out of self defense), I'm sorry, but that's a major flaw in your mental makeup.

      The problem is that this flaw is shared by nearly every living being on this planet. Nearly everyone is willing to kill, given the suitable incentive - it may be anger, it may be patriotism, it may be defending your political rights (which is not the same as self-defense, which means defending your person from an immediate threat), it may be religion, it may be hatred of religion, it may be the desire to conform ("I was just following orders")... to each their excuse. But it's there.

      Banality of evil is a nasty thing to accept, since it means that evil things aren't done just by evil maniacs, but can be done by anyone in the right circumstances. All it takes is a refusal to consider someone quite human - a bit like you're doing right now, I might add - after which that presumed inhumanity can be used to justify inhuman treatment. Everyone is a potential murderer, no one is immune to the lure of evil; some people are simply better at resisting it than others, and of course not everyone faces the same temptations.

      So yeah, a murderer is a flawed individual. But so are you. I bet it is possible to hurt you bad enough that you want revenge. That doesn't mean that you are a murderer, of course, but it means that you could become, given the right circumstances. The potential - the seed of evil, if you want to put it that way - is there. And it doesn't mean that murderers shouldn't be locked up and punished, but it does mean that classifying them as less than fully human - which this entire "they can't be rehabilitated, they have a flawed personality" thing comes down to - means starting down the same road they once walked. After all, the first step of becoming a murderer is, after all, telling yourself that your victim deserves to die or at least be hurt.

      And it isn't the flaw in their personality that drove them to kill, it simply allowed them to act on their violent impulses.

      --

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

    132. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the world would say that the white house is now full of unrepentant assholes who kill. Is that good enough?

    133. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see why he would want to kill his wife. According to this article, she was having an extra-marital affair with his financial agent (finance guys are scum), while collaborating with Sturgeon to get him to pay up money she thought he had even though he drives an old rickety car. Not only that, she's a gynecologist and still expects him to pay child support even though he gets no visitation rights.

      All this which was taking a financial and emotional toll from the work he loved, developing Reiser4.

      http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_256204954.h tml

      I sympathize with him if what he claims is true.

    134. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he won't bother that his PC is running Windows XP. I went to FOSDEM in 2004, where Hans Reiser gave a talk about ReiserFS and Reiser4. He showed us a Powerpoint presentation on his Windows XP laptop.

    135. Re:That really sucks by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The majority of the US does not justify all kinds of killings, but a small group of Americans (neo-cons) do. Sadly, it is the neo-cons that are in power. Hopefully, in about a month that will change.

      Our real issue is that we do not appear to make morals a high priority of our gov. For example, the last moral president was almost certainly Jimmy Carter.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    136. Re:That really sucks by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      It was a joke.

      Sort of along the lines of one of those "If we make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns" statements. In that case, of course only criminal would have guns, because a formerly law abiding citizen with a gun would (under the new law) now be a criminal. Everyone with a gun becomes a criminal, so its true that only criminals have guns.

      Well, in the case of murder, someone defined murder to say it must be unlawful to be murder. Well, using that definition, if we make murder legal, it can no longer be unlawful, thus it can no longer be murder. It may sound like the sort of statistics you'd expect to hear from a politicion, but it would be true. The murder rate would instantly drop to 0%. Of course, theres no telling what would happen to the homicide rate (other than that it would probably go way up). Its simply a matter of playing games with definitions.

    137. Re:That really sucks by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1
      Three perps jump a victim (perhaps intending only to rob them) and kill them - one victim, three murderers.

      An armed gang carries out a robbery, in the course of which someone is shot dead - all of the gang, I believe (although I dare say that exactly how this is handled varies from country to country) can be charged with the murder.

    138. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a greater tragedy for one innocent man to be convicted of a crime than for 1000 guilty men to go free. (I forget who takes the credit for that quote, but it was a man who believed in human rights, unlike you.)

      When the state imprisons an innocent man, the state is no longer the protector (which is how all states originally justify themselves) but the aggressor. The state becomes the criminal, and no amount of voting or negotiating will change this violation of human rights. Let that sink in for a few seconds.

      Because the state holds the unique "right" to employ physical force against others as its means (that is what defines all government after all), there can be no greater threat to peace and freedom than the state itself. Criminals are (by law) equal in power to you and me. They hold no special "right" to employ coercion against you and me; that's why they are criminals and not government officials.

      Clearly, government is the greatest threat to peace and freedom, not criminals. History is quite clear about it: governments around the world have killed hundreds of millions of innocent human beings in the last century alone. All the criminals around the world put together can't even approach that figure.

      For the state to let a guilty man go free, the state is merely incompetent. For the state to imprison an innocent man, the state itself becomes the threat to all innocent men. The death penalty represents the ultimate threat, and if the state employs the death penalty while failing to achieve 100% correctness in its system of justice (which of course every state does), then one reasonable conclusion is that the state is actively threatening you and me (innocent men) with murder.

      But hell, let's ignore all that. If you think it's OK to imprison (or kill) a few innocent men here and there for the "greater good", then I can only conclude that you don't believe in human rights. If you did, then you would accept that each peaceful human being has an absolute right to individual soverignty. If you don't care about human rights, then what the hell do you want justice for anyway?

    139. Re:That really sucks by testadicazzo · · Score: 1
      What's to say you won't act that way, given the right set of circumstances? It's impossible to predict people's behavior in advance.

      Sometimes people learn from mistakes. In that case they are less likely to make the same mistake a second time.

    140. Re:That really sucks by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1
      You want to murder someone for commiting a murder?
      Hell Yes. Rehabilitated is just another way of saying, "got away with."
      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    141. Re:That really sucks by testadicazzo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm amazed that all you people know enough killers to be able to make a statistical conclusion like "most people who kill have serious problems", or "plenty of these murderers feel justified in their actions".

      I think I've maybe met 2 people who killed people. One felt guilty (and should) and one claimed not to (and probably was correct in not feeling guilty, long story). And I always thought I knew a hell of a lot of fucked up people. But clearly the slashdot crowd routinely socializes with large numbers of killers.

      Unless of course they are pulling their opinions out of their ass or based on what they see in movies and on the TV (always fantastic sources of unbiased, unfiltered, statistically representative sources of information!)...

    142. Re:That really sucks by NATIK · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know how it works in your country, but here in Denmark we DO NOT put people in prison to punish them, we put them in prison to rehabilitate them and to keep them away from society while they are being rehabilitated. Our sentences are very low aswell and when people get out depend on whether the prisons feel they have been rehabilitated (up to the max of what the judge sentenced).

    143. Re:That really sucks by creepynut · · Score: 1
      Just joking, I wouldn't even do that to MS execs. :)
      I would.. but then, I'm an asshole :)
    144. Re:That really sucks by elucido · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know, thats what I don't understand, why do people actually favor gun control, yet we invite unlimited illegal immigration?

      I'm not making the case that illegal immigrants are criminals, plenty are good people, most are, but you always have good coming in with the bad and, it's not guns that are bad, it's when you have gun control only for good people who follow the law, and for criminals free or cheap guns. You know many people actually think somehow that it's good to have this setup and it's completely irrational.

    145. Re:That really sucks by bheer · · Score: 1

      Wow. 8 years for taking away a life that no one can restore? Way to go. I do hope there were extenuating circumstances.

    146. Re:That really sucks by orasio · · Score: 1

      I don't understand that.
      Someone kills another person in a fit of rage, and afterwards, realizes what he has done.

      I think a rational person would try not to go to jail for what he had done.
      Covering his tracks would only be sensible. Acting like that doesn't imply that the crime was premeditated. It only shows that, after commiting the crime, he doesn't want to go to jail.

      Of course, if you could prove that the crime had some planning, it's another issue.

    147. Re:That really sucks by SenorCitizen · · Score: 1
      He is also barred from participating in elections because of it. His conviction happened in another state 25 years ago and he is barred from elections in this state!

      Is this for real? I don't get it. Here in Finland there are ballot boxes in prisons on election days... do convicted criminals lose their vote for life automatically in the US, or does it only apply in some states?

    148. Re:That really sucks by h2g2bob · · Score: 1

      Yet it's always those most in need of a good killing that always seem to avoid it... *sigh*

    149. Re:That really sucks by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      Only after essence points to a peer-reviewed study that "most" (that's 50% +1 person) killers ARE wracked with guilt. Still, based on that, I don't like the odds settling at (50% - 1 person) will commit murder.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    150. Re:That really sucks by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Ok, this isn't directed at you, but your comment just made me hit my tipping point.

      There are more reasons for punishment than whatever quint notion springs into your mind first. We don't send people to prison just to rehabilitate them, we don't send them just to punish them, we don't send them just to teach a lesson. The truth is a combination of all of them, so please, future posters, whenever there is a story regarding prison, don't start a post with, "How is this supposed to [insert why you think punishment exists here] them.

    151. Re:That really sucks by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does the Reiser 4 File System involve a Cake?

    152. Re:That really sucks by RKBA · · Score: 1

      Funny how the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines don't have much of a problem recruiting people to voluntarily kill other people.

    153. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Jesus didn't do too well. Apparently he died (or at least appeared to have, and was taken down) after a 3-4 hours, while other crucified criminals survived days, and there are even contemporary accounts of a few having been taken down after a couple of days (after someone was able to assert some influence) and surviving.

    154. Re:That really sucks by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      It only applies is some states. Including one, which decided a Presidential election a while back, where you can apparently lose your right to vote for having a similar name to a convicted criminal, even if that person's crime was committed before you were born.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    155. Re:That really sucks by jocknerd · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be punishment. Punishment for someone like him would be strapping him to a chair, taping his eyelids open, like in A Clockwork Orange, and making him watch ESPN 24/7.

    156. Re:That really sucks by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      Assuming the person doesn't want to go to prison, wouldn't it be percieved as a punishment to them (which is the perspective that matters)? It sounds pretty much the same as the U.S. from the prisoners point of view. Our sentances are high, but the person usually gets out way early because they are viewed as rehabilitated (parole). They rarely stay up to the max that the judge sets.

    157. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst thing I've ever done... Installed a Windows 95! Again, this was it's own punishment.

    158. Re:That really sucks by Stone+Pony · · Score: 1
      The exact quote from the Library of Congress (and kudos for actually linking to a source with some serious credibility) is: "Released murderers, rapists, and child molesters are more likely to recommit the same offense than the general prison population. Released murderers are almost five times more likely than other ex-convicts to be rearrested for murder. Released rapists are 10 1/2 times more likely than nonrapist offenders to have a subsequent arrest for rape." That sounds pretty frightful, but your interpretation of it is flawed.

      Just examining the comment about murderers (since the sentence about rapists simply repeats the same logic with different numbers), all he has said is that murderers are more likely to commit murder than non-murderers. Unless you know the rate at which people are imprisoned for a crime other than murder, released and subsequently commit murder, this tells you nothing.

      Say that ten thousand people are convicted of lesser offences, serve their time and are released, and that one of them subsequently commits a murder. In the same period, two thousand people are convicted of murder, serve their time, and one subsequently commits another murder. This satisfies Fox's statement that "released murderers are almost five times more likely than other ex-convicts to be rearrested for murder", but the rate of reoffending is only 0.05%. Obviously, I've just plucked these exact numbers out of the air, largely to keep the maths easy, but the general principle holds.

      I'm not questioning Fox's sincerity, but the way it's presented comes across as an eye-catching factoid that plays well to an audience who probably aren't all that good at interpreting statistics.

    159. Re:That really sucks by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      Treason is a federal crime. The state of West Virginia will not, and cannot, execute someone for treason.

      Obviously, if you commit a federal crime for which there's a death penalty in West Virginia (even one that's not mentioned in the Constitution), state law is completely irrevelant.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    160. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You can see why the middle east is so desperate for that sweet, sweet democracy the US is trying to export to them!

      Land of the free indeed!

    161. Re:That really sucks by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      He showed us a Powerpoint presentation on his Windows XP laptop.

      He deserves the chair!

    162. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have it the wrong way round. Most murderers feel guity, are ashamed and want to be useful again. Sociopaths are not common and are the group you are referring too.

      Please do not sit in your chair in front of your computer thinking your better then everyone else and would not kill if provoked enough; everyone has their breaking point. Our jails are full of people who have killed, robbed, etc and do not expect to see the outside again no matter what pressures and circumstances surround the wrong they committed. We as a nation (and I'm just talking about the USA here) have lost the reason why we put people in jail; we make it a political punching bag and do not use it for rehab.

      Please take your smart-ass comments elsewhere and stop being one of the assholes you talk about.

    163. Re:That really sucks by RKBA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "... but letting anger rule your life essentially flushes a second life down the drain."

      Fortunately, I don't believe in a second life. ;-)

    164. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When last I checked, people in the United States were innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

      Sometimes to pathological extremes.

    165. Re:That really sucks by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Murder punishment is an interesting topic to ponder. What do you do with someone who has taken all opportunity from someone else? No punishment, other than murdering the murderer, can match what was done to the original victim. Sure, you can rehab the murderer, but where does that leave the victim and their family?

      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

      To bad his wife will never have the opportunity to be a productive member of society. Her family and friends will never be able to speak to her again or know what she might have become. In the extreme case she could have been the one who could have cured cancer. 8 years hardly sounds fair or near enough when you took eternity from someone else, and most likely wrecked an entire family.

      Murder prevention is what we need to be going for, and I'm not sure the threat of going to jail prevents much. I wonder what would happen if anyone convicted of murder was automatically sentenced to death. Would that prevent murders?

    166. Re:That really sucks by DoktorTomoe · · Score: 1
      Yeah, poor kids.

      A filesystem versus a mother's life?

      Assuming Hans actually is the murderer (which has to be proven before court), yes, I'd think a filesystem actually is important for more people (e.g. everyone who runs Reiser3) than a certain mother's life, whose demise only impacts a rather small set of people (family, colleages if any).

      Yes, I think those who actually are productive for society itself should be handled more favourably at law than those who are more or less worthless to parasitic. Call me a nuthead for it.

      What puzzles me, however, is how they can be sure of a murder without a corpse.
    167. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually people with 'normal moral values' do also object to the death penalty. Can you always be 100% certain the person being executed is guilty?


      If I witnessed it then yes I can be 100% sure.
    168. Re:That really sucks by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Is this for real? I don't get it. Here in Finland there are ballot boxes in prisons on election days... do convicted criminals lose their vote for life automatically in the US, or does it only apply in some states?
      After the 15th Ammendment was passed, which made it illegal to deny anyone voting rights based on race, millions of black Americans were enfranchised. Southern whites, being quite racist, took exception to this and sought ways to legally re-disenfranchise black voters. Alongside a determined effort to convict more and more black people, criminal disenfranchisement laws were passed which ensured that once convicted for a crime, no matter how petty, a black voter would be forever disenfranchised. As noted above, this extends itself outside of the original state in some cases.

      Here's a link with more info. Personally, I doubt the committment of many American states, especially southern ones, to the principles of democracy. And my own personal opinion on voting rights for criminals, is that they are one of the groups in society for whom the right to vote is most important.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    169. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 0, Troll

      >The victim has no part in the criminal justice system... they're too biased.

      Would a load of hippy cr@p. The victim has EVERY part to be involved. THEY were
      the one who suffered, not the rest of society , THEM. Understand? God almighty
      I despair when I hear people like you , you're type are the reason the current
      UK criminal system is a mess because bleeding hearts bend over backwards to do
      empathise with the criminal instead of their victim. You make me sick.

    170. Re:That really sucks by XenoPhage · · Score: 1

      The problem with this argument is that there seems to be a very small percentage of people that are truly rehabilitated while in prison. The rest are released and it's just a matter of time before they get in trouble again. And, unfortunately, the trouble seems to escalate.

      We can try to distinguish between those people that premeditate their crimes, and those who commit them as a spur of the moment act, such as a crime of passion. Maybe we'll get it right, maybe we won't. Of course, if we get it wrong, we run the risk of another "innocent" getting hurt or dying because of this mistake.

      Then there are those that are convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Now they get to live on my dime. Why should I have to pay for them? They committed the crimes, not me.

      I'm of the opinion that if you're sentenced to life in prison, or death, then you should immediately be taken to the back of the courthouse and shot. Yeah, some innocent people will likely get caught up in the mix, but I'd rather see that than see murderers getting out on parole and killing again. ...

      Go Go Gadget Flamesuit!

      --
      XenoPhage
      Technological Musings
    171. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >Revenge killings are commonplace and ... oh, hold on, no they're not

      If people knew they had a good chance of getting away with it as they
      do in Iraq there would be.

    172. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people who are homeless and facing Winter outdoors in a northern city.

      By the same token, some people deliberately dig through trash to find food. Does that make that good, too?

    173. Re:That really sucks by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      While not exactly what you're looking for, and you have to pay to read it. Sorry I didn't know of a better reference - this is what I had read.

      http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?&articleID=00 0D6DDB-D065-14C7-8DCC83414B7F0000

      It deals with the causes people have for violent behavior, and generally boils down to narcissist's lash out at those who challenge their self view. They feel completely justified in their behavior, and in some cases are proud of it. The tests done in the article also show that these same Narcissists DO NOT lash out at those who did not directly challenge their self view after it had been challenged. Their violent aggression is purposely directed.

      This could explain why some murderers do not commit violent acts again.

      Also, it is impossible for any research to prove or disprove that a person feels a certain way about a subject. The gathering of that data requires an honest and open discourse between the test subjects and the researcher and a shared and complete definition of all facets being discussed. This does not exist. Feelings cannot be observed, behaviors can - making any study attempting to define feelings nebulous at best. You can attempt to take a poll or conduct a series of interviews, but these are not empirical data sources.

    174. Re:That really sucks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      America still hasn't figured out whether prison is for punishment or rehabilitation, or even "paying your debt to society". When there's a conflict between those goals, we usually screw up any net benefit to anyone.

      Whatever we're doing with prisoners, it's not working. They often do crimes again, often worse, and it costs way too much to keep the system going.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    175. Re:That really sucks by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      As the right to life is one of the most fundamental human rights, and one of those most often considered inalienable

      I agree, so what do you with someone who has permanently taken that right from someone else? What punishment would you consider just and fair in that scenario?

    176. Re:That really sucks by liliafan · · Score: 1

      Okay so you have personally witnessed every crime that someone has been put to death for? Even in the event that you have, why should I take your word for it? How do I know you don't have a grudge against the person you are testifying against, or worse still that you are in fact a serial killers whos preferred MO is to cause the state to perform your actual murders for you?

      Even in the event of video evidence such as a man strangling a woman to death, how to we know this wasn't consentual? way they both got their rocks of and the woman accidently died? The video clearly shows the man killing the woman, however, given consentual circumstances this is death by misadventure or at worst manslaughter, the man didn't intentionally kill the woman therefore the state shouldn't intentially kill the man.

      Failing that another situation, you find out your child has been sexually abused by a pervert, you go there to kick the crap out of the man, all that is caught on video is you kicking the guy, you accidently kill him do you deserve to be executed for this crime?

      Or how about a real life case, a man, his wife and child are in a car with his friend, the friend has a criminal history, during the trip he shoot a cop dead, he then lies saying the man and woman had commited the murder, they are both sentenced to death, the man is executed, shortly after the actual killer confesses the truth that he had killed the cop, and then kidnapped the man and woman, the woman is released from deathrow but her husband has already been murdered by the state.......but hey there was a witness that saw him kill the cop nevermind the fact that he was lying.

      Read all about it yourself

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    177. Re:That really sucks by Reverend528 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Just joking, I wouldn't even do that to MS execs.

      They'd probably learn to live with it. If anyone is afraid of getting "the chair" it's microsoft execs.

    178. Re:That really sucks by LKM · · Score: 1
      do you have any idea what would happen if murder were legalized even for a day?

      I'd guess not a whole lot.

      It's not like it would turn "normal" people into murderers or something.

      By the way, he was joking.

    179. Re:That really sucks by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      Only on slashdot can you get modded down for an anti-murder post.

      Sigh.

    180. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is also barred from participating in elections because of it. His conviction happened in another state 25 years ago and he is barred from elections in this state!

      Which is exactly why he should be allowed to vote... so he can vote in legislators that would abolish such ridiculous laws. How can he be represented without the power to choose his representation? Just because something is illegal, doesn't nescessarily mean it is wrong.

    181. Re:That really sucks by LKM · · Score: 1

      Not sure what grandparent was referring to, but international comparison seems to show that there is no positive correlation between severity of punishment and crime rate. It's the opposite, in fact. Whether there's any direct causation - well, who knows.

    182. Re:That really sucks by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Reading the story, I think he should have killed Sean Sturgeon instead....

    183. Re:That really sucks by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      And that's even crazier. But I don't necessarily think they should be killed - I think they should have to work to support their incarceration, that's all.

      But by all means, if you are going to kill them, don't waste money on it!

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    184. Re:That really sucks by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > It is a greater tragedy for one innocent man to be convicted of a crime than
      > for 1000 guilty men to go free. (I forget who takes the credit for that quote,
      > but it was a man who believed in human rights, unlike you.)

      I've heard it attributed to Ben Franklin.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    185. Re:That really sucks by j_rhoden · · Score: 1, Troll

      Or you're pre-disposed to thinking all southerners are racist. Either one. But you're right about what you said, previous southerners were quite racist. Just don't use them to judge the current generation. And before you even say it, yes, there are racists in the south, just like there are anywhere else.

    186. Re:That really sucks by HawkingMattress · · Score: 1

      And you're too stupid to understand what justice is about.

      So what you are saying is that what's important is to judge the crime based not on what happened, but on what the victim, or victim's entourage feels about it ?
      So if I'm a bad father and hate my son, and don't care he's raped and killed, surely the murderer should be let free, or at least have less jail time that if I loved him ?
      If I have extraordinary love for my son then surely the murderer should endure a jail time way longer than if he killed my neighbour's son ?
      And if the murderer happens to have his whole familly slaughtered at the age of 6, then was raped by his uncle every days until he was 18 which left him in a psychosic state surely if he commits a rape or murder he should have the exact same jail time as someone who is perfectly sane and murdered his wife because he could make money out of it ? After all, the concequences are the same right ?
      What if you see a child on the other side of the road who is about to be crushed by a car, run to save him but inadvertently hit someone else on the road, whom is crushed by a truck because of you ? Highly improbable yes, but surely you should be killed after all the person you pushed had a wife, whose life has been devastated, don't you think ?

    187. Re:That really sucks by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Has it occured to you that some people murder because they don't think sane like you do? To assume that 95% of murderer's are sane and are *insert sad pouty look* "very sowwy :-(" they did that is insanity unto itself. Sorry but to think you can send most murderers away for a few years and expect councelling to solve all their problems is wrong, just wrong.

    188. Re:That really sucks by Pete · · Score: 1
      Thank you testadicazzo. You took the words right out of my mouth.

      Well, not the bit about knowing two killers, but the rest, yeah. :)

    189. Re:That really sucks by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Jury nullification can be used in any state in the US. Alls you have to do is convince 12 people that the person who's dead was such a cretin that the world is better off without him - to such a degree that they are willing to ignore the law. Rare, but doable.

    190. Re:That really sucks by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

      And how's his wife doing?

    191. Re:That really sucks by psyberjedi · · Score: 1

      I am all for "murdering" murderers. If you take someone's life without cause, you must pay for what you took. The only thing as valuable as that persons life is your own.

      I am all for allowing criminals to return to society. They must simply repay their debt. If the murderer can bring back the person they killed, I do not see why they should even serve jail time.

      --
      He who confuses his religion with his science knows neither.
    192. Re:That really sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      When there is a doubt that convicted person did murder someone (i.e. the conviction was based mostly on circumstantial evidence), then I would be against death penalty in that case as well. But where you have lots of witnesses, or otherwise clear evidence that cannot possibly be misinterpreted - e.g., like those recent school shootings - I do not see the reason to be overly cautious.

    193. Re:That really sucks by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Of course I can't know it for sure. But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%. That is, most people don't do it again.

      A couple of extra comments for everyone to think about:

      - Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      - Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?
      So, everybody should be born with one "get out of prison free card." I can see it now: "Don't piss me off. I haven't killed anybody yet. You could be my freebie!"

      One of the reasons of pumishment is to make it severe enough where the average rational person would not want to have to be subjected to it.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    194. Re:That really sucks by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope they let him code in prison.

      Fuck that guy. I hope they let him code a nice anal prison gang rape program every day.

    195. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >And you're too stupid to understand what justice is about.

      Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than
      was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK
      thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).

      >So what you are saying is that what's important is to judge the crime based not on what
      >happened, but on what the victim, or victim's entourage feels about it

      No, but I'm saying that neither should their feelings be disregarded as
      so often happens. The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose
      their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or
      less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean
      to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident
      yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy
      is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice? It isn't
      except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be
      reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit
      of punishment for a change?

    196. Re:That really sucks by benjcurry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm...last time _I_ checked, that no longer is the case in the USA.

    197. Re:That really sucks by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      I think a rational person would try not to go to jail for what he had done. Covering his tracks would only be sensible. Acting like that doesn't imply that the crime was premeditated. It only shows that, after committing the crime, he doesn't want to go to jail.

      Huh?? There is nothing logical or rational about that course of action. While covering your tracks does not imply premeditation, it is evidence of the guilty mind. Intent, motive, frame of mind--all crucial elements to a crime.

      Logic should tell you "it was a crime of passion; I was caught up in the moment; I didn't know what I was doing," is a lot harder to prove when you take clear action to demonstrate you knew what you did, you knew it was wrong, and you knew you would get in trouble if people found out. Attempts to cover your tracks prove all three.

      Reason should tell you it is very, very difficult to cover up murder, and 100 times more so if you haven't done any planning before hand. There are exceptions, but in this case it sounds like a healthy woman in a settled area suddenly disappears, and you're the last person to see her. You're gonna be a suspect, and unless you've done it (covered up a murder) before, there is zero reason and nothing rational indicating you will destroy all evidence of your involvement.

      The logical and reasonable course of action is to call for help. Not the police, but an ambulance. You'll get the same scrutiny as in the case of the attempted cover up, you'll leave behind the same evidence of the actual incident, but you won't be handing the police all the extra evidence of actions you took after the killing, and they won't have evidence of your guilty mind to use against you.

      Maybe if you kill a homeless drifter you picked up hitchhiking in the middle of no where, in a place it would be hard to prove you had ever been to, you might have a chance. Maybe you can be confident no one is even looking for the missing person and won't think there had been a crime unless someone finds the body. But your ex-wife disappears after being seen with you--you're a suspect. No logic or reason in helping the cops by showing you know what you did and you know it was wrong.

    198. Re:That really sucks by Jerry · · Score: 1
      Of course I can't know it for sure. But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%. That is, most people don't do it again.


      Doing a quick Google search I found estimates for re-offending ranging from 7% to 64%, depending on the locality, ethnic group, etc. Most of the higher estimates seemed related to arguments in favor of banning ownership of firearms, while most of the lower estimates were related to arguments about re-habilitation.

      The current Politically Correct position is that pedophiles and other sexual offendors will ALWAYS re-offend, whereas even murderers and other violent felons with multiple convictions are given the benefit of a doubt and are allowed to stalk the streets again.

      Law enforcement and victims become frustrated when perps are released on technicalities or are given short sentences. Courts have become highly politicized, and many judges render verdicts more in tune with their own personal/political philosophies rather than fulfilling their sworn duties to "uphold and defend" the Constitutions and Laws of the land. Some are seeking a way to make judges accountable for their sentencing, besides just for using sexual objects during trials.

      What if, after causing the release of a re-offending felon, the judge was required to serve an identical sentence if the felon is convicted for a third time? Maybe, if the upper level of politicians and judges, didn't live behind gated communities and recieve special treatment, or if it was their daughter and not Polly Class who was murdered, they'd be more considerate.

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    199. Re:That really sucks by kermyt · · Score: 1

      "He needed killin'" is an acceptable defense. At least, ya know, in some of the southerns states of the USA.

      The mythical Texas "Needed Killing" law... is just that... a myth. There was never an official law on the books anywhere in the US that allowed one person to kill another, just because you could get enough people together that agreed the person in question "Needed Killing" No Offence QuantumG... but I cannot see how that post gets an "Insightful"

    200. Re:That really sucks by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?

      Sure. Why not? While I can't say for sure which act is the _very_worst_thing_ I have ever done, none of the nominees is really that bad. None resulting in someone dead. None resulted in anyone (but myself) in hospital.

      Let me put it another way, think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. I think you should be judged until you right the wrong you've done. Hurt someone feelings? Help them feel better. Destroyed property? Make restitution. Done something stupid that resulting in someone dead? Well, you can stop getting judged when that person comes back, and their family gets their son/daughter/mother/father/etc. back.

    201. Re:That really sucks by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Life imprisonment is both fiscally and socially irresponsible. I don't care if I'm guilty. I'd rather have it all end then spend a decade in prison only to be released because of a mistake. Can you imagine trying to put your life together again?

      Life imprisonment is a cop out. It forces future generations (other people) to deal with your problems. Be a man, not a mouse.

    202. Re:That really sucks by Bastian · · Score: 1

      I get really sick of this particular snipe. It doesn't contribute anything useful to the conversation, and mostly serves as a low blow because most of us lack decent access to journal articles. Furthermore, the argument is essentially self-contradictory because it hinges on the idea that an idea is wrong if the person who suggested it doesn't have a list of journal articles in hand so they can back it up when someone responds with "OMFG teh PEER REVIEW!!!!111!!1!!" It's a painfully obvious logical fallacy, and the hurt is only increased when you put it in the same sentence as language about scientific studies.

      If you really want to bring peer-reviewed research into the debate, why don't YOU do some legwork of your own and respond with some evidence that killers are wracked by guilt?

      (And mods, what's interesting about the parent post? It only takes a short time on internet discussions to see about a millionty-five one or two sentence posts that are almost identical to this one. It's not interesting, it's banal.)

    203. Re:That really sucks by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      That is a seperate, although related, problem that needs to be addressed.

    204. Re:That really sucks by drsquare · · Score: 1
      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated.


      Why should they be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated? They didn't afford that luxury to their victims.
    205. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or does the news get weirder and weirder? Hans Reiser arrested on suspicion of murder?!? So... The man has made serious contributions to open source with the reiser file system. Let's suspend disbelief for a moment here and ask ourselves honestly: If he did snuff out the b*tch, will we judge him?

    206. Re:That really sucks by metallic · · Score: 1

      Personally, I doubt the committment of many American states, especially southern ones, to the principles of democracy

      Wide spread institutionalized racism in the South is long dead. Why must you continue to judge us by something that hasn't existed for over 20 years?

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    207. Re:That really sucks by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      The state of West Virginia will not, and cannot, execute someone for treason.

      If a West Virginia passed a law specifying what treason against that state would require, and allowed punishment by death, then why couldn't West Virginia state execute someone for treason? John Brown had exactly that happen to him in what was then Virginia.

    208. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.

      I don't believe it's right for the state to kill those convicted of crimes (and it isn't done in my country), but I don't agree that doing this would make the state just as bad as murderers. The whole foundation of the state is a contract amongst the citizens, with clear rules saying what does and does not violate that contract, and punitive procedures reserved by the state (i.e. the state is allowed to do things that individuals are not).

      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

      Considering your example, do you think it was right to lock this murderer up, against his will, for 8 years? What if someone were to pull you off the street and lock you up, against your will, for 8 years? To me, these are entirely different things, with the first being a just punishment for breaching the rules which govern society, and the second being a clear violation of those rules. Do you not agree?

      As an aside, the justice system in my country is perhaps the least punitive and most heavily geared towards rehabilitation in the world, and the result is that criminals who aren't bothered by their consciences can commit crimes with virtual impugnity. In particular, certain immigrant groups have no respect for society, and despite being a tiny minority (less than 5% of the population, I'd guess), they commit the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (something like 80% in certain cases). In my view, the only thing that will restrain them is to adopt harsh punishments, including deportation where practicable.

    209. Re:That really sucks by toddhisattva · · Score: 0

      "so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad."

      A state goes through due process before executing a criminal.

      A murderer does not.

      By trying to equate the two, *you* are on the side of murder. Think of yourself as an accomplice.

      If you can think at all!

    210. Re:That really sucks by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Umm, I was obviously talking about current law, or the grandparent's point about how West Virginia won't execute you at all is rather irrelevant.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    211. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having your legs broken has a tendency to kill the victim quickly. Especially when your legs are the only thing that allows you to breath (they used their legs to push themselves up so their lungs wouldn't get compressed and suffocate them, which is what really kills people in a crucifiction).

      His legs were broken and he was taken down because the Sabbath was about to begin. They had to do it in order to keep the commandment.

    212. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hans' computer will be running XP, and the development environment...MS VS Pro.

      I think that's constitutionally prohibited under the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause.

    213. Re:That really sucks by PorkNutz · · Score: 1
      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society.
      8 years for taking another persons life? Is that justice?
      You call him a productive member of society, I call him a murderer! I'm sure if his wife had been your sister or mother, your POV would be different.
    214. Re:That really sucks by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      Bullshit. Revocation of various rights for felons has a long history in Anglo-Saxon law (particularly because felonies were once those crimes which carried capital sentences). A man's titles or lands would be revoked and returned to the crown (this led, of course, to abuses). Felons have been denied the right to vote throughout the entire United States (not just formerly slave-owning states) throughout our history.

      I won't deny that Southern states may have invented felonies (like, say, felony drug possession) in order to deprive a disproportionate number of blacks of their right to vote; a similar case has been made for sentencing guidelines for crack vs. cocaine. But I will strongly argue in favour of the fundamental principle that one who is a felon should lose his right to vote along with various other rights (e.g. for violent felonies, the right to bear arms).

      The fact that the Democrats are so eager for felons to vote, and so angry over ballots which are not at all difficult to understand, reveals something: apparently they believe that criminals and cretins vote disproportionately Democratic...

    215. Re:That really sucks by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      It looks like you're confused about the difference between "to murder" vs "to kill."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    216. Re:That really sucks by julesh · · Score: 1

      Justice is about making the punishment as severe or worse than
      was done to the victim (something that rarely happens in the UK
      thanks to the weak minded liberals running the justice system).


      Err... no. Not since some time in the 18th century has that been the case, in the UK or any other major western democracy. Justice systems exist to (a) deter crime and (b) rehabilitate offenders.

      Let me guess, you're a Daily Mail reader, right?

    217. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OTOH, if you did serve your time then you should be allowed to move on.

      I agree. If a person is constantly treated like a criminal, they will feel like a criminal and have a greater chance of then acting like one.

      A friend of mine robbed a bank long ago and while escaping the police, shot a police officer. Luckily the officer had a vest on which saved his life. However while in police custody, my friend was bashed senseless by a group of police officers (don't fuck with the police). I know SO many people (my father, grandfather, various friends and other people I know) who have been bashed by police and I also know a girl who was pack raped by police officers. This then continues in prison by prison guards and other inmates where guards turn a blind eye. I fail to see how any of that is supposed to rehabilitate someone. They will come out hating authority, police, government, society and themselves, but this time they are armed with the honed criminal mind they developed in prison, along with the added anger.

      Many years after release, while trying to live a normal straight life, my friend was pulled over by police for a rego check. In my part of the World, police pull cars over and request a rego check over the radio before speaking with the driver, just incase something happens to the officers a record of the last car pulled over can be used to follow up on an incident. The rego check likely came back with the info for my friend, including his past "shooting a police officer during a bank robbery", because he was obviously considered a "dangerous person" when the police drew their guns and ordered the occupants of the car to exit it and lie face down on the nature strip (during pouring rain). His girlfriend, oblivious to his past, was petrified and he had yet another flashback to a herion induced past which he will never be allowed to forget.

      So did he really serve his time? Probably not until the day he dies. Many people may be quick to say that he attempted to murder an officer of the law, so what should he expect? But bear in mind, that the system must work as a whole either one way or another. If a person is sent to a correctional facility, serves the court appointed time, undertakes councelling and is then deemed by a parole board to be worthy of being allowed back into society, then that person needs to be treated as such at all levels and at the very least by all staff members of government and private business.

      They are either rehabilitated or they are not. If the police act in the manner they did with my friend, then that is an admission by the police that they do not believe in the justice system of which they are a part.

      Ultimately, I feel a person should be allowed to have their criminal record erased from every system (including police files) other than records which might already be kept with government domestic spy agencies (if *they* needed to keep records on someone, then it is probably best that those records are retained with them and only with them). Naturally, the spy agency records should not be available to police, except for very extreme cases. A person cannot feel that they have a second chance if they know that permanent records are always hanging over them. One exception I would make against this, is for paedophiles and child killers. As far as I am concerned, they CANNOT be rehabilitated and DO NOT deserve the chance. A truely evil mind cannot be fixed. For those which have overwhelming evidence such as good DNA evidence, etc, the death penalty should be swiftly used. The risk to other children is too high and the value of the life of the paedophile way too low.

    218. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa...that was deep. Touche!

    219. Re:That really sucks by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.

      A death sentence is arguably the fairest compensation for murder, and the fairest deterrent to others considering the act. If someone considers any death -- no matter what the motivation or circumstances -- to be unwarranted, well, what can one say?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    220. Re:That really sucks by alanwall · · Score: 1

      as some one who HAS been inside as an inmate, I agree,most have NO sence of remorse and never will.5-10 % do and can come out as "good" people.Most of the bleeding hearts use data from
      "ivory tower " types who inmates know how to use to the inmates benefit>they sound all reformed
      to the ivories but once back in the inmate enviroment,all " can not wait to rob/murder/shot up/etc
      Many inmates have higher than average IQs' but use it for criminal intent

      --
      Amigian and proud of it!
    221. Re:That really sucks by sacrilicious · · Score: 3, Insightful
      being angry about it won't bring back the dead.

      Many people seem to bring out this "won't bring back the dead" viewpoint as justification for letting go of rage.

      I see it as exactly the opposite. Let it sink in: *nothing* will ever bring back this person who was killed. They will *never* experience a joyful day again. Their friends and loved ones will *never* get to see them smile again.

      And people are just supposed to go, well, to heck with it?

      I'm not advocating the deliberate retention of anger. But genuine loss and anger and the desire for retribution are the products of much more than Ghandi-like hand clasping can be counted on to address. A person who can lose a loved one to murder and can walk away and live a happy life is a wonderful and beautiful thing to behold. A person who cannot is entirely understandable.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    222. Re:That really sucks by ChuBie · · Score: 1

      There are various reasons for this, but look around before assuming that "most" murderers are just good people who have done something bad.

      The reason is Grand Theft Auto.

      Duh.

    223. Re:That really sucks by julesh · · Score: 1

      The damilola Taylor case is a good example. A couple lose
      their son to a pair of thugs who then get a measly 8 years (out in 4 or
      less) because some out of touch judge felt that perhaps they didn't mean
      to kill him. Who cares whether they meant to or not?


      Listen: murder is defined as intentionally killing someone. It isn't murder if there is no intent to kill. Intending to kill somebody is a more serious offence than (say) intending to injure them and accidentally killing them (manslaughter). Therefore it must be punished more severely, because otherwise there is no deterrent to killing intentionally.

      Besides, you seem to have your facts confused. The men accused of killing Damilola Taylor were acquitted on the basis of evidence that they made calls on their mobile phones from too great a distance away from the crime scene to have made it there. Nothing to do with an "out of touch judge" or any such rubbish: cold, hard, logical evidence that they did not commit the crime.

      BTW: that's out in 4 or more, not or less. 4 years is the minimum time you'll serve on an 8 year sentence. If you're released and subsequently convicted of something else, you'll serve the remaining 4 on top of your next sentence. It's a deterrent against reoffending, and is quite effective. Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.

      Who cares whether they meant to or not? It wasn't an accident
      yet they'll be able to live most of their lives free while a small boy
      is now 6 foot under and a family is wrecked. How is that justice?


      Well, assuming it were true, it would stand a good chance of deterring others from doing the same things, and when they're released they might think twice before getting involved in other criminal activities due to having an extra 4 years of sentence hanging over their heads if they're sent back to prison.

      It isn't
      except in the mind of wolly liberals who seem to think anyone can be
      reformed if given the chance. Well fsck reforming them, how about a bit
      of punishment for a change?


      What good does punishment do? Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed. It wouldn't make that person's family any happier (however much they might think it would). It would just mean that lives that *could* have reformed (not necessarily would, but there is every chance) would be wasted. Similarly if they were put in prison for the remainder of their lives. It would cost us, the British taxpayers, many thousands of pounds per annum, and would provide a small amount of comfort to one family. And stop the Daily Mail ranting.

      Hmmm. Perhaps it would be a good idea.

    224. Re:That really sucks by toddhisattva · · Score: 0
      "When the state imprisons an innocent man, the state is no longer the protector (which is how all states originally justify themselves) but the aggressor."


      Only if the state acts with mens rea against an innocent man, is it an aggressor.


      If the state after due process, imprisons an innocent man, that is a mistake.


      The difference is the same as that between manslaughter and murder -- it is all in the intent.


      Personally, I think the Death Penealty should stay on the books, for the obviously guilty like Tim McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski.


      And any state that does not execute traitors, will not be a state for long.

    225. Re:That really sucks by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      Duh! We're on the internets supporting the filthy terrorists by stealing music every day! Obviously.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    226. Re:That really sucks by BigAssRat · · Score: 0

      Huge difference between drug users and murderers.

    227. Re:That really sucks by zstlaw · · Score: 1

      Several people responded to you saying that it was not racism, etc.

      I grew up in the south. I was taught in elementary school that the South should have won the civil war. My boyscout troop leaders discussed the "proud history" of the KKK. There were half a dozen private schools in my city that did not allow blacks. (They later changed this so that blacks athletes could attend.)

      I agree that the south still has a LOT of racism. It varies though. The worse the education system and job market the more racism that is present.

      One of your responders even said that democrats must feel "they will get the criminal vote". Well 1 in 10 black males are in jail. 30 percent of black men will spend part of their life in prison. (stats from http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/Reports/MUM handoutsMarch19-2002.ppt) I would say it safe to say that current law means that blacks have only 70% of a vote. Also anyone who has studied the war on drugs will note that the higher minimum sentences are often conveyed for drug offenses of types most common among minorities. Back in college I ran a study and read many books (including http://www.amazon.com/Smoke-Mirrors-Drugs-Politics -Failure/dp/0316084468) on how the drug war was often directed to maximize political benefit for the party in power. The whole marijuana == illegal drug thing was started as a convenient way to criminal hippies protesting the war. Why yes democrats may get more of the vote, but part of why the criminals are not given the vote is their high inclination to vote against the lawmakers.

      I think these facts are much more relevant to your post than the responses from your responders. My parents complained the other day of "literacy tests" at the polling place. They (white) were asked to read a simple passage from a book, the black guy behind them has to read a parable from the bible and explain it to the satisfaction of the poll worker. *sigh* Racism is in fact live and well despite what people would like to think.

      But it is not just the US and not just the south. It is visible in the south because there are so many blacks and poor people that acts of racism are more common. Racism is probably as common anywhere, but in Norway there are no blacks for people to call names. (I recall no dark skin in my travels around Norway) Just something to think about. It may be just as present but not surface as much because there are less targets forcing the bigotry out into the open.

    228. Re:That really sucks by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      O.J.

      Nuff said.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    229. Re:That really sucks by srussell · · Score: 1
      Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt. Come on. You said you had evidence.
      He may not be able to provide a study that proves killers aren't wracked with guilt (any more than you can prove that they are), but there's considerable circumstantial evidence.

      "The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 38 percent of all murderers were on probation, parole, pretrial release, or in some other criminal justice status at the time of the murder." It is likely that many of these repeat offenders had also committed murder in the past. Inner city gang violence, often resulting in murders, is almost certainly often committed by the repeat offenders (and there is more strong circumstantial evidence to back this up).

      It is much more likely that the amount of guilt suffered by someone who is repeatedly committing the same offense is much less than "wracking guilt." It might be "mild guilt", or even "regret", but "wracked with guilt" just isn't probable.

      --- SER

    230. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      The Damilola Taylor case was tragic, but can I point something else out. The people convicted were aged 12 and 13 at the time. If they had been convicted when they were still 12 & 13 would you be calling for blood so much? They may have been vicious thugs at that time, but they were still children.

      I don't think anyone ever said it was fair. The justice system isn't supposed to be 'fair' if your definition of that word is 'criminals get the same or worse meted out to them'. If courts acted like that we wouldn't have a civilised society. "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Ghandi.

      --
      FGD 135
    231. Re:That really sucks by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      obviously you've never eaten a green musroom before.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    232. Re:That really sucks by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a weak excuse to me.

      No, it isn't an excuse at all. You see, murder is a legal definition describing if someone had a right to kill a person or not. If killing in general is were you have the problem then be specific and don't cloud the issue with terms that don't relate to what your beef is. Of course kill, killing and execution doesn't sound as bad a murder so I guess that might be too much to ask.

      As has murder, rape, torture, genocide, etc. Ever consider that maybe it's time we grow up and actually stop repeating every evil atrocity our primitive ancestors engaged in?

      And interestingly enough, everything you state has been outlawed in the modern world. So, what is the point of this statment?

      An excuse used by more or less every evil bastard throughout the history of mankind to justify their actions. And one which is rarely accompanied with any sort of empirical evidence.

      Ahh, the good verses evil arguments. But you fail to acknowledge that the excuse has been used by good people too. Even the gods of love have killed for the benifit of society.

      Perhaps. But dont kid yourself, any way you try to rationalize it to yourself to make yourself feel better, it's most likely going to be exceedingly unproductive and serve no actual good in the end.

      Free spirit-independent will. This is the idea that a person makes decisions based in thier own thought process. Sometimes decisions depend on what they have experiences, been taught or told, and percieved reactions of peers surrounding them. The whole unproductive and serves no actual good is a reletive terminoligy because of this. Surly someone sheltered from the constant fear of someone murdering them for thier coat or because they worship a certain god (or not)or because they view certain people as "more priviledged" based on stories of what used to happen in history would have a hard time understanding that certain people need killed. I say need killed because they have killed others for superficial reasons and violated inborn rights every person should enjoy. This isn't something that comes lightly and isn't something that should. But when a person is of the mind set that they will kill another because of a refusual to control animal instictual urges then rape and kill a person, they deserve to die. If someone is plotting a way to and actualy killing you because you are wearing a $200.00 coat with your faovrite team's logo in it or shoes in the same manor, they deserve to be executed.

      Now, just for arguments sake, lets asume you have a spouse and kids and actualy care more about them then going on a raid in WoW. One day when returning home from work, you notice the door has been pried open. You enter the house cautiously to find your kids tied up with phone cord, your spouse beaten to almost unconciousness, A man standing over your spouse stabbing her/him then proceeding to rape your spouse why he/she is laying in thier own blood and dieing. The man looks at your kids unaware your behind him and say they are next, The man is twice your size and likley to over power you with ease. He drops his knife to hold your spouse's legs open.

      Now, what do you do? Do you pick up the knife, stab the man the try to release your kids and get help for your spouse? Do you leave, running to a safe place to call the police,(even if it means your spouse will likey dies and your kids might be violated). Do you get the perps attention and try to reason with him? Do you hit him hoping he doesn't over power you so you can tie him up?

      Asuming you didn't kill him, Do you think he should be rehabilitated and released to live in your apartment building once again? Do you think he deserves a life sentence becuase your spouse died or should he be executed?

      Don't limit your reply to only these options. But try to keep it somewhat realistic. Don't give some convoluted "in

    233. Re:That really sucks by jcr · · Score: 1

      Alls you have to do is convince 12 people that the person who's dead was such a cretin that the world is better off without him/I

      In most states, the judge wouldn't allow you to introduce evidence about the character of the deceased.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    234. Re:That really sucks by yourlord · · Score: 1

      I can't help but shake with rage when I read crap like this. THERE IS NO WORSE THING a person can do than to take an innocent person's life, an innocent person being a person who has not taken the life of someone who themself is not a murderer.

      To kill a murderer is not murder. It is dishing out the only just retribution given the act they committed, on behalf of the person who has been murdered.

      Every breath a murderer is allowed to take is an insult to everything the victim ever experienced, hoped, and dreamed. Any person who actively campaigns to allow a murderer to continue to live is insulting the victim's life with every act.

      I am all for the bleeding hearts out there leaving a living will that absolves a murderer from being put to death for the deed, but that murderer should, in that event, spend the rest of his existence doing hard time. At no point should someone who commits cold blooded murder be introduced back into society.

      In absence of such a proclamation then death should be the default punishment.

      If someone kills me, I want them dead. Killed in the most painful and horrifying manner possible. Period, end of story.

    235. Re:That really sucks by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Actually we kill them to keep them out of the gene pool. That's fine with me.

    236. Re:That really sucks by LindseyJ · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree with you, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone posit that murderous propensities are genetically inherited. Most of the time when I hear people talk in favour of capital punishment, it's always "They deserve it for what they've done" or "I don't want my tax dollars paying for them to keep on living" or something along those lines.

    237. Re:That really sucks by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      The problem with the "gun control laws only apply to law-abiding citizens" argument isn't that it's incorrect, it's that it's just as correct if you take the phrase "gun control" out of the above statement. Anti-theft laws are also "only for good people who follow the laws," because criminals who violate the law get "free or cheap" TVs, cars, computers, and so on. This is hardly a "setup" caused by anti-theft laws, and it doesn't become any more so if we talk about laws relating to gun ownership and purchase, either.

      The question is really whether the law reduces the incidence of crime it tries to address. Gun control is one of those hot button issues in which people are inclined to take all-or-nothing positions -- any restriction is too harsh for the NRA, and no restriction is too harsh for Handgun Control, Inc. -- but it seems to me that laws (or proposed laws) need to be examined on a case-by-case basis.

    238. Re:That really sucks by erotic+piebald · · Score: 2, Insightful
      so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.


      Sorry, not the same.

      In one case an individual has taken the life of another individual, an action the citizenry, through their elected representatives, has declared to be a crime. In the other case, the citizenry, having decided, through their elected representatives, what the punishment should be for the crime, exerts its will.
    239. Re:That really sucks by NATIK · · Score: 1

      Perhaps but no matter how the criminals feel about jail, the meaning of putting people there does not change. I was merely informing the GP about the fact that he had clearly missunderstood the purpose of a jail sentence, I put in the part about "I don't know about your country" as I in fact do not know which country he comes from.

    240. Re:That really sucks by nasch · · Score: 1
      If he killed his wife and disposed of her body with forethough it was not a crime of passion.
      Yes, if he did that. He may have planned it out, or he may have killed her on the spur of the moment as it were. Or maybe someone else killed her, or maybe she's not dead. Police don't even have a body yet.
    241. Re:That really sucks by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't think someone could commit treason against a state. It would automaticly be against the serveral states called the united states. WV could however create a law describing a treasonous act and prescribe the death penalty for anyone convicted of it. But it wouldn't be the same as the consitutional treason and couldn't "only" be commited against WV (unless congress approved of it making it a federal law again).

      Interestingly, you have to have an enemy to have treason. Any enemy of WV would have to be the enemy of the US and all the other states. Congress has to approve the enemies of the states because it exercises constitutional control over the agreements and disagreements of a state with other entities.

    242. Re:That really sucks by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Police don't even have a body yet.

      They had better find one. The consequences of arresting someone, announcing to the press that he is a murderer, and being wrong about all of it, could be pretty severe.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    243. Re:That really sucks by nasch · · Score: 1

      You don't need to tell me, I've lived in Boulder. :-)

    244. Re:That really sucks by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      Of course I can't know it for sure. But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%. That is, most people don't do it again.

      I beg to differ. Let's look at statistics from Washinton State: 34.9% of murderers are rearrested for a violent crime within three years (yes, "violent" doesn't necessarily mean murder/manslaughter, but violence is violence.)

      Most people who murder someone will probably spend the rest of their life fucked up in the head. They have created their own punishment, living every day with the guilt.

      I'd say they started off effed up in the head. Normal people don't commit violent crimes like murder.

      Think about the _very_worst_thing_ you have ever done. Do you think you should be judged for the rest of your life on that one thing?

      Sure. Of course, I haven't done anything so bad that I'm terribly worried about what other people will think.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    245. Re:That really sucks by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The state's decision should not be "an eye for an eye"

      "An eye for an eye" was a good system that worked well at the time. The idea was for punishments to be proportional to the crime committed, rather than severely disproportional (like throwing someone in jail for years because they had some drugs, while giving murderers lesser sentences).

      but should be based on the fairest solution for the society and the individual. Rehabilitation, etc. This does not mean in any way that if a person imprisons someone, the state cannot imprison him. But we shouldn't kill someone because he killed too. Nor jail someone because he did too. We should base our judicial system in what is best for everyone. If that means jail time for someone that "had imprisoned his mother in a cell for several years" then that's what it means.

      How does prison rehabilitate anyone? All evidence goes against this; repeat offenders are the norm, not the exception.

      Also, let me point out that in the U.S. you have very high rates of murders comparing to Canada or the E.U. Why do you insist on believing that capital punishment is reducing murder rates? We seem to do much better without executing people.

      Correlation does not imply causation.

      We have high murder rates here because we have societal problems that lead to murders and other crimes. No, there's no evidence that capital punishment effectively deters people from murdering, but it certainly does prevent them from being repeat offenders.

      Moreover, capital punishment is seen by many as preferable to a long prison sentence. In Colonial times, there was no such thing as prison, because it was seen as cruel and unusual punishment. Gaols (jails) only existed to hold people for very short times until trial (which didn't take years like it does now). Sentences were swift: stocks, branding, hanging, etc. No sitting around in a cell for decades and rotting. Maybe we've gone the wrong direction with today's norm of long prison sentences, and should go back to the way things were in the 1600s.

    246. Re:That really sucks by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Personally I believe the punishment should fit the crime. If you viciously stab someone to death, someone should stab you to death. That's pretty fair. With the current death row population, any vicious criminals with murderous tendencies can carry out the death sentence and nobody will be traumatized from the experience (i.e. a voluntary executioner).

        I realize my opinion isn't popular in this day and age of PC thinking, but a casual glance at prison populations (minus the majority which are little guys like weed smokers/dealers) shows that our current system just doesn't work. The original idea of capital punishment was to serve as a deterrent for serious crimes, and back in the days when the punishment was alot more brutal (firing squads, hangings) and alot more public, it was indeed a deterrent.

        At the end of the day we as a society need to fix the broken parts of the system that produce murderous killers and other criminals.

    247. Re:That really sucks by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Then there are those that are convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Now they get to live on my dime. Why should I have to pay for them? They committed the crimes, not me.

      I'm of the opinion that if you're sentenced to life in prison, or death, then you should immediately be taken to the back of the courthouse and shot. Yeah, some innocent people will likely get caught up in the mix, but I'd rather see that than see murderers getting out on parole and killing again. ...


      I have two problems with this.

      1) If the conviction is based on shaky or circumstantial evidence, I think they should be held in prison for a specific term, in case some new evidence (DNA, etc) comes around and clears them. This doesn't apply to those that are open-and-shut cases.

      2) The problem with shooting these people is that we taxpayers still have to pay for the bullet. The family of the criminal should be billed for the bullet, as they do in China.

    248. Re:That really sucks by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      However, I think that murderers should be allowed after conviction to regain what little honor they have left by killing themselves with a short sword.

    249. Re:That really sucks by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that none of those links come even close to proving your point. They are all links to anecdotal evidence about a subset of killers (e.g. serial). Well, duh, psycopaths feel no remose, that is pretty much true by definition.

    250. Re:That really sucks by turgid · · Score: 1

      They actually invited the family of the nut to come pray with them, realizing that the guy was sick and that being angry about it won't bring back the dead.

      Merely logical. Family of nut != nut himself.

      Punishing family of nut for isolated actions of nut plain wrong, cruel and vindictive (but what most "normal" people would consider acceptable and why the world is full of war... but that's a whole 'nother rant).

    251. Re:That really sucks by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1
      The number of repeat homicide offenders after parole is very low, but the percentage of paroled murderers committing another homicide is a lot higher than the percentage of population committing murder in the first place.
      Your numbers may be sound, and (if they are sound) interesting... Howewver, comparing the percentage of people that commit murder v.s. the percentage of repeat offenders means nothing. The bigest reason is that you are comparing two percentages with VERY different numbers for the denominator. One statistic is found by dividing by the number of comvicted murderers, the other is found by dividing by the entire US population.
    252. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

      imho, you suck at life (Score: 1)

    253. Re:That really sucks by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yes, yes jokes are easy.

      But I can tell you one thing, if I were Hans Reiser, possibly wrongfully arrested and I came back to /. to read some of the shit below after being released from jail it would be a cold day in hell before you'd get another line of code out of me.

      unbelievable.

      Have a heart. Let's hope she's only missing, not dead, and that if she is dead Hans didn't do it so his kids will have at least one parent to share the loss with, rather than one to miss and one to learn to hate.

    254. Re:That really sucks by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      But I thought it was Google that got the chair...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    255. Re:That really sucks by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      BTW, don't play into this manipulative troll - you're letting him define the debate. He's calling the death penalty "murder". This assumes that there is no authority in such matters, none whatsoever, as it puts the state on equal moral footing as the murder. Additionally, it removes the concepts of responsibility, natural consequences, and justice. A murderer is someone who, unjustly, takes the life of another person with intent. It is just for that person to suffer the same fate as the person he denied life from, and not only is it the murderer's natural consequence to die, it is the responsibility of the society to make it so that it discourages a repeat scenario.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    256. Re:That really sucks by zymano · · Score: 1

      He has a boyfriend who sucks for him

    257. Re:That really sucks by fuzz6y · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, just ignoring the problem will drive some of those people to revenge killings - this is what happens in societies that break down, like Iraq. The government is seen as powerless or uncaring, so people take matters into their own hands...
      And of course this is a real problem in the EU where the death sentence is illegal because of a variety of treaties. Revenge killings are commonplace and ... oh, hold on, no they're not. Must be something wrong with your logic.
      And of course throughout the EU governments are clearly just ignoring the problem. As soon as the death penalty was abolished, they just stopped doing anything to punish muderers.
      --
      If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
    258. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt.

      There is this guy in the White House. I can't think of his name right now. George something.... I am not sure if he has been peer reviewed (at least non-fraudulently), but I am pretty certain he does not feel any guilt for the people he has killed.

    259. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what do you with someone who has permanently taken that right from someone else? What punishment would you consider just and fair in that scenario?

      The same that we give to people who violate others' right to property, right not to be raped, etc., of course: imprisonment. It keeps society safe from them, while both punishing them and providing an opportunity for them to be rehabilitated. If they cannot convince a parole board that they will not kill again, they must be kept imprisoned. If they are released but behave in any way that suggests to their parole officer that they are likely to kill again, they must be brought back to prison.

      This is how murderers are punished in any civilized society.

      We do not punish those who commit assault by beating them, or those who commit rape by raping them, so how can you think it obvious that murderers should be punished by death?

    260. Re:That really sucks by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If people knew they had a good chance of getting away with it as they do in Iraq there would be.

      Which raises the question whether the thing that deters people is capital punishment or punishment in general. Since murder rates are not significantly higher in the EU than they are in the US it's not entirely unlikely that the knowledge that you will likely be punished is an effective deterrant.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    261. Re:That really sucks by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Letting someone do something s/he loves while in prison, will sort of defeat the purpose of prison, i.e. make them wish they hadn't committed a crime.

      So, what to do with male homosexual criminals?

    262. Re:That really sucks by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Some murderers might be "rehabilitated" according to the justice system, but the fact remains that the flaw exists in their personality that once drove them to kill someone.

      Is that really a flaw? Throughout most of human history, killing people has been acceptable. Even now, it is still acceptable in some situations (eg. if the other person is an enemy soldier).

      It is only relatively recently that this murder stigma has really taken off.

    263. Re:That really sucks by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      What's your obsession with personal witnessing? I haven't personally witnessed anyone going to the Moon. Yet I don't doubt that they have. Do you?

    264. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it was just smart tactics by Jesus after a bad pull in Gethsamane. Feign death until the Romans go back to their spawn point, then evac.

      Bet He never groups with Judas again.

    265. Re:That really sucks by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      Bless you, Hans.
      You have support out here on the 'Net, so hang in there.

    266. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are spreading FUD. Most murders (atleast here in sweden) are committed on a family member, friend or close relative. Sometimes under the influence of drugs/alchohol. These cases are often family "tragedies" and all involved seem very depressed after. (many try to comit suicide).

      These "remorseless" cold-bloded killers you speak of are much rarer in IRL than what hollywood/media wants you to believe. Of course, they DO exist but they are definitly not a majority of the convicted murderers.

      I once saw a man (over 50) in court that had tried to murder his exwife, even though at the time of his murder-attempt he hated her and was furious, he was very depresed and regretful later in court, his life did not have any meaning any more, etc. It seems many of these murderers that kill people close to them, do not really want to kill (or in this case try to kill) that person. But some time after a prolonged period of conflict they snap, doing and thinking stuff they never have done before and regreting it just minutes/hours later. They never thought that they could do something like that, but they did.

      I think that thinking of murderers as some "strange crazy coldblooded guys" just increases the risk that more normal people suddenly turn into murderers themselves. Because people often think "murderers are guys in this stereotype, so I am no potential murderer", even if they are in the risk of becoming one.

    267. Re:That really sucks by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      There are some other strange aspects to all this, the wife may have been having an affair, but (at least in UK) often divorce lawyers encourage clients to do a 'kitchen-sink' approach to try and wrest custody of the children, so her affair and his domestic violence are both suspect until we get more info.

      It's not really the same in California. California is a "no-fault" divorce state. The only legally admissible grounds for divorce are "irreconcilable differences" -- basically, you have arrived at a point where you feel neither time nor counseling will repair the marriage. It doesn't matter why, it doesn't matter what either party has or hasn't done. Neither party is recognized as being "more responsible" for the divorce. What the divorce is about is pretty much the resolution of a financial transaction, nothing more.

      As far as custody of children goes, though, you could have something there ... California courts favor joint custody except in cases on spousal abuse, which Ms. Reiser seems to be alleging. And ordinarily, Ms. Reiser's sexual history would probably have no bearing on her claim to custody of the children, unless perhaps there was some evidence that her behavior would put the children at risk, which Mr. Reiser seems to be alleging in his version of events (given in the CBS5 article).

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    268. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this was modded funny, and rightly so, but it could've easily been modded insightful as well. according to the law in that place at that time, jesus was a criminal and there was nothing wrong with his execution. jesus knew he had it coming and didn't back down. oh boy, what a publicity stunt.

    269. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God that has to be one of the funniest comments I've ever read on /.

    270. Re:That really sucks by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Quite frankly, I don't care if the person is a psychopath or not, I don't have any sympathy for murderers and while I don't necessarily endorse the death penalty, I don't think these people are deserving of a second chance. Crime of passion? Heat of the moment? I don't care, you killed someone. Call me cold-hearted, but I'm not the one killing anyone.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    271. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the one making the ridiculous claim. It's your job to provide the evidence.

    272. Re:That really sucks by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The fact that the Democrats are so eager for felons to vote, and so angry over ballots which are not at all difficult to understand, reveals something: apparently they believe that criminals and cretins vote disproportionately Democratic...

      It's a bit of a chicken and the egg sort of problem. It's not that criminals are more likely to vote Democrat so much as its that segments of the population the produce more criminals (or that are disproportionately prosecuted) tend to vote Democratic -- that is, the minority poor.

      It's poverty that link the two. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Poor people are also more likely to vote for politicians that will promote policies to elevate them out of poverty.

      People who are not poor will vote against policies that ask them to sacrifice to better their worse off brothers. They often consider laws that prevent said worse off brothers from voting in their favor to be a good thing. After all, the poor are just "criminals and cretins," and their voting for policies that the dominant people oppose is just yet another sign of their moral and intellectual inferiority, right?

      In essence laws to strip felons of the right to vote help ensure that the people trapped in poverty stay trapped because they do not have the proportional power to vote in their best interests, thus reinforcing the vicious cycle that keeps black America economically in the back seat of the bus.

      One last note: If laws to strip felons of voting rights aren't meant for blacks, then why are they disproportionately still found on the books of former slave states?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    273. Re:That really sucks by oddfox · · Score: 1

      The thing is you think you've met 2 people who killed people, you don't know how many you've come across in your lifetime. Furthermore, I don't socialize with people like that knowingly (Though I have been threatened with my life on a few occasions, even by a family member) but my thing is not an eye for an eye, because there are always going to be times where someone is wrongly accused of something as heinous as murder. My thing is it's wrong to kill someone, and it's especially wrong to kill someone out of rage. There are exceptions to this rule such as warfare, but I'm not talking about war.

      I understand that there are plenty of people who come around and do some great things, even while in prison (Stanley Williams, for example), but those are the exception, not the rule.

      On general crime and why I am ultimately skeptical, here's one link specifically about the situation in Britain as of December 2005. More convicts reoffend after release from jail, and another from Sweden check where it talks about reoffending. I know in my experience that this is the case far too many times, as well. YMMV, but I stick to what I say here.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    274. Re:That really sucks by penix1 · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. They did not call the feds in because they wanted the death penalty but because the locals couldn't solve it and the public demanded it be stopped. As you note in your post, it is still officially unsolved to this day. I too think it was the same shooter as the Ohio one given that the shootings stopped here after they caught him but that is far from confirmed.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    275. Re:That really sucks by memprime · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I don't have to pay for that with my tax dollars.
      I do support local charities, but I'm not going to support someone purposefully getting into prison to receive free medical care or food.

    276. Re:That really sucks by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Ah, so if someone says something it is up to you to prove them wrong rather than them proving their asertation is correct? Don't think so. If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up. I don't need to play search engine monkey to prove hime wrong, he needs to prove that the statement he made was correct. So, can you prove that most people that kill have serious problems, or is it up to me to somehow prove your statement incorrect just because you think it should be correct? Put up, or shut up. Ok, lets back up a sec. Using your logic, I claim that most murderers are controlled by space hemeroids and are not responsible for their actions! Now it's up to you to prove me wrong.

    277. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put them in an all female prison... i mean it makes logical sense doesn't it?

    278. Re:That really sucks by oddfox · · Score: 1

      I'll admit that I was wrong in what I said, since I was just a little put off by yet another person taking that lofty attitude I see so many times when a discussion arises on the internet. Instead of saying anything of substance, you said, and I quote, "Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt. Come on. You said you had evidence." That's a pretty asshole attitude to bring to the table, and so far I haven't seen a study or statistics being brought out for either side (My articles I linked to specifically dealt with a certain subsect, which depending on your definition can include a very large percentage of criminals).

      I'm having a hard time finding anything either way, but I do know that there are a lot of studies that show that ex-convicts are far more likely to be involved in criminal activities including homicide. In any case, to me I'd rather have these people locked up for an extremely long time if not for life for killing another person. I don't support the death penalty because I recognize that our legal system, while doing a good job of not bringing about false convictions, does have those from time to time. People have been released from prison after many many years based on new evidence from techniques that simply weren't available back then that prove their innocence. I do not care if a murderer feels remorse at any point, I care that they broke the law in a very serious way. Life is something to treat with sanctity and respect, and the laws should enforce that view, not say "Oh well as long as you're sorry it's OK!" or "Ah, you say you did it in a fit of rage? Well, how justified!"

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    279. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we have higher rates of murder because we have more niggers. Houston will gladly ship you plenty of NOLA trash so you can see for yourself.

    280. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and _you're_ a fucking retard. Way to turn the clock back 1000 years, asswipe. Go home. And by that I mean kill yourself. Let people with an undamaged intellect handle life.

    281. Re:That really sucks by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Literacy tests were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, so they must have been reminiscing about the good old days. Also cannabis use was criminalized long before 60's era hippies.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    282. Re:That really sucks by fuzz6y · · Score: 1

      Liberty is an inalienable right as well. States have a nasty habit of taking it away from felons.

      --
      If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
    283. Re:That really sucks by eshefer · · Score: 1

      I guess mr. Reiser is a smart guy, and he probably knows that a few assholes on /. do not make the collective thoughts of the open source community.

    284. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >Err... no. Not since some time in the 18th century has that been the case, in

      Really? Thats strange because I'm sure we still had the death penalty until
      the 60s until the hippies took it away.

      >Justice systems exist to (a) deter crime

      Agreed.

      >rehabilitate offenders

      If they can be. If they can't be then just get rid of them. Far simpler.
      Its also punishment too.

      >Let me guess, you're a Daily Mail reader, right?

      No , let me guess , you're some kid who's never been a
      victim of a serious crime and so have zero idea of how
      it feels to the victim or their familt?

    285. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >they had been convicted when they were still 12 & 13 would you be calling for blood so much?

      Yes , absolutely. They knew exactly what they were doing therefor they deserve
      appropriate punishment.

      >They may have been vicious thugs at that time, but they were still children.

      I'm guessing you've never been around many rough estates in london.
      Theres no such thing as 13 year old "children" anymore.

    286. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >any such rubbish: cold, hard, logical evidence that they did not commit the crime.

      I suggest you get some more up to date facts. 2 youths have just been convicted
      for his murder. If you're going to reply to a post you obviously know nothing about
      at least get some up to date facts.

      >Something else most Daily Mail readers fail to grasp.

      Yeah right, because there've been no recent cases of released
      prisoners reoffending within days... oh wait...

      >Executing them wouldn't bring back the life of the person they killed

      Executed criminals tend not to reoffend.

      >And stop the Daily Mail ranting.

      Stop being so naive.

    287. Re:That really sucks by liliafan · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the parent I was responding to? It isn't my obession with personal witnessing it was the parent.

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    288. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    289. Re:That really sucks by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Why does someone refuting a point need evidence, but someone making one doesn't? GP was just disagreeing with GGP. Why is GGP exempt from needing evidence?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    290. Re:That really sucks by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 1

      my dad was a scout in vietnam and two VC's set off a giant bomb in a riverbed while his squad was crossing it. my dad was largely unharmed. the VCs were running away from the scene and my dad took them out with an airburst round fired from a grenade launcher. i know this because i read the writeup for his bronze star. my dad never really talked about vietnam.

      i know he had nightmares and a few flashbacks. the sound of helicopters always made him nervous. other than that, he was a very regular guy, even boring at times. he was a pharmacist and went to work everyday, right up until he died.

      my point is that i know my dad killed at least two people, and probably a few more. i don't know if he felt guilty or not, but i can tell you that he never did it again. he was a dog handler in the army and used dogs to threaten prisoners into talking. i don't know if he felt guilty about that or not either, but i know he never did that again either.

      guilt and circumstances have nothing to do with whether or not a person will do something again. you can't account for anything that people do.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    291. Re:That really sucks by testadicazzo · · Score: 1

      Great comment. I completely agree with you.

      When I made the comment i did, i didn't count killing in war, I guess just out of convention. But I take no exception to doing so.

      I did meet one guy I'm pretty sure have killed someone in Vietname, while I lived in Valdez Alaska. It was really interesting. People in Valdez drive to Anchorage pretty often to go shopping or what not. For some time people would come back to town and say something like 'dude, I saw a naked guy walking along the road from Glenallen. He was carrying a cart made out of two trees and a barrel (small trees). The guy walked like that all the way form Glenallen to Valdez (about 200 km). Who knows where he started from. When he got to Valdez he was wearing clothes. He took his barrel cart around town and cleaned up the streets and parking lots. When he did the parking lot of the restaurant I was working at, I asked him a few questions. I asked what he was doing, and he said he was trying to make up for things he did in Vietnam. I swear to god I'm not making this up. I used to have a picture of the guy, but I lost it in an apartment fire. I asked him if he wanted any money since I would have had to clean that lot up if he didn't. He said he wouldn't take payment for the work he did, but he would accept gifts. He was really quiet and polite, but didn't talk beyond answering whatever questions you posed. When I think back about it, it's incredible how well he avoided conversation without ever being rude or refusing to talk about something. Some questions he just gave evasive answers, but never evasive enough you were motivated to chase him down on something. Then one day he walked away again. I never got any reports about him past glenallen, so I guess he headed somewhere in the Yukon.

      Not that any of this has anything to do with your post (-1 offtopic), but I thought you might find it interesting.

    292. Re:That really sucks by nobaloney · · Score: 1
      Disclaimer: I've met Hans and had a few discussions with him. I've also met his wife and children when we acted as his wheels while he visited a Linux club meeting in Southern California a few years ago.

      Yes, Hans is possibly wrongfully arrested. And yes, police departments are wont to convict before the case even goes to the the District Attorney or the Grand Jury.

      But that said, here appears to be fairly damning evidence against him, at least as reported here:

      http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/br eaking_news/15741175.htm

      At least he's in what's called "administrative segregation" (commonly known as "Ad-Seg"; in several books about California murders often called "High Power"). Generally that means he'll make it to court without being killed himself.

      And given a chance to explain away evidence and (we hope) be able to clear his name.

    293. Re:That really sucks by Aadomm · · Score: 1

      That is an amazingly messed up use of the word 'healthy' there.

      --
      Mention the Lord of the Rings one more time and I'll more than likely kill you.
    294. Re:That really sucks by dch24 · · Score: 1

      Why is everybody posting here posting AC? I think that's pretty cowardly ... oh wait ...

    295. Re:That really sucks by dch24 · · Score: 1

      I guess we need to update the quiz (requires Flash).

    296. Re:That really sucks by julesh · · Score: 1

      let me guess , you're some kid who's never been a
      victim of a serious crime and so have zero idea of how
      it feels to the victim or their familt?


      'fraid not. I'm 30, and have been a victim of burglary (twice), fraud, and assault. Members of my family have also been victims of similar crimes. Admittedly, none of these are particularly serious, but I know how being a victim makes me feel, which means I know that the way I feel when I am a victim should not be taken into account in any way in the process of justice. I get very unreasonable, and I tend to make demands that are not sane or logical, and which looking back on them later I tend to regret.

      How about you?

    297. Re:That really sucks by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      or the wife turns up in Russia.

      I wish that too (for her and his sake), but then what about the blood found in his house and car, and all the other evidence? Planted evidence? Would she go that far?
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    298. Re:That really sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather execute him than his filesystem code. Which has been known 2 execute data.

      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=reiser+corrup tion

      I don't think I'll say I use ext2/ext3 too loud, wouldn't want 2 get killed.

    299. Re:That really sucks by Marcion · · Score: 1

      Well at the time that I wrote my comment, we did not know about the blood and the missing car seat. Now it looks pretty bad. All we can do now is pray for the individuals involved.

      On the open source side of things. I think an outside face should be appointed acting head of Namesys ASAP and as many of the developers as possible should be firewalled off from those involved in the case. Preferably the acting/interim lead should be someone internationally known and also independent from HR, perhaps the head of Linspire or someone from Novell, or perhaps the whole project could be 'fostered' by OSTG or GNU or Novell or Linspire or someone.

      We also need to consider a new name pretty quick, as it is better to lose the name than the whole filesystem, Reiser4 was going to be the only show in town on the filesystem front. HFS+ is a pretty old filesystem and the demise of WinFS means that, for now, we are still ahead of the game, even with just ext3/4.

      What the new name actually is does not matter, LinuxFS or UkraineFS or whatever, just get the thing back into the community until the case is resolved.

    300. Re:That really sucks by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Subsets of subsets of subsets
      Where do we stop and where do we start?
      If you're trusting the facts, India has a murder rate of 3.4 and China is around 2. I would think China excludes an government sanctioned deaths. That's ~1/3 of the total population instead of the US and Canada which is only ~1/18 of the population.
      I stated the repeat murderers subset of all murderers because someone asked about it compared to the whole population.

      I do think that if you divide up the murderer subset into different types of homicides, that you would see a variety of rates for repeat offenders. Some of those rates could actually be lower than the population rates. Of course, with smaller subsets each person will have a greater weight.

      There are so many factors and numbers that I don't have to make any firm decision in the real world.

      killers in prison for life
      killers who had the death penalty/on death row
      Both groups never had parole. Their crimes might be more serious and might have a higher repeat rate if released
      error rate for false convictions
      breakdown of the multiple murderers and multiple victims
      I'm sure there's a lot more that I'm not thinking of right now

      Right now, I don't have the formulas and rules for weighted statistics and comparing different size groups, so I'll just ask theoretical questions.
      My theoretical question is if the repeat offense rate in under 1%, but 100-1000X the rate of the whole population, do you still punish them? At what repeat offense rate would you think would require more punishment - 2%? 10%? 50%? ???%

    301. Re:That really sucks by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >How about you?

      Someone close to me was badly beaten up. The guy who did it got 12 months
      suspended because the judge was a great believer in "rehabilitation in the
      community". ie letting them off. So the offender just had to be a good boy
      for 12 months and meanwhile my friend will have the emotional scars for years
      not to mention the physical injuries that took weeks to recover from.
      Justice? I don't think so, not in this pathetic country.

    302. Re:That really sucks by Znork · · Score: 1

      Modern civilized judicial systems are not based on retribution and 'punishment'. They're based on (or should be based on) the concepts of crime prevention and rehabilitation.

      'Punishment' for its own sake is pointless. You and I may want the bastard to suffer for what he's done, but from the viewpoint of civilized society, the actual interest is in preventing further and repeat crimes. (and really, what would you rather, not get killed, or have your killer harshly punished?)

      Most statistics I've seen agree; hard 'punishment' doesnt deter, the factor that acts as a deterrent is the chance of actually getting caught. Hence the efficiency of zero-tolerance policies, as they vastly increase that chance for the average minor infraction.

      So, to answer your question, _catch_ them, catch the _right_ person, and lock them up until they are no longer a threat to other people.

    303. Re:That really sucks by bjb · · Score: 1

      John Draper (aka Captain Crunch of hacker fame) wrote EasyWriter while in prison.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    304. Re:That really sucks by kaizendojo · · Score: 1

      > With blood spatters found in his residence and his car missing a front seat, no to mention the fact that sales records show him purchasing a *number* of books on homicide investigation immediately prior to his wife's disappearance, I don't think wrongfully arrested are the words I'd use to describe him... ..unless of course you're one of those people who still believes OJ is 'looking for the REAL killer' on some golf course in Florida.... Besides, this is all academic now anyways since Novell annouced today that they are moving the default files sytem choice to EXT3. If you want to talk about true sad news, what about Ray Noorda passing this week from complications due to Alzheimers? I wish Novell had put a little bit more than a press release on their website - the guy dedicated his life to Novell and made them what they were.

    305. Re:That really sucks by try_anything · · Score: 1

      Well around here in Texas, it's a well known joke. We don't take offense, and I doubt enough people take it seriously to elevate it to the status of myth.

      And he had it right; it's "needed killin'," not "needed killing." Big difference.

    306. Re:That really sucks by try_anything · · Score: 1
      What you said:
      That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes.

      From your link, the quote you're interpreting:

      Released murderers are almost five times more likely than other ex-convicts to be rearrested for murder.

      So murderers aren't five times as likely as non-murderers to repeat the crime that put them in prison -- they're five times more likely to commit murder. In other words, a released non-murderer is 20% as likely to commit murder as a released murderer. Far from reinforcing your point, that statistic undermines it.

    307. Re:That really sucks by try_anything · · Score: 1

      It's only sane to commit murder if you aren't going to suffer as a result. Based on that reasoning, only psychopaths can sanely commit murder.

    308. Re:That really sucks by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt. Come on. You said you had evidence.

            First they would have to admit they were a killer.

        rd

    309. Re:That really sucks by xophos · · Score: 1

      you are missing an important point: inocent until proven guilty

    310. Re:That really sucks by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1
      ex-convicts are far more likely to be involved in criminal activities including homicide.


      What you say there is true, and it doesn't even need to be shown to be a cause-effect relationship. People who are ex-convicts are people who were caught in criminal activites. So they are naturally the sort of people more likely to continue to commit crimes than the public as a whole.

      There's no need to get all sociological about it, which some are prone to do.
    311. Re:That really sucks by roscocoltran · · Score: 1

      He's been faithful to the RTFM rule to the end!

    312. Re:That really sucks by pfharlock · · Score: 0

      Something that some people don't seem to be considering is the idea of punishment. If somebody commits murder, and it is somehow verifiable that they will never do it again, that doesn't exonerate them from the consequences. If I or one of my family members were murdered I would expect that the person if captured would be locked up and the key thrown away.

    313. Re:That really sucks by kermyt · · Score: 1

      Well even though I live in Maine now... I grew up in Texas. And I have heard that "joke" told as a "true story". So personally I believe that elevates it to Myth status :) But I have been wrong before.

    314. Re:That really sucks by mooncaine · · Score: 1

      Actually, the question is about the claim regarding "most killers"; therefore a demand for a "peer reviewed scientific study" [personally, I'd prefer a double blind one] must be directed at the person who makes the "most killers" claim.

  2. Unbelievable by nubnub · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's arrested for killing his wife and this post asks what's the deal with Reiser 4? Classy kdawson, very classy.

    1. Re:Unbelievable by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That wasn't in the original post. He added it later.

      But honestly, how many people would think that even if it wasn't posted on the front page?

    2. Re:Unbelievable by Random+Destruction · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But honestly, how many people would think that even if it wasn't posted on the front page?


      Probably a lot of people. But, what's wrong with that? It's natural for people to think of how an event will affect them.
      --
      :x
    3. Re:Unbelievable by Kangburra · · Score: 1

      Too many, the fact he's been arrested is news, but our concern should be the fact we don't why?

      What evidence do they have? I know, Microsoft have paid the police to do this, to discredit a Linux FS?

      Only on Slashdot! ;-)

      --
      Common sense is not so common
    4. Re:Unbelievable by Rachel+Lucid · · Score: 1

      If I were to care about this software, I think I'd worry more about how this affects the coding community in general (stereotyping and all) before worrying about the next iteration of software.

    5. Re:Unbelievable by TechnoLuddite · · Score: 1

      Ok, while I don't much care for the first thought in the story being "oh no, what happens to the filesystem?", let's realize that "kimvette", not "kdawson", was the one advancing that interpretation of the news. The worst "kdawson" was responsible for saying is that a bunch of us slashdotters reported this ... over and over and over and ...

    6. Re:Unbelievable by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      At MIT some students compute the energy of a students splattering the sidewalk. That's from The Idea Factory by Pepper White.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    7. Re:Unbelievable by topham · · Score: 1

      What stereotyping? He had a wife; obviously he doesn't fit the profile of the people around here.

    8. Re:Unbelievable by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the original poster had a case of "everyone thinks it, but we shouldn't say it out loud".

    9. Re:Unbelievable by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      "What evidence do they have?"

      Sure it is all circumstancial evidence that probably wouldn't stand up in court, but the statistics simply show that, given the situation, it is an almost certainty that he was involved (particuarly considering some of the details). The Police would be irresponsable not to arrest him.

      Ofcourse, he could always try chuck an OJ Simpson and hope all the jury are opens source software users!

    10. Re:Unbelievable by msuzio · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. Natural enough for people (as people) to ponder that, but a woman is (presumed) dead. Asking how this will affect anything so ephemeral as a piece of software is absurd. That should never have been written.

      I mean, besides being crass, it's also obvious -- so why point it out? Sure, we all naturally wonder what might happen to the software, but is it worth actually discussing?

    11. Re:Unbelievable by el+americano · · Score: 1

      Classy kdawson, very classy.

      Clearly, you missed:

      "kimvette writes..."

      Not that I'd want to lynch him/her either. I'm just saying if you want to call someone out, you should make an effort to call the right person.

      --
      Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
    12. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      let's realize that "kimvette", not "kdawson", was the one advancing that interpretation of the news.

      Let's all reflect for a moment on the job description of "editor".

      But then again, this is slashdot.

    13. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By any objective measure, Reiser 4 is more important to mankind than the life of some average individual.

    14. Re:Unbelievable by pyite · · Score: 1

      Classy kdawson, very classy.

      Umm. This story would never be on Slashdot if it weren't for the fact that it's Hans Reiser. The only relevant question to be asked in the first place (on Slashdot) is how this affects the project. Otherwise, why bother posting it?

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    15. Re:Unbelievable by nubnub · · Score: 1

      I called out the right person. kimvette did not attach that commentary to the post. kdawson did.

    16. Re:Unbelievable by x736e65616b · · Score: 1

      "What evidence do they have?"

      Well, they _had_ evidence, but somehow during the fsck of his house they ended up misplacing it, so it was lost forever... something about being unable to find the metadata?

      This whole thing cracks me up.

      -j

    17. Re:Unbelievable by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even weirder, it's posted in the "Your Rights Online" section. How are my rights being affected here?

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    18. Re:Unbelievable by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Outside of a direct confession, all cases are circumstancial. I wish people would stop latching onto the idea like it's a bad thing.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    19. Re:Unbelievable by frost22 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      ahem ... evidence ? Is that required ?

      You guys managed to send that Peterson guy to the death row withoud either a body, a confession or even a first hand witness. He was basically conviced to death for beeing a cheating asshole.

      American courts convict on sympathy, knee jerk bigotry and showmanship of the various lawyers.

      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    20. Re:Unbelievable by Rix · · Score: 1

      Your right to kill your wife. Um, online.

      Wait, I better get a patent before I post this.

    21. Re:Unbelievable by chris_eineke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not affected yet. It only takes one company who has a stake in proprietary software to raise concern over Free Software by saying: "Some Free Software is written by murderers! Only a murderer would write Free Software! Thus, all Free Software is written by murderers!"

      1. Generalization
      2. Uncharacteristic Sample
      3. Misrepresentation of Facts

      Your turn.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    22. Re:Unbelievable by Vardamir · · Score: 1

      It is a valid question to ask, and obviously an important one. It also brings up the question of whether or not he should still be allowed to contribute to society in prison. Personally, I think he should, then again I think everyone in prison should have to work - just because he may enjoy it may not seem fair to the victims, but he would be contained and possibly help others by continuing his work/research.

    23. Re:Unbelievable by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Narrow point on the first half and "Exactly!" on the 2nd. People can get confused, lie, or imagine things. Give me a circumstantial case anyday.

      --Joey

    24. Re:Unbelievable by deanj · · Score: 0

      "He's arrested for killing his wife and this post asks what's the deal with Reiser 4? Classy kdawson, very classy."

      My thoughts exactly. If I had mod points right now, I'd mod you up.

    25. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Outside of a direct confession, all cases are circumstancial.

      That's incorrect -- eyewitness testimony isn't circumstantial.

    26. Re:Unbelievable by LastExyle · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. you know as well as I do that you, I, and everyone else only cares about this case because of Reiser's work on ReiserFS. My best friend's mom died of cancer last week and I didn't see an article about that here. Why? Because it's not relevant to a tech news site, it's just another one of the thousands of unpleasant things that happen daily. Reiser's situation is of relevance here for a specific reason, so obviously that's what's going to be talked about.

    27. Re:Unbelievable by buswolley · · Score: 1

      O.J. defense: pun needed here.. the gloves won't fit.. conspiracy.. white cops.. something..

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    28. Re:Unbelievable by SoulDrift · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the contrary, far from being crass, the fate of ReiserFS is the only part of this sorry subject that merits discussion on Slashot. Anything else, discussed in a forum of people who don't personally know those involved, is nothing more than lurid gossip

    29. Re:Unbelievable by Eccles · · Score: 4, Informative

      Laci Peterson's body was found in San Francisco Bay, with DNA confirmation that it was her. A witness saw Peterson removing a large, heavy bundle from his house and placing it in his truck, which he then drove to a marina. The remainder of the evidence was indeed circumstantial.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    30. Re:Unbelievable by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Here's another thing most people aren't saying ...

      What's more important, a single unremarkable life or a highly influential piece of software? Lives aren't so valuable that they are automatically more valuable than everything else. You wouldn't say that a single life was more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower (which costs billions of dollars).

    31. Re:Unbelievable by Miguelito · · Score: 2, Informative
      You guys managed to send that Peterson guy to the death row withoud either a body, a confession or even a first hand witness. He was basically conviced to death for beeing a cheating asshole.


      Assuming you mean Scott Peterson.. try again. They did, in fact, find his wife's body and the unborn fetus.

      He wasn't convicted because he cheated mostly because of how he acted after her disappearance, and based on testimony of others.
      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    32. Re:Unbelievable by rogue555 · · Score: 1

      Well, it did start a rousing discussion about whether it was appropriate to do so. And apparently, that is worth discussing

      --
      "That's not ironic, it's just mean!" - Bender
    33. Re:Unbelievable by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It depends whose life, and to whom, and what their criteria for determining importance are. Importance isn't a property of the world; it is a relationship between a mind and a thing. A child of mine would be more important than the entire US fleet - to me. Outside of peoples' minds, there is no such thing as "importance."

    34. Re:Unbelievable by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Reiser hasn't yet faced trial, let alone been found guilty.

    35. Re:Unbelievable by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      It all depends on the user number doesn't it?

        You'd be surprised at how many low-numbered Slashdot users have wives and families. I guess, despite any social failings, if you stick around long enough, someone will settle for you. :)

    36. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a woman is (presumed) dead. Asking how this will affect anything so ephemeral as a piece of software is absurd.

      First of all, if the woman is gone, the software is still here. It will probably still be in use after Hans himself is dead. What do you mean by "ephemeral", exactly?

      It's not like I'm weighing the software against the woman, or comparing their relative importance. I'm not considering the woman at all! I don't know her, and I have no desire to cloud my mind with thoughts of people being murdered or disappearing, especially when it has nothing to do with me.

      I mean, besides being crass, it's also obvious -- so why point it out? Sure, we all naturally wonder what might happen to the software, but is it worth actually discussing?

      I have a simple rule when it comes to watching/reading the news: "will I have to take any action?" .. if you apply this rule to a lot of stuff on the news, the answer is NO, so it's basically useless information (or advertising bait).

      I think the statistic is that hundreds of thousands of people die every day. Someday, you and I will die, and only a very small number of people will care. I'm not offended by this. I feel remorse for any human life that's lost, but I don't feel any worse for this woman (who I don't know at all) then I do for the other thousands of people that died today.

      The only part of this news story that will impact me in *any* way is reiserfs. The rest is just tragedy. I can get that in spades by turning on CNN (which I stopped doing years ago).

    37. Re:Unbelievable by mpaulsen · · Score: 1

      This Pederson?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Peterson#Trial_o f_Scott_Peterson

      On April 13, 2003, the decomposed body of a late term male fetus, his umbilical cord still attached, was found on the San Francisco Bay shore near Richmond, north of Berkeley. The next day the body of a recently-pregnant woman washed to shore one mile away from where the baby's body was found. The woman's cause of death was impossible to discern; due to decomposition, the body was decapitated, armless, and legless. DNA tests verified they were the bodies of Laci Peterson and her son, Conner.

      On April 18, 2003, Scott Peterson was arrested

    38. Re:Unbelievable by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But honestly, how many people would think that even if it wasn't posted on the front page?

      I wouldn't. The state of the filesystem is secondary and I know that some enterprising developer will pick it up if need be.

      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.

    39. Re:Unbelievable by TheLink · · Score: 1

      At CEO/Politician University they probably estimate the short term/long term benefit of the event to them, and what actions to take to maximise the benefit (like not saying they are doing such a thing in the first place).

      And that's the diff between CEOs/Politicians and nerds/geeks.

      --
    40. Re:Unbelievable by TheDreadSlashdotterD · · Score: 1

      Have you forgotten where you're posting. THIS IS SLASHDOT! Of course it's worth discussing.

      --
      I have nothing to say.
    41. Re:Unbelievable by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a whole other can of worms that I really don't feel like opening up, but suffice to say am I the only one who finds it "odd" that a late term fetus is described as "her son, Conner"?

      While I can attach the idea of naming an unborn child, even a dead one, for 'emotive connection' reasons, perhaps it's because, at least to me, "son" implies a relationship beyond "inhabitant of womb".

    42. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAA! Your sig made me log out!

    43. Re:Unbelievable by st1d · · Score: 1

      Which is why many countries have the concept of a jury...because a single person is often too far one way or the other, while a (small!) group will tend to moderate it's own judgement.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    44. Re:Unbelievable by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      What fundamental right does that impinge upon? "The right to not have an arbitrary third party inaccurately group me into a generalisation"?

    45. Re:Unbelievable by Firehed · · Score: 1

      If the disk doesn't fsck, you must....?

      Ugh, I've got nothing.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    46. Re:Unbelievable by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      You guys? You're responding to the jurors?

      Oh, I get it, you couldn't let an opportunity for an ill-informed slam go by.

      Your self-esteem must be in the freakin toilet, man.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    47. Re:Unbelievable by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.

      Extreme stress can do it.
      Every person has a breaking point. Not everyone breaks in the same manner, but eventually everyone will break.
      I know that financial problems and a dissolving marriage are huge source of stress. Who knows what else he is dealing with? (who knows if he even did it)
    48. Re:Unbelievable by catbutt · · Score: 1

      People get arrested for murder every day, but they aren't discussed on slashdot. The Reiser FS is why it is relevant here.

    49. Re:Unbelievable by msuzio · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would say a single life (on the conceptual level, not picking a particular person) is more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower.

      *shrug* Just my POV, I guess. Kind of scares me to think people would even question that, though.

    50. Re:Unbelievable by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He's arrested for killing his wife. . .

      Well no, not exactly. He was arrested on suspicion of killing his wife. That means he's being held in custody against his will for questioning, to prevent flight and to let the lab boys free reign to go over his house with a fine lensed microscope.

      Presumably they are not even questioning him yet, which is why his attorney is being prevented from seeing him. He's in isolation. Perhaps as a means of putting psychological pressure on him.

      They may be looking for a confession, a plea bargain or enough evidence to actually go forward with a charge and indictment, but at the moment he's simply in custody and may even have to be released again, even though still the prime suspect and still under investigation.

      There is little that we actually know at this point, but chief among those things are that there has been only circumstantial evidence that a murder has even taken place, if that happened it happened after the last time they were seen together and that she was seen alone after that.

      If he didn't "do it" this has to be a royal bitch for Hans. If he did, well, it's still a royal bitch for Hans, because he's on the way to getting "nabbed" for it, but he hasn't actually been charged with anything yet.

      KFG

    51. Re:Unbelievable by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Preservation of space-time (or any unit derivation thereof which you adhere to) continuity, preservation of the solar system, preservation of the planet, preservation of the human race, preservation of freedom of thought, preservation of /. These are all important outside of my mind and perfectly objective. Your scale may vary.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    52. Re:Unbelievable by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      How about we change the "What if X gets hit by a bus?" Into a more topical "What if X gets arrested and convicted of killing his wife?"

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    53. Re:Unbelievable by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      No, they are only important insofar as there are other things important to minds contingent on them. An argument can be made that it is mind-independent that minds are dependent on the survival of the planet, on space-time continuity, etc. Someone who considered something important that relied on these things, yet didn't consider these things important, could be accused of a failure of reasoning. But there still requires an active evaluation of importance by a mind somewhere in the loop.

      I don't see how you've made any case that they are important outside a mind per se.

    54. Re:Unbelievable by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, have you had any children? I also assume you're male.

      I'm male and as of yet childless, and quite frankly have no idea how I would feel about the legal or emotional status of my unborn child.

      I have to think I would probably consider it more than "a late term fetus" though..

    55. Re:Unbelievable by cedars · · Score: 1
      What's more important, a single unremarkable life or a highly influential piece of software? Lives aren't so valuable that they are automatically more valuable than everything else. You wouldn't say that a single life was more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower (which costs billions of dollars).
      Umm...I would say that a single life of a citizen (not guilty of a crime) is more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower. We can rebuild the Eisenhower if it is lost, we can never replace a life. That said, lives and money shouldn't be a trade-off, money should enhance the lives of those around us. There was a comment above that the humorous comments were far less disturbing than some of the serious ones and I think your post illustrates that. It feels like you are missing a lot empathy.

      Cedars.
    56. Re:Unbelievable by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      What's more important, a single unremarkable life or a highly influential piece of software?

      The software has lasting value, but it doesn't place the creator above the law of the land - it may not always be so, but the ideal is that the same rules apply to everyone.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    57. Re:Unbelievable by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Oh, not that I find it wrong, per se. I don't know how I find it - more that the subject association is so unfamiliar to words, if that makes sense...

    58. Re:Unbelievable by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Well, truely the Eisenhower is worth several lives. The easiest way to measure this is to ask yourself how many lifetimes of work were put into it. The more complex method is to ask how many more people will die of starvation, lack of medical care, etc (on the margin) because society had to redirect $10B to replace a carrier. (And don't say the money would not be spent on it - on the margin, it is. Money not spent on Defense is not taken from consumers, etc.)

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    59. Re:Unbelievable by Dimwit · · Score: 1

      Lives aren't so valuable that they are automatically more valuable than everything else.

      Yes, yes they are.

      You are a horrible human being.

      --
      ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
    60. Re:Unbelievable by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >He's arrested for killing his wife and this post asks what's the deal with Reiser 4? Classy kdawson, very
      >classy.

      It may be cold blooded, but it is also reasonable from a business perspective to want to know if a product passes the bus test. It is no different from wanting to know, say, the future of EMC if the CEO of that company got arrested for murdering his ex-wife. I know of an insurance adjuster company in Maryland which defaulted on many of its obligations when the President of the company murdered his wife. (He killed her because she burned the Ziti. Seriously. I knew people who were directly involved in the litigation on that one, and it ended several careers as collateral damage.)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    61. Re:Unbelievable by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>> That's incorrect -- eyewitness testimony isn't circumstantial.

      Circumstantial:

      1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.
      ----> Includes every situation. It's all dependant on the crime, for instance.

      2. Of no primary significance; incidental.
      ----> Especially if there's a video with good audio.

      3. Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate.
      ----> Unless the witness possesses a normal memory, which tends to alter details on it's own.

      4. Full of ceremonial display.
      ----> An average courtroom.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    62. Re:Unbelievable by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>> While I can attach the idea of naming an unborn child, even a dead one, for 'emotive connection' reasons, perhaps it's because, at least to me, "son" implies a relationship beyond "inhabitant of womb".

      Go spend some time around a woman about to give birth. Sure, she's not holding the kid in her arms, but she's likely had/planning a baby shower, has a house full of baby stuff, and has spent a lot of time thinking about being a parent. And depending on how she died, you can bet one of her last thoughts was about that inhabitant in her womb.

      While I agree with you to a point, I don't necessarily disagree with that kind of usage. It takes a particularly cold-blooded type of person to murder a pregnant woman. Most "regular" murderers wouldn't do it. As such, the usage is acceptable, because it shows that he was a step beyond his peers in this regard. That's the risk he took when he killed his pregnant wife, and you know it must have crossed his mind in some way, at some point in time long before he committed the act.

      In other words, I have no particular sympathy that his actions are used against him to their full effect.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    63. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you know the truth?? He's innocent! Micro$oft is framing him! We all know how much M$ wants to see Linux die. This is just the start.

      Who will be M$'s next victim??

    64. Re:Unbelievable by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1
      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.
      I was wondering why some smart guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife wouldn't get away with it.
      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    65. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American courts convict on sympathy, knee jerk bigotry and showmanship of the various lawyers.

      Wow, love those sweeping generalities!

      And no, I don't give a shit where you're from...

    66. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly it's the decapitation and removal of all limbs that tells me he was a step beyond his peers, not murdering a pregnant woman.

    67. Re:Unbelievable by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Informative
      >>> That's incorrect -- eyewitness testimony isn't circumstantial. Circumstantial: 1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. ----> Includes every situation. It's all dependant on the crime, for instance.
      "Circumstantial evidence" has a specific meaning in law, so you might as well stick your vanilla dictionary definitions up your ass, for all their applicability. In law, eyewitness testimony is not circumstantial evidence.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    68. Re:Unbelievable by st1d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, maybe two steps, but "in defense" of my argument, removing the limbs makes it easier to transport. It takes an extra level of coldness to do it, but killing an almost due pregnant woman is a whole different deal. Most psychos would simply wait, as the childbirth might do her in. Besides, what better defense than standing there crying with a newborn in your arms?

      But that's just me speaking...I mean, a thought that crossed my mind. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    69. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You guys managed to send that Peterson guy to the death row withoud either a body, a confession or even a first hand witness. He was basically conviced to death for beeing a cheating asshole.

      He was convicted on an astonishing amount of circumstantial evidence (the most reliable sort), the most slashdot-worthy of which being that he basically googled "how to dump my wife's body into the San Francisco Bay so it will never be found". He clearly shouldn't have trusted what he read on the Internet, as the body was found.

      But if that doesn't fit into your view of the American justice system, then he was convicted for being a cheating asshole. Sure. Whatever.

    70. Re:Unbelievable by Trogre · · Score: 1

      ...at least to me, "son" implies a relationship beyond "inhabitant of womb".

      What you mean like "inhabitant of house"? :)

      Mothers and babies form relationships long before the womb is exited. I'm guessing you haven't spent much time with pregnant women but they (and often fathers) usually spend a great deal of time stroking the baby, talking, singing and reading through the mothers abdomen. Responses from the baby (kicking and other movements) have been known to indicate recognition of voices or even songs.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    71. Re:Unbelievable by visgoth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      we can never replace a life

      Sure we can, its called having children. My life is only important to myself, my family, and perhaps a small circle of friends. Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    72. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't have any children.

      --
      I hate printers.
    73. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't much care for the first thought in the story being "oh no, what happens to the filesystem?"

      I'm guessing you don't use ReiserFS.

    74. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      Measuring life against a life's value of work is disgraceful, and indicative of the soulless nature of modern western society. The fact that you think a person is only worth what they produce is saying a person's life can be reduced to monetary value. I.e., If I can afford to pay the replacement cost of your expected future production, I can buy the right to kill you. Life itself has intrinsic value, immeasurably greater than anything that can result from any production process humans are able to create. Furthermore production processes and their output value are not static. 200 years ago the production of a single automobile would have been outside the capacity of the world economy, yet today we would not say that they are of greater value than a human life. Lets stop thinking about everything in terms of production, money and utility and start seeing the wonder and intrinsic value in the World as it is, not what we can produce from it.

      --
      I hate printers.
    75. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I agree. Parent post to me illustrates one of the festering sores on the fundamental fabric of modern western society: The reduction of everything, including life itself, to monetary value.

      --
      I hate printers.
    76. Re:Unbelievable by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      If I may... The estranged husband of an Oakland woman who has been missing for more than a month was arrested today on suspicion of murder

      To me, this is a fishing expedition by the police where they don't have enough real evidence, but he seems to be the one pin they can nail. (woman disappears, it MUST be the husband/boyfriend/father etc... (eg: crime of passion)).

      Hopefully they will have nothing, but sadly the damage has already been done.. his life is crap now.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    77. Re:Unbelievable by iocat · · Score: 1
      They don't always. I think it's like (I read this long ago) 70% feel they have a relationship before the baby is born, 25% feel they have a relationship once they see the baby, and 5% don';t feel they have a relationship for some time (like up to two weeks) after the baby is born. Some insignificant percentage never develop a relationship. My girlfriend was in the 25% and it totally freaked her out because she thought she was going to be a horrible mother because she didn't love her baby when it was a fetus. Once she saw him, she went totally mommy-core, but I feel compelled to post, because the myth that all women have a magic bond with their fetus can be really damaging to women's self esteem if they don't feel it. My girlfriend still referred to our son as "it" until like the day before he was born, but she's a great mother.

      In Laci Peterson's case, she had already NAMED the baby, so clearly she was feeling a relationship! It's also common to name children who are stillborn, and refer to them as children, not fetuses.

      Finally, anyone who has had a kid, or more exactly, a pregnant wife/girlfriend knows that Scott Peterson was guilty. No one with a consscience or an ounce of care for his wife goes fishing 3 hours from home, on Christmas Eve, when their wife is 9 months pregnant. No one. Only a total sociopath -- the exact type who would kill his wife -- would even think that was a workable excuse.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    78. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I thought Google didn't release search data?

      --
      I hate printers.
    79. Re:Unbelievable by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Umm...I would say that a single life of a citizen (not guilty of a crime) is more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower.

      Society disagrees. It's quite likely that more than one person died in the construction of the ship. The number of manhours to build it is much more than a single human life. Neither the ship's captain nor the US Navy would surrender it in exchange for saving a single life, or even a hundred.

      Insurance companies put a market value on a "life", a few million dollars for most. The amount of money spent on safety or preventative medical care is often much less than that.

    80. Re:Unbelievable by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      preservation of /. These are all important outside of my mind and perfectly objective.

      The importance of the preservation of /. is entirely subjective. You'll find that the vast majority of the human race couldn't care less about it. For example, I've been a registered user for years, and I certainly wouldn't put myself out to help save it were it threatened; I'd likely just shrug my shoulders and get on with my life.

    81. Re:Unbelievable by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My son became a person, to me, somewhere around 5 or 6 months gestation. By that time he was reactive to light and sound (he would squirm away from bright light shining on my partner's belly, and would "jump" at loud noise nearby), demonstrated preferences in music (kicked and squirmed around for Bach cello suites, became still for Miles), and knew the sound of my voice and, of course, my partner's.

      *I* had a relationship with him long before he was born. I can only guess, now, at how intimate the relationship must be for the mother whose own body has been shared with the child.

    82. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was wondering why some smart guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife wouldn't get away with it.

      This comment was brought to you by "A beautiful mind (821714)"

    83. Re:Unbelievable by trifish · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't know it, all the keywords or phrases you search for are in the URL. So it can be found in your browser's History. Look:

      http://www.google.com/search?as_q=did+you+get+it&n um=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&c2coff=1&btnG=Search&as_e pq=&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all

    84. Re:Unbelievable by elucido · · Score: 1

      Exactly, some people do view life as a money value. How much $ is your life worth?

      Honestly, I don't think you can calculate the worth of a life JUST in money. It's too simplistic. People are important for quality of life, and this should weigh in.

    85. Re:Unbelievable by Tsagadai · · Score: 2, Insightful
      we can never replace a life Sure we can, its called having children. My life is only important to myself, my family, and perhaps a small circle of friends. Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.
      Someone needs a hug
    86. Re:Unbelievable by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm, good point... Maybe his wife was an adamant supporter of a competing file system?

    87. Re:Unbelievable by Geheimagent · · Score: 1
      He's arrested for killing his wife and this post asks what's the deal with Reiser 4? Classy kdawson, very classy.
      Reiserfs is the point why the article made it to /. at all. If he wouldn't have been the author nobody would have cared.
    88. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While abandoning your heavily pregnant wife certainly makes you an asshole, are you seriously suggesting that it's equivalent to murdering your pregnant wife?

      There's a whole continuum of assholes out there. I would suggest that you reach the point of "goes fishing far from home while 9-month pregnant wife sits at home" long before you reach the point of "murders wife and dumps her in the ocean".

    89. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 cents:

      I am father of two (8 and 7 years old), and, for the first 3 weeks after my first child was born, I
      had troubles considering him as much more than some sort of living vegetable (I loved him, sure, but it was more because it is the social thing to do than because of some emotional bond). My wife had, of course, and much stronger bond to him.

      Then, the link created itself and I will now probably kill anybody that would hurt any of my childs.

    90. Re:Unbelievable by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      thats what happens when you are known for a 'product', your personal life becomes pretty much unimportant.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    91. Re:Unbelievable by c · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree that the impact on the file system is of lesser significance than, say, a human life, but the alternative was fifty zillion people asking why this belongs on slashdot or what this has to do with Linux or who the hell is Hans Reiser anyways?

      Which is basically what a few other sites got when they were posting about the investigation a few weeks ago.

      Damned if you do...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    92. Re:Unbelievable by rve · · Score: 1

      Technical merits aren't the only thing that matters.

      If he's found guilty, I won't use ReiserFS again.

    93. Re:Unbelievable by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't say that a single life was more valuable than the U.S.S. Eisenhower (which costs billions of dollars).

      So, you're telling me that this dredged up piece of various ores, that even if reduced to a tangle of scrap metal, could be returned to its orginal perfection, worth billions of pieces of paper that are only worth anything because the government says so, and can print more of them on whim, is worth more than a human life? I'm not going to lecture you on the value of human life, but you are seriously fucked up. Seriously. Get help.

    94. Re:Unbelievable by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure we can, its called having children.

      Sigh. Thats not replacing a life, thats creating a new one. It does not replace all of the unique experiences and opinions that make everybody different, which are lost forever when a person dies. And you are sadly incorrect in saying that the greater mass of humanity doesn't care about your life. Thats why the "greater mass" created laws to protect you, and a police force to enforce those laws if you are murdered. Being flippant about it doesn't make you right.

    95. Re:Unbelievable by hey! · · Score: 1

      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.

      I always say that there is a particular kind of stupidity that is the exclusive property of the extremely smart.

      Anybody who has spent much time with the extremely intellgigent can see it at work. It comes from not only usually being right but being right when everybody else around you is wrong. It comes from being able to do what others around you cannot. Soon, you get used to seeing yourself as exceptional; it is not just that some limitations that bind others don't apply to you, it's that they presumptively don't apply to you. It's a short step from thinking, as Terry Pratchett remarks, that "rules are there to make you think before you break them," to not thinking at all.

      Superiority doesn't inevitably lead to hubris, but it sure helps get you started in that diretion.

      Elizabeth Peters, the mystery writer, in one of her books remarked on the standard detective fiction formula of "motive, means and opportunity." Of the three elements, motive is by far the least useful. Normal people don't murder other people under any circumstances, so the predictive power of motive is practicaly nil. This is why the cops automatically focus on the movements of the victim's spouse, who has the greatest opportunity. Presumably he has the greatest motive as well, but that's neither here nor there; he cannot deflect suspicion from himself by claiming his motives were contrary, or that the motive was not sufficient, because presumptively we are looking for somebody who thinks abnormally.

      Pretty much if a woman disappears, the cops are going to focus on the husband. It's a proven formula that works most of the time: dead wife == guilty husband. They may not have any evidence, in fact they may be trying to extract evidence.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    96. Re:Unbelievable by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Wow what a grim world view. I personally don't know you so I can't actually care about you specifically but I care about everyone in general. Call me a hippy but I actually love you and I wish the best for you. I really hope some day we can get passed this "I don't know you, you don't live near me, you don't affect me, so screw you" mentality. This entire universe has been churning away for billions of years and out of all the possible outcomes, the universe has lined up so that we can all be here on this earth together and we just look at it and go "big deal". All we have is each other and our time is so short together, I wish we could stop taking it for granted...

    97. Re:Unbelievable by NightRain · · Score: 1

      Think this through

      Lets say that tomorrow, it's discovered that scuttling every ship in the US navy will save my life from a newly discovered illness (I know it's a dodgy example, but I wanted to remove the whole bargaining with terrorists angle that would arise with a more traditional example). You're seriously telling me that it's worth leaving the US defenceless, just so that I, a non US citizen, can survive.

      At this point, the ship(s) is certainly worth more than a human life, because losing it represents a substantial risk to a greater number of human lives

    98. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "circumstantial" evidence involving the cement blocks used to sink her to the bottom of the bay was pretty convincing to me.

    99. Re:Unbelievable by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      (who knows if he even did it) - too true. Being sexually frustrated can lead to a murder.

    100. Re:Unbelievable by pla · · Score: 1

      I mean, besides being crass, it's also obvious -- so why point it out? Sure, we all naturally wonder what might happen to the software, but is it worth actually discussing?

      Yes - Because otherwise, the fact that some guy might have killed his wife doesn't even come close to "News for Nerds".

      Consider if this involved Linus instead of Hans... Without ReiserFS, although a loss no doubt, we have plenty of alternatives. But without ongoing kernel development, Linux doesn't exist.

      Call it crass if you want, but this only matters because of ReiserFS. Quite the reversal of what you might see on a less group-targeted news site, the wife counts as incidental to our interest in this situation.

    101. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, I was universally despised by my classmates because I was clever, always at the top of the class. I kept quiet, and never boasted, but still they persecuted me.

      One day, in the art class, we were drawing with ink and airbrushes. An erstwhile friend of mine's jacket fell on the floor. I had dry ink on my hands. To prevent the jacket being trodden on, I picked it up. There was ink on the other side of it. Ink has also got on my schoolbag.

      Immediately, one of those who really hated me started ranting that I'd put ink on this guy's jacket. Everyone joined in. The teacher too. (He wasn't called Mr. Bast**d for nothing).

      I was only trying to help.

      That's just the way people are. I'm glad I learned the lesson then, because it's saved my behind in aldult life many times.

      People are ignorant, selfish, stupid and evil. Don't try to help.

      The possibilty of conviction of murder on the dubious claim of one witness is very real. People are stupid, ignorant, vindictive and evil. I'm very glad I don't live in the USA because your justice system is dreadful. Look at what your President is doing in the name of the "War on Terror."

      Watch your back. Keep your head down. Mind your own business.

    102. Re:Unbelievable by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      I think it's fine for the prospective parent to establish such a strong bond with their hopefully soon to be born child, if they want to informally call it their son or daugther then it's up to them. But when the media and in particular the law start refering (often through implication) to unborn fetus's as if they're living, breathing, sentinent children then the emotional bond has been taken way too far.

      Millions of people have strong emotional bonds with their dog, but if someone killed them virtually no-one would claim that was murder despite many people (especially childless couples) refering to their dogs as their "children". The law is meant to be totally rational and to not be bullied by emotion, lately though it seems, in the battle for votes, many DA's and politicians are willing to ignore the barrier.

    103. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    104. Re:Unbelievable by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.
      That's not true! If you or your family are murdered, just think of all the millions who'll enjoy your killer's live execution.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    105. Re:Unbelievable by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Your sig funny as hell. I wonder how long it will be until slashcode forbids it. :)

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    106. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Neither the ship's captain nor the US Navy would surrender it in exchange for saving a single life, or even a hundred."

      Nor would they (or anyone else) surrender 5 lives to save 10.

    107. Re:Unbelievable by Eccles · · Score: 1

      The "circumstantial" evidence involving the cement blocks used to sink her to the bottom of the bay was pretty convincing to me./I.

      How specifically was that tied to Scott?

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    108. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I learned the lesson then, because it's saved my behind in aldult life many times. People are ignorant, selfish, stupid and evil. Don't try to help.

      No, the lesson is to use some common sense. Being stepped on would do less damage to the jacket then getting ink stains on it. If you wanted to help, tell your friend it fell, or ask someone else to pick it up, or keep an eye on it and make sure nobody steps on it. Don't try to pick it up yourself with ink all over your hands.

    109. Re:Unbelievable by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      but I care about everyone in general. Call me a hippy but I actually love you and I wish the best for you.

      I think we should all be concerned about society or the world, but I don't think that extends to each and every individual. It's fine that you "love everyone and wish the best". I think that's a little delusional and unrealistic to actually love everyone, but to each his own. You seem to be upset that everyone doesn't share your love though. Why does everyone have to feel the same way as you do?

      I really hope some day we can get passed this "I don't know you, you don't live near me, you don't affect me, so screw you" mentality.

      Now you're simply projecting something onto the GP that he never said. All he said was that he didn't believe people outside of his friend and family circle really cared if he died or not. He never expressed any "screw you" attitude, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

      --
      AccountKiller
    110. Re:Unbelievable by msouth · · Score: 1
      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.

      I'm just wondering why someone smart enough and sane enough to be posting on slashdot would assume that someone murdered his wife just because the police arrested him on circumstantial evidence which hasn't been divulged. Oh, wait...
      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    111. Re:Unbelievable by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

      Well, reiserfs is the only reason this is on slashdot.

    112. Re:Unbelievable by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Money is how society measures priorities - and for the most part it works pretty well. We spend trillions of dollars making people in general live longer. We do not spend billions to make some of us live longer even though we can, for example our fearless leader is not going to live significantly longer than any of us. Healthcare life and death tradeoffs are far too complicated to make via a centralized decision (for example, invest in CAT scans or flu vaccines?), but a capitalistic economy does a fairly good job of finding optimum investment strategies (at least the local optimums).

      We could make everyone else on the planet a (reasonably long lived) slave in order to prolong my life - but the is a bad idea, right? So their is some meaning in saying that forced slavery, life's work, or whatever has a value that can be compared to the value of a life. Saying otherwise is just fuzzy thinking. It is relatively easy to weigh one life verses another, because society has rules for that sort of thing (just ask a doctor about triage rules) - but when you balance that against money it becomes harder. But there is still a reasonable trade-off to be made.

      If I can afford to pay the replacement cost of your expected future production, I can buy the right to kill you.

      Let me put it to you another way: If it will prolong my life (and not effect your life length), do I have the right to enslave you? What about just make you have to work an extra hour each day?

      That really is what we are talking about.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    113. Re:Unbelievable by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "Watch your back. Keep your head down. Mind your own business."

      and don't murder your wife.

    114. Re:Unbelievable by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      No, the lesson is to use some common sense. Being stepped on would do less damage to the jacket then getting ink stains on it.

      Maybe he didn't fucking realize he had ink on his hands until it was too late? It's not as if he had deliberately stained the jacket, get a clue! Of course, if afterwards people react as if he did, he will be less helpful next time around. Pretend not to notice your help is needed, don't take a risk, and stay out of trouble!

      Congratulations, Mr. Bast**d, for teaching a valuable life lesson to GP. Lemme give you a hint: society needs more brave people who want to take risks to help their fellow men, rather than cowards who turn their head away.

    115. Re:Unbelievable by Eccles · · Score: 1

      While I sympathize with your situation, Mr. Peterson was convicted based on a variety of circumstances that otherwise would have made for a remarkable set of coincidences. He just happened to purchase a 55 gallon drum shortly before Laci's disappearance that he just happened to lose, he just happened to lose multiple pieces of concrete that would be handy for weighing a body down, he just happened to behave in the manner of a man who knew his wife would not reappear, etc. I'm not privy to all the evidence, but I have no reason to doubt the jury's analysis in this case.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    116. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't as clever as you think you were. You should have told the person that his jacket fell down or asked someone else to pick it up. Sounds like you lacked common sense when you were a kid, and it sounds like you are misanthropic as an adult, with a persecution complex. So don't try to translate your experience into something that's universal.

    117. Re:Unbelievable by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      We can only build a new ship cannibalizing any usable remains of the Eisenhower should it be destroyed. We could breed (clone?) a new human cannibalizing any usable remains of the old human should he die.

      The difference is that we see a replica of the object as a suitable replacement while we don't see a replica of the person as such.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    118. Re:Unbelievable by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.

      Speak for yourself, peon. The world shall know and tremble before me, and "Just Some Guy" will be a single great instance, not a nameless class of commonality. Oh yes, 613861, the greater mass will care deeply.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    119. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme give you a hint: society needs more brave people who want to take risks to help their fellow men, rather than cowards who turn their head away.

      I gave several more sensible ways in which he could have helped, dumbass. He's not some fucking "hero", "taking risks" to help anybody. There was no risk. He just screwed up. Well-meaning "helpers" who aren't aware enough of their surroundings to actually help are better off staying out of it.

    120. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, maybe two steps, but "in defense" of my argument, removing the limbs makes it easier to transport.

      Ah. Fragmentation. Yes, ReiserFS is prone to that.
    121. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I feel very strongly about this, and would like to see a reversal of the reduction to money of all things, including morality. I wrote an essay on this topic, if you care to read it:
      http://www.mrnaz.com/?mode=journal&entryid=122

      --
      I hate printers.
    122. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Nor would they (or anyone else) surrender 5 lives to save 10.

      Spoken like someone who's never set foot on a ship, let alone a submarine or aircraft carrier.

      If sealing a flooding compartment with 5 men inside saves the ship and the 10 (or 100, 10000) men on it, the compartment gets sealed, even if the Captain himself is in the compartment.

    123. Re:Unbelievable by Bastian · · Score: 1

      (disclaimer: not trying to characterize filesystem developers or pass judgmement on Hans Reiser, just being pedantic)

      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.

      You certainly have to be smart to develop a filesystem, but what does sanity have to do with it? Personally, I'm of the opinion that there are a number of personality traits that your average psychologist would consider to be less-than-great but which are a huge boon for a filesystem developer. Compulsive tendencies, introversion, and possibly even a touch of psychopathy could all help someone stick around at the keyboard twiddling tiny little uncooperative bits and bytes without being driven mad.

      Furthermore, there are lots of different kinds of smarts. Being a good software engineer doesn't translate into being able to weigh the consequences of one's actions, or having the ability to manage one's emotions, or accept hardship and hurt with grace, or anything like that.

      I severely doubt that his being the developer of ReiserFS has much at all to do with this situation.

    124. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well-meaning "helpers" who aren't aware enough of their surroundings to actually help are better off staying out of it.

      Remind me of this if ever we meet in a situation where you are drowning, and I could jump in and save you.

    125. Re:Unbelievable by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone have to feel the same way as you do?

      People don't have to do anything. I only wish everyone shared my love of humanity.

      He never expressed any "screw you" attitude, I'm not sure where you're getting that.

      I wasn't implying he did, in fact I was sharing his laments regarding "the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me". He is right and I wish it wasn't like that. Sorry if you misunderstood me.

    126. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Outside that, the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me, you, or anyone else.

      Weeeeell, for one, if you stopped eating people's brains, then, we could start giving a fuck about you.

    127. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd feel pretty bad about myself if I were the only one to see the obvious jokes that could be made in response to the way you phrased your reply.

      Please tell me you didn't set it up that way.

    128. Re:Unbelievable by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      "the greater mass of humanity doesn't give a flying fuck about me". He is right and I wish it wasn't like that. Sorry if you misunderstood me.

      What a horrible thought. How could anyone stand to live each day if they were all depressed over the 150,000 people that die every single day? If you truly loved each and every one of the 150,000 people you'd certainly become suidical or depressed over their deaths.

      Or maybe you're talking about "the group", which I think most people are concerned about. People define the group differently. For some it's just their own community, for others it's a nation, for others it's the whole world. This is very different from being concerned about each individual (which is ultimately ridiculous since we live in a world of limited resources). You're always forced to choose between one group or individual or another. Wishing it wasn't so is pointless and counter-productive.

      --
      AccountKiller
    129. Re:Unbelievable by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Any construct is an effort against entropy. I didn't say /. had high importance, but then you didn't say your opinion was well-thought either. I dont see the point of arguing existence with you. By nature of entropy it's more work for you to exist than not, so kill yourself and save the universe the energy.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    130. Re:Unbelievable by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I don't need to make a case. Even reasoning, by nature is a construct against entropy. To use reason is to believe in order, while a bacteria has structure and order with no mind. It is important that the bacterium continue to "consume nutrients" or there is a great number of consequences that lead to entropy. What I had for breakfast is truly unimportant. The universe (including entropy) exists for us, not because of how we think of it. You may define "importance" in some abstract American way (did I just say that?) having to do with what people think. I have no reason to think in those terms.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    131. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.


      spoken like a true geek who has never been married.

      i kid, i kid, i kid...

      ps - post a slashback on this issue after being married for 10 years.
    132. Re:Unbelievable by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      At this point, the ship(s) is certainly worth more than a human life, because losing it represents a substantial risk to a greater number of human lives

      And who do you think is going to invade you? Someone that enjoys being nuked? Besides, thats not what you said. You were talking about dollar values versus human life. Fuck that. Get help.

    133. Re:Unbelievable by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes they are.

      No, no they aren't. If you actually believed that you would be dedicating every bit of your time and resources towards feeding starving people in Africa or an equally life-supporting cause.

      You are a horrible human being.

      Perhaps. I'm still right.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    134. Re:Unbelievable by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Parent post to me illustrates one of the festering sores on the fundamental fabric of modern western society: The reduction of everything, including life itself, to monetary value.

      What society has ever placed no limits on the expenses they would bear trying to preserve a single life? If there ever was such a society, it wouldn't last long. Yes, your life and mine have finite values. If I were kidnapped by a supervillian who demanded a billion dollars from my government or he would execute me, they would refuse and rightly so. (Even if the deal would remain secret so as not to encourage future kidnappers).

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    135. Re:Unbelievable by bnenning · · Score: 1

      You were talking about dollar values versus human life. Fuck that. Get help.

      Get a clue. It's done all the time, and it's absolutely necessary. A strictly enforced speed limit of 25mph or lower everywhere would save thousands of lives a year. Why don't we do it?

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    136. Re:Unbelievable by Runty+McGhee · · Score: 1
      Wow what a grim world view. I personally don't know you so I can't actually care about you specifically but I care about everyone in general. Call me a hippy but I actually love you and I wish the best for you. I really hope some day we can get passed this "I don't know you, you don't live near me, you don't affect me, so screw you" mentality. This entire universe has been churning away for billions of years and out of all the possible outcomes, the universe has lined up so that we can all be here on this earth together and we just look at it and go "big deal". All we have is each other and our time is so short together, I wish we could stop taking it for granted...

      Wow, you really feel that way? It's nice to hear.

      So uh, I was wondering, could you lend me a few hundred to get through the rest of the month? I'll pay you back...

    137. Re:Unbelievable by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Reiser hasn't yet faced trial, let alone been found guilty.

      If you were German you'd know that as soon as the BILD (Europe's most-read tabloid) finds out he will be declared a murderer and an evil monster hell-bent on killing his family. It's amazing what tabloids get away with...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    138. Re:Unbelievable by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Remind me of this if ever we meet in a situation where you are drowning, and I could jump in and save you.

      If I was actually capable of swimming to shore and you jumped in and ended up pushing me under the water quite a few times because you couldn't swim, then yes, I'd rather do without the help.

    139. Re:Unbelievable by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Get a clue. It's done all the time, and it's absolutely necessary.

      Only for your dollar values. Just so you know, if your dollar values get in the way of my human life, you're coming out second best, cowboy. I don't think you'll like that too much.

      A strictly enforced speed limit of 25mph or lower everywhere would save thousands of lives a year. Why don't we do it?

      What does one have to do with the other? Whiskey, tango, fuckin foxtrot.

    140. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      200 years ago the production of a single automobile would have been outside the capacity of the world economy

      No, it would not. Try separating economy and progress of inventions. I am sure a single nation or even a large city could have produced a number of (primitive) automobiles, given proper directions.

    141. Re:Unbelievable by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      The individuals in the "greater mass" created those laws to protect themselves, not others. When it comes down to it, very few people give a rats ass about other individuals they are not closely related to. It's just that the best system of protecting yourself is to create laws that apply evenly to everyone. But you're right about not replacing a life with a new life. That was just a dumb comment on your parent poster's part.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    142. Re:Unbelievable by NightRain · · Score: 1

      And who do you think is going to invade you? Someone that enjoys being nuked?

      Fine, then instead of invading the US, they take the chance to invade one of the US allies and wipe them out. Either way, the cost of a human life is well worth it, because it in turn protects more human lives from being lost

      Besides, thats not what you said.

      You're right, it's not what I said, because I didn't make the original comment. I just saw yours and happened to disagree with you

      You were talking about dollar values versus human life.

      Maybe he was, but my entire point is that quite often it's about more than pure dollars, and due to that, sometimes a human life is what has to be paid

    143. Re:Unbelievable by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Frankly it's the decapitation and removal of all limbs that tells me he was a step beyond his peers, not murdering a pregnant woman.

      This may or may not have happened. It's more likely that the damage to the corpse was due to predation (fish, etc. eating it).

    144. Re:Unbelievable by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Well, killing someone's dog IS a crime. It can be argued that "killing" a fetus is not a crime--though I guess it is in certain cases such as assault in which the fetus is lost, versus abortion.

      It's a tough topic... I think most people probably go through about the entire spectrum of beliefs over the course of their lives, depending on their life experiences.

    145. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I thought Google didn't release search data?

      I don't remember how the data in question were obtained and might have been wrong about the search engine used, but I believe Google does release search data under these circumstances. If they get a court order asking for an individual's search records, they comply. The one they (very famously and bravely) turned down was quite different - a request from Justice Department's request for bulk data of the sort AOL "accidentally" released to researchers. It was not to requested for use in an actual criminal investigation, but instead for research when proposing new legislation against children accessing pornography.

    146. Re:Unbelievable by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      To say that nature is a construct against entropy is incorrect from a number of perspectives, including that of physics. It is, essentially, a kind of anthropormorphism.

      Your last sentence essentially contradicts your penultimate sentence, as well. Think about it.

    147. Re:Unbelievable by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I have never referred to "nature" as a noun. "Think about it" is a poor-man's way of saying "I can't reason it, but it seems to any logical person like me that" which is a thinly veiled ad-hominem. I'm not going to argue conclusions you draw from things I did not say. My conclusions are reasonable given my view of the universe and yours seem partially thought-out to me.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    148. Re:Unbelievable by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      You have missed the underlying point, badly. The manner in which you have missed it actually demonstrates my point rather darkly.

      --
      I hate printers.
    149. Re:Unbelievable by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I've been having this sig for many many months, and nonlogout version of it for even longer. Strange that I'm suddenly getting lots of comments about it now.

      Why should it be forbidden? Just over your mouse over it and it's obvious what will happen if you click on it. And it's not like it sneakily causes you to change your sig to my sig...

      I think of it as a relatively harmless way of teaching people to be more careful.

      I did some iframe worm stuff on advogato.org (mod_virgule) in 2002, and that was definitely naughtier.

      Then there are many sites that allow you to use images as your avatars and the only check they use is that the url ends with .jpg .gif etc.

      This can be faked with tinyurl and possibly other url shortening sites.

      for example:
      I submit http://slashdot.org/my/logout?foo=
      and get
      http://tinyurl.com/y922c6

      And if I use http://tinyurl.com/y922c6/bar.jpg as my avatar image

      People who view it will retrieve http://slashdot.org/my/logout?foo=/bar.jpg
      And get logged out ;).

      There are plenty of simple countermeasures to these.

      BTW I haven't bothered checking on how all that "one click" to buy stuff works ;).

      It's amazing how insecure many sites are. But people really don't care.

      --
    150. Re:Unbelievable by dch24 · · Score: 1

      Chris, you really need to study this quiz (Flash warning).

    151. Re:Unbelievable by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Presumably he has the greatest motive as well, but that's neither here nor there; he cannot deflect suspicion from himself by claiming his motives were contrary, or that the motive was not sufficient, because presumptively we are looking for somebody who thinks abnormally.

            This analysis is entirely wrong. Motive is everything in the cases of missing ex-wives, and the thinking is unfortunately logical in the attempt to be successful, not abnormal.

        rd
      http://www.justiceforchandra.com/

    152. Re:Unbelievable by jcr · · Score: 1

      The point that the grandparent poster is making is that even though higher speed limits mean more people die on the roads, we make that trade-off because of the economic effects of being able to get somewhere on the road in less than a day.

      We can and do set dollar values on human life every day. The alternative is to never mine coal, never build any houses, never do anything else that might get someone killed.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  3. Surreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does anyone else feel very weird when reading this?

    1. Re:Surreal by inhalentbroom · · Score: 1

      I'm with you on that. Knowing that someone famous in the Linux community could be murderer. It's like a punch to the face. I guess I spend so much time building up these people, putting them on a pedestal and then read something like this. I don't know what to think. It's insane.

    2. Re:Surreal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one cannot help but to ask - how many people has Richard Stallman killed and gotten away with it since he's so famous and above the law?

    3. Re:Surreal by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      Eh? The stereotypical Linux user was bullied all through high school and hates people. Why are you surprised?

      --
      ResidntGeek
  4. well great by Ankou · · Score: 0, Troll

    I guess this means Reiser FS will never reach stability ... sigh

    1. Re:well great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Awesome...just think. With a murder conviction he will have the rest of his life to focus on the project!!

      hmmm...will they let him have a computer in Prison?? and if they do will he be forced to run Windows?? AAAAAAHHHH!!! a fate worse than death.

    2. Re:well great by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      Can an unstable creator create a stable creation?

      Oh, right. Sorry. I rescind the question.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    3. Re:well great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Programmers developing public-facing applications and systems always have the fear of being exploited. Pretty soon Hans Reiser will discover new meanings for all his most feared terms, as he's "backdoor'd" in the showers and compromised in his cell. Serves you right for killing a person.

    4. Re:well great by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure I'd categorize him as unstable, just brusque.

  5. Reiser 4 by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Funny

    The filesystem with killer performance.

    1. Re:Reiser 4 by garcia · · Score: 3, Funny

      While the disappearance (and possible murder) of his wife is tragic, Linux users will wonder where this will leave Reiser 4.

      On Death Row!

    2. Re:Reiser 4 by jechoe · · Score: 0

      Damn! Just when I was going to suggest the name KillerFS!

      --
      Push the envelope. Watch it bend.
    3. Re:Reiser 4 by nxtr · · Score: 1

      Gives new meaning to killing processes... or does it?

    4. Re:Reiser 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to mod -1 Too Soon?

    5. Re:Reiser 4 by DuSTman31 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, if only he could defragment his wife.

    6. Re:Reiser 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That honour should be Linsux, as in if someone is too cheap to use Windows, it should cause the entire computer to explode taking the fucktard and anhy other person around it out of the gene pool. Oh that means all Shitdot sheeple will die.

      GO AHEAD, FUCKING FLAME AWAY OR
      WASTE YOUR GODDAMNED MOD POINTS
      FUCKTARDED SHITDOT SHEEPLE

    7. Re:Reiser 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet when found she'll be cut into billions of tiny pieces that look like + or -

      *bludgeoned over head for tastelessness by the Politically Correct Nazis*

    8. Re:Reiser 4 by IO+ERROR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Everytime I've used ReiserFS, some of my files have gone missing. I think they're dead.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    9. Re:Reiser 4 by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      You should have stopped at "defrag" because then you'd get bonus points for Quake humor.

    10. Re:Reiser 4 by byteframe · · Score: 0

      That was a good one.

    11. Re:Reiser 4 by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Well, the feature isn't implemented yet, but it's not called defragmenting. It's called repacking.

      (cue images of Hans repacking his wife... oh GOD no)

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    12. Re:Reiser 4 by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Now, if only he could defragment his wife.

      Would that improve her performance?

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    13. Re:Reiser 4 by craagz · · Score: 0

      Motive for Murder.....?? was his wife "FAT"...?

    14. Re:Reiser 4 by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? C'mon...that's a hilarious comment!

  6. well... by pretorious · · Score: 0

    When you deal with killer code for to long...

  7. So if he's guilty by bdigit · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Would that mean if I used ReiserFS that I support murder? Back to ext

    1. Re:So if he's guilty by failure-man · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't know. If you ask me using a filesystem associated with a murder would be WAY METAL . . . . .

    2. Re:So if he's guilty by ampathee · · Score: 1

      Out of interest, if Linus Torvalds committed murder, would you go back to Windows?
      What about just assault? What if he kicked a puppy?

    3. Re:So if he's guilty by kimvette · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yep, and anyone here who criticised me for presenting a legitimate question but has enjoyed watching The Naked Gun on or after June 12, 1994 are as tasteless as they accuse me of being. Likewise, if Ballmer or Jobs kills someone tomorrow, everyone who does not immediately quit running Windows or OS X is equally guilty. I merely asked what everyone else is likely thinking, and a person'w career should be viewed independently of unrelated misdeeds.

      I honestly hope that Hans is innocent, and if and only if is truly innocent, is cleared, but if he is convicted, would you quit using a product of his design?

      But then again, trolls love to flame anyone for any reason, however contrived.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:So if he's guilty by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Funny
      Would that mean if I used ReiserFS that I support murder?


      Better than supporting Microsoft.

      [kidding! kidding!]
    5. Re:So if he's guilty by Nataku564 · · Score: 5, Funny
      What if he kicked a puppy?
      I'd go out and kick a puppy too.
    6. Re:So if he's guilty by bitt3n · · Score: 1
      But then again, trolls love to flame anyone for any reason, however contrived.
      ha! the prototypical sentiment of a pompous twit!
    7. Re:So if he's guilty by Neoncow · · Score: 1
      What if he kicked a puppy?

      I'd go out and kick a puppy too.

      Thank you. You've made my day, now I can sleep.
      (Hats off to whomever marked this interesting)
    8. Re:So if he's guilty by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      So is a jock strap.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    9. Re:So if he's guilty by aralin · · Score: 1

      You should not be kidding! For a $1 a day you can save a child from sure death. That means every $5000 could mean the difference between life and death for a human being. Let's say Microsoft takes in extra $2 billion a year thanks to abusing its monopoly position? That is 400,000 lives every year that could be saved with that money. So is that better or worse than a single murder?

      I have the feeling that there are other things than Melinda that don't let Bill sleep at night and make him work so hard at his foundation.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    10. Re:So if he's guilty by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Well, if that really happened, it would take some time before there's a conviction. Enough time to finish the HURD... dt&r

      --
      Claus
    11. Re:So if he's guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submit your post as exhibit A, bitt3n.

    12. Re:So if he's guilty by Clete2 · · Score: 0

      " Would that mean if I used ReiserFS that I support murder?

      Better than supporting Microsoft.

      [kidding! kidding!]" ....Supporting Microsoft is supporting murder. Remember Ballmer and his plans to "...fucking kill Google?" Fucking kill(tm)

  8. Innocent until proven guilty by matgorb · · Score: 1

    but it doesn't sound really good for reiser wether it is FS or H.

  9. This brings up an interesting line of questioning by Thnikkaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This brings up an interesting line of questioning. Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use? OSS and Linux zealots scream the advantages of using that kind of software, but is it a smart business decision to deploy something that could potentially lose all support if its project manager is in a fatal car accident? I'm the first to admit my own ignorance on a lot of the heirarchy of OSS projects. Are concerns like this valid or is the community able to pick up where someone left off with minimal interruption to clients?

  10. It might help the cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if Reiser used good journaling techniques.

  11. Shit happens by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

    This may sound harsh, but development communities (professional or not) lose developers all the time, seniors included, so even if he is found guilty the long-term consequences will be minor.

    1. Re:Shit happens by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      True, but not all open-source projects who have lost senior developers are named after convicted murderers. (I'm not saying there is such a project now, either, mind you.)

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    2. Re:Shit happens by wrfelts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On this particular project, I'll have to disagree. Mr. Reiser is not just a coder/developer. He has built the ReiserFS/4 code from the ground up based on advanced mathematical theory, with full test case scenarios, and thorough benchmarking. He is a high-end designer/engineer and chief architect and visionary of a very complex project. This project represents the cornerstone of, arguably, the most critical piece in any successful OS, the file system. His is not the only solution, but it is an incredibly good one. Though it can, and will, be picked up if the worst comes to pass, it will be hard to replace his vision and tenacity to excelence. These are not minor consequences in regards to the Reiser4 project.

    3. Re:Shit happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HE'S NOT CONVICTED!

      He was ARRESTED for SUSPICION of murder.

  12. Can we get some more speculation? by aiken_d · · Score: 4, Funny

    What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    1. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      No.

    2. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SorryTheLegalSystemFuckedUpAgainFS

    3. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      Maybe.

    4. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by XMunkki · · Score: 1

      That is so unfair. There is no way we're going to get the name back unless we frame the future author of StallmanFS for some hideous crime and get hit to loosen his hold over the trademark. That's the only way. Better to keep a few crimes "hot" while waiting for who to pin them on. Hey, if the govs do it, why not we?

      (ps. a lame joke attempt)

    5. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      Perhaps.

    6. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by addaon · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      A fish.

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
    7. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by miro+f · · Score: 1

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      fud

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    8. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG lol roflololol!11~1!~oneone

      It's true what they say, the funniest jokes are the ones that have to be pointed out as jokes.

    9. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He might get a lot more free time on his hands to work on it if he were found guilty...

    10. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he's found guilty, and the project is continued by other people, and renamed to avoid infamy, and Reiser loses his first appeal because his lawyer fails to subpoena critical records from the medical examiner's office, and Reiser 4 is finally completed and included in Linux 5.0, but develops stability issues, and around that time Hans is acquitted in a later appeal based on new evidence, and he rejoins the project? Will they change the name back?

      42.

      No. That's not it either.

    11. Re:Can we get some more speculation? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I think we should first speculate on likely new names for Reiser4.

      I propose "Reiser5".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  13. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by jonabbey · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the case of ReiserFS, the code doesn't get into the mainline kernel without it being reviewed by enough people that there is some hope of maintainability in the absence of one key person.

    The problem comes in when no one else wants to maintain a piece of code, but then that's why people pay Red Hat or SuSE cash for their otherwise freely distributable distributions.

  14. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by st1d · · Score: 0

    Eh, well then, if anybody asks, I've been here all night, ok?

    --
    Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  15. i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People need to remember that there are human lives involved here. There are also children in the mix. This is NOT a tragedy for the Reiser filesystem.

    1. Re:i hope she is alright by zifferent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is NOT a tragedy for the Reiser filesystem.

      Of course not. It's an open source project. Someone else will probably pick up the code and work on it.

      Code on, brother!

      On a more serious note, we don't know if he's guilty. We do know that his wife is missing. We don't know why.

      There are many reasons for people to turn up missing, and not all involve foul play.

      While I do share some of your concern for him, his ex-wife and his family, the fact is I'm not exactly broken up about it. People die every day. Some of those people are murdered. People lose their parents. I'm not a calous person, yet I don't feel anything special about these occurences, and that's normal. Because when my mother died, I cried, but when my uncle died I was a little sad, but mostly not shaken at all.

      In the absence of great feeling about the situation, one is left with the question, "How does this affect me and what is next?", because essentially for people not close to the situation it NEWS, and that is how most people react to NEWS.

      Lighten up.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    2. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While it is a tragedy, who really cares? I mean, honestly. Who really cares?

      I know that sounds cold, but unless you personally know the Reisiers, I don't think anyone really does. There are hundreds of people murdered each day. There are hundreds killed in tragic car accidents each day. Do you feel pity for each and every one of them? No.

      The only reason why this is on Slashdot is because of the ReiserFS. And because of that, it would be silly to not speculate on the ReiserFS future. Unless you just want 250 posts of people saying "Oh, that's terrible!"

      Posted as anon for obvious reasons..

    3. Re:i hope she is alright by JanneM · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People need to remember that there are human lives involved here. There are also children in the mix. This is NOT a tragedy for the Reiser filesystem.

      One does not preclude the other.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OHNOES CHILDREN?!

      Well then let's drop everyfuckingthing and SHIT OURSELVES! After all, there are CHILDREN involved! Jesus creeping God! How can you all get things done knowing there are CHILDREN involved in a murder case? WHY IS THE WORLD NOT GRINDING TO A HALT?!

      Oh yeah, there's nothing we can do about it. So what's wrong with pondering the fate of the filesystem, which is something that does directly concern most of us? Nobody said it was a tragedy for the FS and nobody actually suggested that Reiser be let off. What are we supposed to do, stop working and project intense goodwill-beams in some random direction hoping maybe one will find his wife?

    5. Re:i hope she is alright by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Do we know that his wife is worth caring about? Hans has done something for me and his wife, to my knowledge, has never done so.. so I'll have to take his side even if he did off her. For all I know she was a psycho bitch that the world is better off without.

      Okay.. I admit I've been watching Dr. Phil with my gf so I am in the mindset of thinking some women really need to die. Maybe next week Dr. Phil will make the slutty psycho bitch wife a wonderful person and I'll change my mind and send Hans to the chair.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    6. Re:i hope she is alright by Penguinoflight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's like saying that Sept 11 WASN'T a tragedy for American Airlines. Get a life.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    7. Re:i hope she is alright by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      We have the lives of a tiny handful of people versus a filesystem employed by somewhere in the range of tens of thousands to millions of users.

      For those users the lives of a small number of children or a single couple have no importance beyond the effect they will have on that filesystem.

    8. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. If the "[A] has done something for me and [B] ... has never done so.. so I'll have to take his side even if he did off her" part there wasn't a very unfunny punchline, you should seriously consider seeing a psychologist. You don't have to condone people's acts simply because they've done something for you at some point, and people need not be worthless(even to you!) even if they haven't (yet) done anything for you.

    9. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is correct, but you're conveniently forgetting that "importance" is not a boolean concept; the loss of someone's parent, sibling, child or mate is possibly so much more important to the people involved than possibly having to switch filesystems in a couple of years is for everyone else that, in the end, the first effect outweighs the latter.

      I agree that it's silly to ignore the effects of an event such as this on the software project simply because there are things about the event that are worse, but I also think it's quite silly to assert that the possibly loss of human life is insignificant simply because it directly affects relatively few people.

    10. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a facade? Does Slashdot need to know how one (ostensibly) feels about the children? Is it simply going through the motions to play "polite and civilised"? I don't know. I just don't feel an automatic twinge of sorrow when I learn that some children are left motherless, and I don't like that "children" is used as a trump card when anything is being discussed. It smacks of "GET SOME PRIORITIES!"

    11. Re:i hope she is alright by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      You are not funny. Even if this post was in jest it reveals a very immature writer. Someday, when you have a few more years of life experience under your belt, you'll look back on today and realize that you have acted like a complete jackass.

    12. Re:i hope she is alright by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Of course it was a tragedy! Those two aircraft weren't free, you know! I'd consider it a tragedy if any airline lost a $120M and an $80M aircraft, especially in the one day!

      Oh, wait, you mean the passengers and other victims, right. Oops ...

    13. Re:i hope she is alright by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Ummm how is this NOT a tragedy for Reiserfs?

      As someone has already pointed out, the only reason this was reported on /. and dozens of other places is because of Reiserfs. Not to sound cold, but this sort of thing sadly goes on quite a lot in the world. Yes there are people involved but consequences of what happens to these people will (may) affect many others. If someone you'd never heard of was in the same situation and it made the news would you care? I don't know perhaps you would, and that's admirable, but that's not where the world stops.

      Consider if [insert national figurehead here] was shot tomorrow. Would you berate anyone who contemplated that this might have an effect on [insert soverign nation here]?

      One tragedy can beget another, you know.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    14. Re:i hope she is alright by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People need to remember that there are human lives involved here. There are also children in the mix.

      I do hope she's alright, and that the legal system treats Mr. Reiser fairly.

      This is NOT a tragedy for the Reiser filesystem.

      "Think of the children!" If Hans Reiser were arrested for embezzling millions of dollars from WalMart, it would be just as much a tragedy for the Reiser filesystem as this is, regardless of whether there are human lives involved. We haven't forgotten about the lives of Hans and Nina Reiser and their children - in fact, we never knew any of them in the first place. ReiserFS, though, is personally significant to many Slashdotters.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    15. Re:i hope she is alright by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Not just the loss of the aircraft, but the disruption in air travel for the next several days, increased costs due to additional security measures, plus low sales due to low consumer confidence in the safety of flying... and they weren't doing very well financially anyway. I imagine they probably had to lay off a lot of employees, and it can't have been easy for all those people to find work elsewhere.

      Just because that's not the most important consequence of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks doesn't mean it's not important at all.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    16. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel pity upon hearing about the certain ending of human life. War, murder, accidents, etc. - they all make me feel this way. People may die everyday for all sorts of reasons, and it may or may not affect my life in any way when I don't hear about specific cases, but when I DO hear about them, I mourn, even just a little. And I don't think this makes me a somber person, or even a particularly sensitive one.

      However, this is not a certain case. I don't think Nina's body has been found. So I'm hopeful for all involved (including everyone from people as invested in the case as her children to those as removed from the case as clients who benefit even in the slightest from future advancements of ReiserFS) that she is alive and well.

      And if Hans were found guilty and sentenced to death, I would mourn for him as well as for his estranged wife.

    17. Re:i hope she is alright by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      People die. The fact you are so upset by a stranger's death shows that you have some childish fear of death. In many cases it'd be better if more people died. Protecting drug users, sluts (male or female), gang members, etc from their own self destructive lifestyles just wastes resources and keeps these people around hurting the rest of us. Let evolution take place and things will be better.

      Hans' wife could have been a wonderful person, in which case it's to bad if she died, but I have no evidence of that whereas I have evidence that Hans has made an on-going contribution to society. So lacking further evidence I have to take the side of the person known to be beneficial to society.

      I'm sure you're probably the kind of person that always defends crack whores when they're attacked by boy scouts.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    18. Re:i hope she is alright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I care. I saw Hans give his presentation from the Googleplex on Google Video, and felt really inspired about his ideas about data structuring and access. I've followed the Reiser4 LKML threads about inclusion, and read the Namesys documentation about the Reiser filesystems. Maybe this is a little more than the average person would delve into, but I like the ideas so I did some internet research. It took maybe 6 total hours.

      I also care about people in general, because a lot of the time, the only way I get anything done is if people care about me. I try and return the favor. In fact, I strongly suspect the attitude of, "No one really cares about anyone else outside their immediate circle of acquaintances" is defensive. As in, you don't think anyone cares about you, so you make it a policy to not care about them. That's really a shame. I'm sorry for Hans and his wife that their relationship (clearly) is struggling, I hope that she is alive and well, and I hope that Hans comes out of all of this unscathed.

      Or the short version: there's people outside of your basement. They don't hate you.

  16. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could be Linus!

  17. Reiser4 already renamed by straponego · · Score: 5, Funny
    It will now be known as ojfs.

    Okay, so I'm not a good person.

    1. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by st1d · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's the difference between O.J. and Hans Reiser?

      Hans kept a journal.

      (Sorry everybody...)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by cide1 · · Score: 1

      The three of us that got that find it really funny.

      --
      -- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
    3. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by XO · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess that makes me the third one because i'm laughing my ass off.

      P.S. I hope they find the woman.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    4. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by powerlord · · Score: 1

      You should be sorry! ...

      Made me laugh so much the person in the cube next to me "Prairie dogged". (and yes, I hope she is alive and well, and they find her soon).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    5. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by flamingweasel · · Score: 1

      Best joke so far.

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
    6. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the transaction doesn't commit, you must acquit!

    7. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by august+sun · · Score: 1

      I have nothing worthwhile to contribute other than to say that that is funniest fucking thing I've read in a long time. Equal parts nerdy and poor taste. Hats off to you!

    8. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sitting here, laughing my ass off, thinking:

      • That's the funniest damn thing I've read in a long time.
      • That's the most tasteless thing I've read in a long time.
      • I am so going to hell for enjoying that joke so much.
    9. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Did Hans use CVS?

      If it doesn't commit, you must acquit.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    10. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by broody · · Score: 1

      I was thinking TheJuiceFS myself. (:

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    11. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we have a new winner! LOL!

    12. Re:Reiser4 already renamed by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought most users (namely Gentoo users) already refer to it as "Ricer FS"

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  18. You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    All Reiser has to do is roll back the journal on his wife's deletion. Problem solved by superior software!

    There. How's that for tasteless?

    1. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by wrfelts · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There. How's that for tasteless?

      Very... Being that there is no body yet, I'm hoping that she isn't dead and your tasteless comment proves, in a way, true.

    2. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, then there wouldn't be a need to fork the corpse..

    3. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by entrylevel · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Note to any mods who may be influenced by reading the parent comment:

      Please remember that some people deal with terrible tragic news such as this via humor. It's just a website.

      Actual comment:

      Does anyone know anything about Hans or the situation in general? I mean, if he has just been arrested for murder but no one is sure of anything yet, let's give him a 50/50 chance. If he's personally a total asshole to everyone who has ever dealt with him or there is a some kind of evidence other than a missing person, it's a bit more excusable to jump from "arrested" to "convicted wife murderer".

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    4. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by njchick · · Score: 1
      In my opinion, it's commenting without reading the story that makes Slashdot comments irrelevant for most people outside the Slashdot community. Tasteless humor is only tasteless in a certain timeframe and cultural context. Uninformed opinions are not getting less useless as the time passes, but tasteless jokes usually become more palatable.

      I actually remember reading comments at +5, Funny on September 11, 2001, and they actually helped me deal with the situation. Sometimes it's good to know that the world as we know it hasn't come to the end, despite what politicians are telling us.

    5. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by msuzio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I appreciate the completely tasteless humor much more than the completely stupid serious comments on this. The humor recognizes and appreciates the absurb quality of all of this, and doesn't even try to propose a serious take on the matter.

      Is it really funny? No. But horrible situations are sometimes relieved by nervous titters of black humor.

    6. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Pretty bad. You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.

      Nobody cares about your (the royal you) opinion anyway, tasteless posts or not.

    7. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Humor is a human coping mechanism.

      The best example I know of this is a book called Laughter in Hell: Humor During the Holocaust.

      It was an interesting read and a perfect example of this sort of thing.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    8. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that Brits don't get any respect from the world community? Hmmm... I see where you are going with this. I would like to subscribe to your life journal. :>

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    9. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering America's unquenchable appetite for mystery/murder novels, murder TV shows and big budget slaughter-the-bad-guys movies, you're a fine one to lecture anyone on what is tasteless. Look around you doofus, this _is_ America.

    10. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All Reiser has to do is roll back the journal on his wife's deletion. Problem solved by superior software!
      Now that's what I call a killer app!
    11. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Because only geeks on Slashdot make jokes when bad things happen and people die? You must not get out much. I see jokes like this floating around Wall Street all the time. Nothing unique to Slashdot or techies or geekdom about it. People make light of grim news - it's a coping mechanism in a world that sometimes seems overloaded with grim news.

      So lighten up and deal with it. Nobody except for you sits around and says "gee, I'm not going to take those Slashdotters seriously, they tell jokes about people who were murdered!".

    12. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty bad. You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.

      This is what you should expect from angry, bitter liberals who spend every waking moment obsessing over sarcastic Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert videos. Everything's a joke, and nothing is sacred (especially if it's something a lot of people like).

    13. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What 'us'? People here cover a pretty broad spectrum. It's not like we're all one big community. Hell, half of us hate the other half. Someone dies every 8 seconds. How can anyone honestly give a shit about each and every death? Or feel particularly sorry about Reiser's loss? The man is an asshole. See the Linux kernel mailing lists. I wouldn't wish anything bad on him, but neither do I particularly give a shit about this asshole, or his defunct wife (whom I've never met, and obviously aren't going to meet? Besides which, I've lost data on Reiser 3.

    14. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by bunions · · Score: 1

      'Our?' Who are 'we?' 'Among our own kind?' Oh jeez.

      And if you think the slashdot community has a corner on the tasteless market, think again.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    15. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.

      What a load of sanctimonius bullshit.

      Tell that to Leno next time he cracks a 9/11 joke.
      Or Letterman next time he cracks an Iraqi occupation joke.
      Or the SNL writers next time they do an Abu Graib skit.

      People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not tasteless enough....

      They found her in the river with a superblock tied to her feet.

    17. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Is it really funny? No. But horrible situations are sometimes relieved by nervous titters of black humor.
      Now that's just racist.
    18. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      We don't even know there has been a murder. They apparently searched the house with a 'cadaver dog' and didn't find anything.

      It sounds a little weird. I mean, she shows up with the kids to drop them off, and that's the last anyone knows of her. How, logically, would that work for a murder? 'Okay kids, be quiet while I murder Mommy, put her in her car, drive her somewhere, bury her, ditch her car miles away, and then come back.' They don't say how old the kids are, but they were married in 1999, and she was only 31 anyway, so not old enough to live alone for hours. Although his mother also lived in the house too, and obviously she could be in on it.

      Some people have said 'How did she go to the grocery store?', but nothing in the article implies she did so after dropping off the kids, so that's not really relevant.

      Obviously, I don't have any sort of timeline here, but it really does seem circumstanial, based on the idea he'd benefit if she was dead...and then she vanishes. They've taken some stuff from the house, presumably because they think it's evidence, but we'll see what happens. (Evidence? After a month? That would be pretty shoddy 'Covering up a crime' work.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    19. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be interesting to see the prosecution present slashdot trolls. "This is what passes for humor in the world that Hans inhabits." Nevermind that Nina's family is probably reading any and all news stories, good and bad, for glimmers of information about her ... and then they get to read the kind of tripe you find here. I'm pretty anti-politically-correct, but some of the posts here are truly awful and tasteless.

    20. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by huguley · · Score: 0


      Oh yeah? well... Your a big doodie head...

    21. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Pretty bad. You know, its comments like this (even in the semi-anonymous and lame-black-humor-filled world of Slashdot) that keeps our image down. No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.

      You probably blame rape victims for looking too good.

      Being different than most people sets us apart. Most people won't care less about our opinions unless we become exactly like them. When that happens, what's the difference between us and them? Here's a little hint. Our opinions wouldn't matter then either because we'd be cookie cutter conformists and have the same opinions as the mundanes.

      True, it was an extremely lame joke but no one makes any progress in life by matching other's expectations of them.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    22. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      http://www.malevole.com/mv/misc/killerquiz/
      He'll be the wildcard question...

      I am so going to Hell for that

    23. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Thinko · · Score: 1

      Nevermind that we don't have a timeframe, but FTA there's nothing implicating him other than his divorce and the fact he is refusing to talk to police (thus they're treating him like shit). There still is the possibility that one of the other 300,000,000 people in the US is responsible, or that she flew the coop and went far, far away.. (back to Russia?) She is the one who left and is filing for divorce; I do enjoy seeing how everyone automatically assumes she's dead and he's guilty though... Maybe she's the psycho and kids-be-damned she's watching from the wings right now as the legal gears turn towards locking up her husband.

    24. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They apparently searched the house with a 'cadaver dog' and didn't find anything.

      Solution: try again, this time with a live dog

    25. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 0, Troll
      Show some respect, humanity and learn how to properly express it.

      Most of the people who post jokes are showing heaps of humanity and respect for each other, their peers who read Slashdot, by demonstrating that even though there are murderers in the world, the majority of us are still not insane. That's comforting.

      You probably don't care and think that its not that big a deal to not give a rats ass about someone else's life.

      Do you actually think there is a single person on Slashdot who has never grieved over the loss of a loved one?

    26. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Is it really funny? No. But horrible situations are sometimes relieved by nervous titters of black humor.

      Still, you know it, and most of us here, that the black humor at hand is just a pissing contest among a bunch of hardcore no-life slashdotters who are trying to get noticed.

      They want to stop coming back and posting, but they can't, it's just a need.

      So they come, and even if the article doesn't suggest humor or analysis, they just take the first thing that occurs to them and post. Then refresh every few seconds to see of it gets modded up, and for replies to respond to...

      Hmm...

    27. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Nevermind that we don't have a timeframe, but FTA there's nothing implicating him other than his divorce and the fact he is refusing to talk to police (thus they're treating him like shit). There still is the possibility that one of the other 300,000,000 people in the US is responsible, or that she flew the coop and went far, far away.. (back to Russia?) She is the one who left and is filing for divorce; I do enjoy seeing how everyone automatically assumes she's dead and he's guilty though... Maybe she's the psycho and kids-be-damned she's watching from the wings right now as the legal gears turn towards locking up her husband.

      She might not be dead. But if she is, the cops' first choice of suspect is always the ex. Maybe yes, maybe no, but that's who they rake over the coals first.

      As far as OJ goes, nobody will ever be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt if he did or didn't.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    28. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

      THIS is tasteless!

      And funny.

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    29. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Except the prosecutors in the civil case where he was found to be guilty.

      In the criminal case, they interviewed jurors coming out who said they discounted the DNA evidence because they didn't understand the scientist talking about 50 million to one odds that a certain piece of DNA was him and such.

      He lied. He ran from the cops. He had the victims blood in his car, in his house, his blood was at the scene, the murder weapon was found on his property, etc.

      Oh, and he was found guilty by a court of law in the civil case.

      Yep, there is no way to prove he was guilty. Clearly that is the case.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    30. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by st1d · · Score: 1

      LMAO! I have this image of one cop nudging another and saying, "Hey Jim, when I said bring a dog over to smell the scene..."

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    31. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Except the prosecutors in the civil case where he was found to be guilty.

      Haven't you heard? If you're black and famous you're presumed innocent until you confess and come forward with a video tape showing how you did it. Why do you think Michael Jackson is still out of jail? In some people's sick and twisted worlds, he's still black.

      Also if you are finally convicted, it's believed that the only reason the police went after you is because they're racist.

    32. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gobble gobble!
      We accept you!
      We accept you!
      ONE OF US!

    33. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by westlake · · Score: 1
      Tell that to Leno next time he cracks a 9/11 joke.
      Or Letterman next time he cracks an Iraqi occupation joke. Or the SNL writers next time they do an Abu Graib skit.

      Leno wasn't heard cracking 9/11 jokes in the first hours and days after the WTC towers collapsed. Letterman and SNL aren't broadcasting live from Iraq and to an Iraqi audience.

      The only genuinely funny black humor I know of has come from men and women who live every day in the shadow of death. Patients in the wards. Nurses. Doctors. Firemen. Police.

    34. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Hans Reiser will get to lead the Prison Industry, to be able to contribute to ReiserFS 4.

      He could use metasploit to craft an exploit to play Prison Break and then go into Mitnick mode hiding out.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    35. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Guanine · · Score: 2, Funny

      Other than the whole "girlfriend" thing.

    36. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      'Guilt' in a civil case is a lower bar than a criminal case. And the criminal case was lost because the evidence was so fucked up they ended up throwing most of it out. And finally, the finding of the jury in the civil case was, 'he probably had something to do with the murders'. Never mind that the ex & her boyfriend were found in an area known for violent drug related deaths. Never mind she had a history of drug abuse. So did the boyfriend. Never mind that if there are two victims and no gun involved and only one attacker, there will be only ONE victim as the other one WON'T stick around screaming and yelling until they too get their throats slit. It's obvious. OJ killed her. And him. By himself.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    37. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it really funny? No. But horrible situations are sometimes relieved by nervous titters of black humor.

      How does making fun of black people help?

    38. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know what you mean. Black people have it sooo easy in this country. I feel sorry for the white man and all he has to put up with.

    39. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      but FTA there's nothing implicating him other than his divorce and the fact he is refusing to talk to police (thus they're treating him like shit).
      I've watched enough "real life murder" type shows on A&e to have learned one thing: guilty or not, keep your mouth shut, no matter what the cops say. Seriously, homicide investigators are suspicious, pigheaded, and often arbitrary. You'll watch one show and the cop will say "his alibi just didn't sound right", and you'll watch another where they'll say "his alibi was just a little too good". In the end, they usually catch the person because a witness comes forward saying "yeah, I seen him do it" or "I heard him brag about it". The few times they pick the right guy and then find the evidence on their own, it seems to be by dumb luck. Of course all the ones you see made into A7e shows, they picked the right guy. Makes you wonder how many stories there are about innocent folks being put through the same wringer just because some cop with a BS in criminology "just has a feeling about this guy".
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    40. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by SashaMan · · Score: 1

      People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.

      Well, if none of them are getting laid either, why are there so many of them?

    41. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Considering America's unquenchable appetite for mystery/murder novels, murder TV shows and big budget slaughter-the-bad-guys movies, you're a fine one to lecture anyone on what is tasteless. Look around you doofus, this _is_ America.
      America? this is humanity. People have always gotten off on this shit. Take a look at shakespeare. Chock-full of murder. Greek mythology, ditto. Norse mythology, likewise. We are fascinated by murder.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    42. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a 10/10...and the only one I actually recognized was Son of Sam.

    43. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Leno next time he cracks a 9/11 joke.

      He never does. To this day, Leno only cracks Monaca Lewinski jokes.

    44. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by iogan · · Score: 1
      Actually, I appreciate the completely tasteless humor much more than the completely stupid serious comments on this. The humor recognizes and appreciates the absurb quality of all of this, and doesn't even try to propose a serious take on the matter.
      Oh.. so is that why you wrote a funny comment, instead of a serious one?
    45. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by oddfox · · Score: 1

      Well isn't that special?

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    46. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      No wonder most people don't care about our opinions and treat us with lack of respect.

      Actually, that's because most of the most vocal members of the community come across as a bunch of immature, self-important geeks who look down on anyone not as knowledgable about the minutae of computers as they are as being hopelessly stupid and a waste of space. There's also the stereotype of the fat, unwashed, untidy geek spending all their time glued to their computers, shoving pizza and cola down their throats. Then there's also the fact that techy/sciency/clever people are generally dismissed as being "uncool".

      Stupid jokes in bad taste? Go talk to some "normal" people sometime, you'd apparently be shocked at some of the stuff they can come out with.

    47. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by master_p · · Score: 1

      People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.

      You mean the rest of the world is full of 35yo virgin males still living in their mom's basement playing WoW all night? gee, what this world is coming to....

    48. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      This is almost certainly a dumb question, but whats the lime for?

    49. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words : Level Sixty.

    50. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      On 9/11, there were something like 5 terrorists on each plane, right?

      And with boxcutters they took down the entire staff of stewardesses and subdued the entire plane, rushed the cockpit and took over the cockpits with no one stopping them.

      So DNA evidence means nothing. I watched the trial. The murder weapon was at his house. Bloody clothes were at his house. The victims blood was on his clothes, in his house, in his car, in his drain, etc. His blood was at the scene. He had no alibi.

      You base your case on the assumption that one person who is a world class athlete isn't fast enough to kill two people.

      I pray you never end up on a jury.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    51. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      What does race have to do with DNA evidence in a murder trial?

      I feel sorry for people who still can't see past the color of skin.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    52. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

      Lime makes bodies decompose more quickly. ::innocent whistle::

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    53. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      It refers to quicklime (useful for dissolving corpses), not the citrus fruit.

    54. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by bcmm · · Score: 1

      AFAICT, it's just because he's her husband. They have arrested him because they have suddenly decided she's been missing long enough to decide she's dead, and in the case of a murdered wife, the husband is an obvious suspect. They aren't saying he murdered her, they're just holding him while they decide, so (if he's guilty) he doesn't run away. Either they find no evidence against him and release him, or they decide to try him for murder.

      How long can one be held before being charged in the US, if there is no excuse to use antiterror laws?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    55. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

      Everything's a joke, and nothing is sacred (especially if it's something a lot of people like)

      What? Like starting civil wars in countries who are no threat to us... for oil? Yeah, we all like that.

      It just becomes more and more obvious that people like yourself who so despise the likes of Stewart and Colbert are just terribly ill-equipped to deal with the world.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    56. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it made me snigg-- uhhhh.... snicker.

    57. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1
      Reputedly, on the planes, there were FIVE terrorists. According to the LAPD, OJ acted alone. With 4 other people, you have somebody to watch your back, as well as to help intimidate your victims. According to LAPD, OJ acted alone.

      Besides, how did blood get on his socks and NOT in his shoes?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    58. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget sexist! And the fact that he calls them "titters" shows that he's not mature enough to be in a physical relationship.

    59. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What trial were you watching? It certainly wasn't OJ's. The murder weapon was never found.

      Also, the blood at his house was not "found" until 2 weeks later, which just happened to coincide with the disappearance of a vial of OJ's blood at the LAPD crime lab that was used for testing. And don't forget the blood under Nicole Simpson's fingernails that did not match OJ's, Ron Goldman's or her own. And the unidentified bloody footprints in her house. And the "bloody glove" found in his yard that remarkably had no dirt or anything else stuck to the blood, in spite of being surrounded by all kinds of dirt, leaves and debris where it was found. And the fact that the glove didn't even fit him! And the improbablity of two healthy, physically fit adults (Ron Goldman was no weakling) being killed single-handedly with a knife by a man who can barely walk since his knees are completely shot. With no witnesses, and no one hearing anything in a busy neighborhood. All of this of course happening in an impossibly short timeline. So were the jurors in the criminal case right in having "reasonable doubt" of his guilt? Absolutely. Even the "50 million to one odds" of his DNA matching that in the blood does not *guarantee* that he did it. In a country of 250+ million that means there are possibly 4 other people who'd be a match. Is that a miniscule number? Yes. But it's not zero. And when it comes to establishing guilt beyond doubt, even a small number like that (combined with the other discrepancies) would leave some doubt.

      The civil case was simply the revenge trial, as the jurors made clear when they were interviewed afterwards. That was no big surprise, and does not mean that OJ was guilty. OJ may very well be guilty, but no one has proved it yet. My personal opinion is that he didn't do it, since it looked like a professional hit, not the work of a minor celeberity who can barely walk. And I think it's clear that more than one person was involved. OJ was a terrible husband, but I don't think he killed those two people.

    60. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Leno wasn't heard cracking 9/11 jokes in the first hours and days after the WTC towers collapsed. Letterman and SNL aren't broadcasting live from Iraq and to an Iraqi audience.

      There's a huge difference in the scope of the two events too. With the Reiser case, no one was really affected outside of the close friends and family of the people involved.

      I'm another person who would rather have a good snarky black humor comment than a completely stupid serious comment.

    61. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except he doesn't believe in journalling data, so he can only remember her name and the last time he saw her, the rest of her is still gone.

    62. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Black people have it sooo easy in this country.

      Guess you need help in reading comprehension as I clearly didn't say black people, but famous black people. Or are all black people famous? Your average black person does have it harder then your average white person. But they make up for it by giving famous black people a pretty easy ride. Or are OJ and Michael Jackson actually innocent in your world?

    63. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      5 terrorists with box-cutters can handle 70 people, but 1 world class athlete can't handle 2.

      Blood in his shower drain, sink, car, and clothes. His blood at the scene. Murder weapon at his house, and he was caught lying in his alibi. Oh, did I mention motive? And then he got a gun and ran from the cops.

      Clearly he is innocent.

      You're either a troll or an idiot. I'm not sure which, but either way I'm done.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    64. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People here are on slashdot are no different from people everywhere else.

      Actually we're superior, as you have just proven by using "different from" instead of the "different than" used by most of our supposedly literate TV news anchors.

    65. Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      OJ and Michael Jackson. If they didn't exist, would there be other examples? Stop generalizing. And famous white people don't get off easy? Racist fool.

  19. Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by gvc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In California, sports and TV stars can murder their wives with impunity. Can OSS gurus? Perhaps this is the bellweather case.

    1. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by froschmann · · Score: 2, Funny

      I say we get a posse together and break him out. Anyone else in on this?

    2. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Good point. Thyme will tell. ;-)

      (P.S. bellwether + fairweather = bellweather?)

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    3. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by failure-man · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does the public give a shit about engineers? No? Then no.

    4. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by st1d · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but if he's innocent, he has the advantage that the prosecutor isn't likely to push for his conviction anyway, just "to get somebody". All other factors being equal, the Groklaw Effect must provide some protection(s) for F/OSS developers, even outside the IT realm. On the other hand, if he is guilty, the community likely won't rally around him, "just because he's famous". If he is guilty, the F/OSS community's ethical/moral standards are more likely to assist in his conviction, simply because murder is wrong.

      Either way, at least he's not likely to be dancing on cars at the trial...

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    5. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      If he is guilty, the F/OSS community's ethical/moral standards are more likely to assist in his conviction, simply because murder is wrong.

      I rather hope that the F/OSS community's ethical/moral standards have no impact whatsoever on whether Hans Reiser is convicted of anything, unless a member of the F/OSS community is randomly selected to serve on the jury.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Is he enough of a celebrity to be acquitted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a racist cop finds all the blood, pleads no contest to commiting felony perjury during the trial, and Hans Reiser is black man with a white wife. Then yes.

  20. Not to worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Will there be any future for the Reiser filesystem, and if Hans is found guilty and the project is continued, will the project be renamed to avoid notoriety?"

    It will be renamed OJ-FS!

  21. The things we choose to worry over... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    "...will the project be renamed to avoid notoriety?"

    Bit late for that, eh?

    1. Re:The things we choose to worry over... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Too late to rename? How many people remember "Mozilla Firebird"?

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    2. Re:The things we choose to worry over... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Isn't that what Iceweasel used to be called?



      (Some of us remember it when it was called Phoenix...)

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:The things we choose to worry over... by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      (Some of us remember it when it was called Phoenix...)

      Ack! You prove my point. And thanks for the reminder.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
  22. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Aim+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

    The answer is no. When an OSS maintainer gives up, you can still maintain the software precisely because you have the source so that there are ways of maintaining the software. There is no danger that reiserfs will break in Linux in the forseeable future, because the kernel maintainers will keep looking after it. If Hans Reiser and Namesys had kept the source code to themselves, then his users should be worried.

  23. Just remember! by AltGrendel · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty!

    Really!

    Well, that's what they tell us, anyway.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Just remember! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      In the court yes. In the press not so much.

      I have to say that with XFS and JFS as options I am not overly worried about the filesystem.
      Instead I hope his wife is alive and well.
      Call me strange but a persons life means more to me than a filesystem. There are other filesystems.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Just remember! by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      Unless you're surrounded by the media circus, you're already guilty in their eyes. Just make sure your DNA doesn't match those on the stains

    3. Re:Just remember! by sholden · · Score: 1

      There are other people.

      Significantly more than there are filesystems...

    4. Re:Just remember! by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the court, yes. That doesn't mean you personally have to believe he's innocent. It takes a threshold of evidence and a D.A. who's convinced they have a case when the police make a murder arrest like this, so it's not like there aren't good reasons to have suspicions.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:Just remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I have to say that with XFS and JFS as options I am not overly worried about the filesystem.


      Well, J and X haven't been arrested for murder either.
    6. Re:Just remember! by chris_eineke · · Score: 5, Insightful
      innocent until proven guilty
      That line gives me the creeps, because of its connotation: it's only a matter of time until you are proven guilty. Doesn't innocent unless proven guilty sound much more... humane and logical?
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    7. Re:Just remember! by toxic666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      WRONG! Here's some civics, something American schools gloss over.

      In America, you are TREATED as innocent until proven guilty. Not presumed.

      The "executive" branch (police and prosecuters are part of the "executive" branch) arrested you because they believe you are guilty of violating a criminal law passed by the legislative branch. The judicial branch treats you as innocent by allowing you to post a reasonable bail based upon its interpretation of the merits of your case (past record, flight risk, seriousness of the crime, etc.).

      The police think they have a case and brought it to the prosecuters. The prosecuters think they can prove guilt in court. So somebody believes he's guilty. But he is TREATED as innocent by the court system and allowed to post bail to make sure he shows up in court until the judicial system decides his guilt or innocence.

    8. Re:Just remember! by CrankyOldBastard · · Score: 1

      Like David Hicks?

    9. Re:Just remember! by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      "Until" doesn't imply that it'll eventually happen. "I'll use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" until Hell freezes over", for example.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    10. Re:Just remember! by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      riiight. I'll hold your ice cream until you get back. We're renting until we buy a place. I'm dating a brunnette until I meet a nice blonde.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    11. Re:Just remember! by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Doesn't innocent unless proven guilty sound much more... humane and logical?
      Sure That statement is most certainly not logical.

      The Court is there to determine guilt. Reiser would not be in the legal system unless someone thought he was guilty.

      It does not logically follow that if a prosecutor cannot prove guilt, then the accused is innocent.

      Once you have been declared "not guilty" there is an entirely separate process (that most people don't bother going through) to get yourself declared innocent.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:Just remember! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean you personally have to believe he's innocent

      Did you even read what the parent said? Here it is again, for your reading pleasure, with the important word bolded.

      you are presumed innocent until proven guilty!

      Noone is asking anyone to believe anything, presumption of innocence is the important thing here.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    13. Re:Just remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, you are TREATED as innocent until proven guilty. Not presumed.

      Unless you're in Guantanamo, of course. It's apparently OK for the US Government to torture people who haven't been charged of anything, let alone proven guilty of it.

    14. Re:Just remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be so cold, you... you monster!

      Each people is different from all others, each one has it's own unique characteristics and traits. But file systems... oh, wait.

    15. Re:Just remember! by bigmouth_strikes · · Score: 1
      "Until" doesn't imply that it'll eventually happen. "I'll use the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" until Hell freezes


      You mean that you'll use it "unless" Hell freezes over.
      --
      Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
    16. Re:Just remember! by korkakak · · Score: 1

      The foundation stone of all constitutions after french revolt was the point the dude said: Not guilty until proved otherwise. I guess U.S. follows as well ;-). So I guess until proof is found the ReiserFS will be ok

    17. Re:Just remember! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Every person is unique and irreplacable; not so filesystems.

    18. Re:Just remember! by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      The full phrase is "the accused is innocent until proven guilty" and the scope is trial in a court. Guilt, not innocence must be established, and all that's required for innocence to be maintained is that guilt not be proved.

      This is an unspoken bit: If a trial in the U.S. concludes with a verdict of innocence, the accused can never be retried for the same offense. For example, O.J. Simpson could have walked out of the courthouse and said "I killed her and I'm glad I did it" and never again be tried for her murder (though I must defer on the question of a trial for assault with a deadly weapon).

      I believe that in some countries there are three possible verdicts: "guilty", "innocent" and "not proven". "Guilty" and "innocent" conclude the matter, while "not proven" allows the state to try and prove it again.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    19. Re:Just remember! by @madeus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Once you have been declared "not guilty" there is an entirely separate process (that most people don't bother going through) to get yourself declared innocent.

      What process is that? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious).

      In Scotland (but not England) an alternative verdict of 'not proven' (in place of 'guilty' or 'not guilty') can be delivered - I'm not sure what the exact criteria are, but it's essencially where the individual on trial is widely regarded as guilty as charged, but there isn't enough solid evidence to convict them entirely beyond reasonable doubt. If a 'not proven' verdict is returned then you are free to go, but the it remains on record (and may be used against you un future, for example if you were later charged with a smilar crime).

      That's quite a good distinction I think - as it emphasises the value of a 'not guilty' verdict (helping to combat the problem of public perception of their being 'no smoke without fire').

    20. Re:Just remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be perfectly pedantic, you are legally considered to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Your actual state of guilt or innocence is not changed by whether or not the prosecution is able to present sufficient evidence to prove you guilty to the satisfaction of a jury of your peers.

    21. Re:Just remember! by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It takes a threshold of evidence and a D.A. who's convinced they have a case when the police make a murder arrest like this, so it's not like there aren't good reasons to have suspicions.

      That threshold of evidence doesn't mean much when you're talking about spouses. If my wife turned up murdered, I would probably be arrested because I'm the beneficiary on her life insurance, we've been known to fight, and likely as not, she would have been last seen with me. Throw in a contentious divorce, especially with infidelity, and you have enough for a conviction.

      In murder cases, the most important witness is unavailable, it's high enough profile that the police can't let it go unsolved, and the jury doesn't want the family thinking the death went unpunished. I wouldn't be surprised to find that half of all murder convictions where the victim was the spouse are mistaken. I would be surprised to find that it's less than a quarter.

    22. Re:Just remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's also the issue of civil court, though. Had he walked out of court and admitted to it, he would have been slammed in civil court... though I think he was anyway, so I guess he may as well have admitted it :)

    23. Re:Just remember! by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      You have to petition the court for a "finding of innocence" or a "finding of factual innocence"

      Similarly, in many states you can petition for an annulment of your arrest record, provided you meet certain criteria. This includes people who've been arrested and found not guilty, whose case was dismissed, and those who were not prosecuted.

      Most people just don't know about these procedures.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  24. you mother fuckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the guy gets locked up for a possible murder and you mother fuckers are worrying about his filesystem project?

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU

  25. Reiser4 in the Linux kernel today by ArkiMage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oddly enough, Andrew Morton included Reiser4 in his -mm kernel series today.

    http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/pat ches/2.6/2.6.19-rc1/2.6.19-rc1-mm1/announce.txt

    1. Re:Reiser4 in the Linux kernel today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trolling, or just stuipd?

    2. Re:Reiser4 in the Linux kernel today by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      That's ext4, not Reiser4.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    3. Re:Reiser4 in the Linux kernel today by Dh2000 · · Score: 1

      You mean ext4... reiser4 has been in for a while.

  26. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is an extremely reasonable question to ask for the people on here who are personally affected by the release, or lack thereof of software they depend on. It may be callous, selfish, and probably indicates some sort of emotional or social mental deficiency if it is the primary concern.

    But, it is entirely reasonable. It just should not be the primary concern when compared to someone elses life.

  27. Alternate filesystems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is hardly tragic, Linux has quite a few other options for a journaling filesystem.

    Ext3: Okay it's a bit slow.
    JFS: I hear it's nice.
    XFS: Supposed to be fast with right options.

  28. Searching for words to say... by bangenge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ReiserFS, while still not the "default" FS of most distros was really an innovative one, and one that could eventually be the standard. While his work and his personal life should not be intertwined, I can't help but wonder how much his work affected his family.

    Some things are just so shocking, and yet there aren't too many details yet, so I guess we just have to wait.

    --
    . o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
    1. Re:Searching for words to say... by numbski · · Score: 1

      This scares me more than anything.

      You may find this as a shock, but many of the people that frequent /. are very intelligent. Really.

      Hans Reiser was no moron. If indeed he did this (only time will tell...), what scares me is that he could very well have found a way to make her just "go away".

      Good luck to the detectives if that is what happened. Although makes me wonder HOW.

      Make what you will of that last sentence.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    2. Re:Searching for words to say... by arth1 · · Score: 1
      Hans Reiser was no moron. If indeed he did this (only time will tell...), what scares me is that he could very well have found a way to make her just "go away".

      He didn't want her to 'just "go away"'. He was, from what I can tell, sickly jealous, refusing to let her go, and throwing out accusations in lawsuit filings like his former business partner having drugged and seduced her. He's been fighting the divorce for over two years.

  29. Arrest Requires Probable Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police made the arrest based on circumstantial evidence

    I sure hope they had probable cause. Because, you know, probable cause is the legal basis for seizing (i.e., arresting) a person. I wonder what they found more than a month after a person allegedly disappeared to meet their legal burden. I will be watching this case closely. I sure hope they did not arrest him because they "think" he did it and want to "send a message." That, too often, seems the basis for much high profile police action. Just saying.

    1. Re:Arrest Requires Probable Cause by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I wonder what they found more than a month after a person allegedly disappeared to meet their legal burden.

      WTF do you mean "allegedly disappeared"? She disappeared. Even if she took off and is hiding out because Faye Resnick's cocaine dealer wants to kill her, she still "disappeared". Allegedly Hans is responsible.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Arrest Requires Probable Cause by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, circumstantial evidence can be probable cause...but one generally needs more to win a conviction. OTOH, one could plausibly argue that ALL evidence is circumstantial, with greater or lesser degrees of convincing-ness. Fingerprints at a crime scene could have been planted there, photographs could have been faked, etc. Eye witness testimony has definitely been proven unreliable in multiple cases and experiments. (I like the one where the guy stabs to woman with a banana in front of witnesses. They almost always report a knife.)

      The police have what they believe is sufficient evidence to begin the process, and the prosecutor believes that they will be able to develop sufficient evidence to convict. They may or may not be correct. Also he may or may not have done the deed he is accused of. (These last two are independent statements with correlated but not identical truth values.)

      FWIW, I've been expecting this, or some similar action, since the story a week or so ago about the police searching his house.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:Arrest Requires Probable Cause by Drantin · · Score: 1

      Do you live near them, or do you know them closely? No? A newspaper says she disappeared? Various articles on the internet? Sounds alleged from here...

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    4. Re:Arrest Requires Probable Cause by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Do you live near them, or do you know them closely? No? A newspaper says she disappeared? Various articles on the internet? Sounds alleged from here...

      How about a local Television report?

      She disappeared.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  30. especially since that's the only reason it's here by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Hans Reiser wasn't the author of a somewhat well known filesystem, but instead some other random guy who was uninvolved in free software, his being arrested wouldn't be on Slashdot in the first place.

  31. That and it raises security issues by BeeBeard · · Score: 1

    Great point, and yes it is a valid concern. While your question is "What happens to the code base?" I think the more germane question in this case is "Was the code base ever safe to use in the first place?"

    Once that one person in charge of that one project fails a test of moral turpitude so badly that they murder somebody, where do you go from there? If that person has no respect for human life, what assurances does the community have that his software is made with respect to privacy, security, and so on? If somebody is out murdering others, what does that say about the safety of using their code?

    ----------
    (note: And before somebody tells me "Yes, but it's open source", I'll say that I know for a fact that rather ingenious backdoors have been introduced into open source projects in the past. I'm going on memory--a cursory /. or Google search would reveal more info. Fortunately, as far as I know they were detected in an audit of the code. The potential for abuse is out there. )

    1. Re:That and it raises security issues by miro+f · · Score: 1
      If that person has no respect for human life, what assurances does the community have that his software is made with respect to privacy, security, and so on?


      ...ingenious backdoors have been introduced into open source projects in the past. I'm going on memory--a cursory /. or Google search would reveal more info. Fortunately, as far as I know they were detected in an audit of the code.


      you answered your own question. No need for any more detail here.

      It is worth pointing out that if Rieser kept the source to himself then a code audit would be very difficult if he was found guilty, and perhaps it wouldn't be trustworthy. The same problem happens with proprietry as well as open source applications, but at least something can always be done if you have the source code.
      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  32. Don't bother with ext3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't even bother with ext3. It's a lousy hack on top of a 1980s-era design. That is shown by its excessive space consumption for inodes. It's shown by it's extremely long fsck times. It's shown by it's markedly decreased performance both when dealing with larger files and smaller files.

    There are far better options available. JFS and XFS are the best alternatives. Both are high-quality journaling filesystems. JFS is from IBM, while XFS is from SGI IRIX. Those are both names known for their high-quality, high-performance computing systems. So it's no surprise that JFS and XFS work so damn well.

    1. Re:Don't bother with ext3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it's changed, but the last time I checked you pretty much need a UPS to use XFS since it doesn't fail gracefully when the power fails. Otherwise it's an excellent filesystem, but that may be a bit of a nuisance for the casual user.

    2. Re:Don't bother with ext3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      XFS doesn't really use less space than ext3. Try setting up two 512MB filesystem, 512 byte block size -- one xfs, one ext3, then fill it with tiny files. Guess which can hold the most files? Guess which creates the most files faster.

      I was going to move my /usr/portage (gentoo) from ext3 to xfs to get some performance improvements, but I was in for a pleasant surprise when xfs actually ran slower and used more space. (This was on Linux 2.6.18)

      So please, quit spreading FUD.

      Ext3 isn't the best filesystem around, but it certainly isn't crap, and it's *very* stable, which makes it an excellent choice.

      As for resierfs, I have no idea. Every time I've used it, it has crashed on me. And you know what? That makes it a piss poor filesystem.

      http://linuxgazette.net/122/TWDT.html#piszcz

    3. Re:Don't bother with ext3. by Deanalator · · Score: 0

      dancing trees make me happy

    4. Re:Don't bother with ext3. by arth1 · · Score: 1
      XFS doesn't really use less space than ext3. Try setting up two 512MB filesystem, 512 byte block size -- one xfs, one ext3, then fill it with tiny files. Guess which can hold the most files? Guess which creates the most files faster.

      I was going to move my /usr/portage (gentoo) from ext3 to xfs to get some performance improvements, but I was in for a pleasant surprise when xfs actually ran slower and used more space. (This was on Linux 2.6.18)

      So please, quit spreading FUD.

      XFS defaults to 4k block size, 256 byte inode size, the log/journal on the same disk as the data, and max 25% of the data volume used for inodes. The default is for an all-round filesystem with a fair amount of large files, and obviously isn't meant for a small partition with a huge number of tiny files.
      If you want to use XFS with small files, you should configure it accordingly. In your example, you should in addition to reducing the block size as I presume you did, also increase the inode size, and set the percent allowed for inodes to a much higher number.

      Also, did you fill it with files from a single process? XFS is tuned for parallelism, and works much better than ext3 if you have multiple processes writing simultaneously.

      So please, quit spreading FUD.
    5. Re:Don't bother with ext3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have to fiddle around that much with it, it's not worth it except for very specific situations.

      Take a look at the only really notable advance in file systems in the past decade or so: ZFS. NO tuning required, no need to worry about inodes, runs like a champ, simple simple simple to configure, is near bulletproof and all but unlimited for size.

  33. MurderFS by ELiTeUI · · Score: 0, Troll

    MurderFS ftw!!!

  34. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well maybe not Reiser, but if Linus killed someone (perhaps he got ticked off or something), should he be pardoned for the better good? Or should he just be given a light sentence in a minimum security prison where he could continue coding?

  35. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You'd be surprised the amount of proprietary projects out there that "rely" on one person, or perhaps 1 person per major section.

    I've heard from enough managers some conventional wisdom, that if a programmer becomes irreplaceable, fire him/her immediately.

    Often, but not always, this refers to bad programming style. But there is a certain truth in it the industry must have learned from experience.

    Still, I think in private industry it happens enough to this day.

  36. Circumstancial evidence? by DeAxes · · Score: 0

    It may be that I watch way too much "Law and Order" and CSI (the first one only), but unless the judge is trying to make a example out of him (like in the Fatty Arbuckle case), the circumstancial evidence is prob nothing more than hearsay about how the sister or whoever hates his guts and other stuff that is to distroy his character. Unless you have real evidence, you can't prove anything. They are prob just reaching for more info, when they have nothing at all. For all anyone knows, she left town with a boyfriend or got depressed and off'd herself, or something of that nature. Although we'd like to believe that it's innocent until proven guilty, people are judged really quickly (it's our nature).

  37. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why should I, with no life, be overly concerned with someone else's new-found lack of a life?

  38. Special website by Kangburra · · Score: 5, Informative

    A website aimed at helping to find her, Help Find Nina Reiser

    --
    Common sense is not so common
    1. Re:Special website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the pictures on that website there are some odd edits. In one shot, her wrist has been blacked out, in another her chest and the immediate vicinty has been blacked out. I can figure out the bluring of faces of people in the background, but why these edits?

    2. Re:Special website by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      It isn't her wrist that is blacked out. It is her daughter's head. They have unedited photos on one of the linked to news stories and you can clearly see a little girls head to her side.

    3. Re:Special website by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      probably because they are identifying marks that might indicate familiarity with the victim, were someone to mention them.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    4. Re:Special website by st1d · · Score: 1

      The wrist thing looks like a hair tie she put on her wrist. The other spot isn't so obvious, but considering the scene, it appears she just finished sliding down the hill on the tube she's carrying, so it might be snow on the camera lens from a previous shot. Perhaps she's laughing because she almost crashed into the photographer during the attempted shot. It might be a speck of snow on the lens.

      That said, I'm sure somebody will use it of proof of something supernatural...

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    5. Re:Special website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the aliens I tell you! ALIENS!

    6. Re:Special website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she was flipping off the camera

    7. Re:Special website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably more than anyone really wants to know...

      http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_256204954.h tml

    8. Re:Special website by Polly_Morf · · Score: 0

      If you look at the "in the news" section, 50% of the articles concerning this has ReiserFS in the title... The worst part about this is that I find myself worrying more about ReiserFS... Im such a fascist...

  39. Groceries? by Eto_Demerzel79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If she went grocery shopping after she dropped off the kids with him, doesn't he have a good alibi? They did find her car with grocery bags inside abandoned somewhere. It appears that the investigators were presumptuous unless there is some additional information they have that they did not release.

    Just my $0.02

    1. Re:Groceries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since they searched his house and tested a DNA sample before arresting him, I'm going to lean towards believing that they aren't just locking him up becuase they feel like it. It's interesting how Slashdotters go beyond assuming innocence until guilt is proven and start making excuses and justifications when a linux coder is involved.

    2. Re:Groceries? by nihaopaul · · Score: 1


      judging by what i've seen on the telly, the CSI probably found his finger prints in her car!
      </TVjunkiemode>

    3. Re:Groceries? by pedalman · · Score: 1
      It appears that the investigators were presumptuous unless there is some additional information they have that they did not release.
      I'm sure that murderers have been convicted on circumstantial evidence in the past (IANAL), but it sure sounds hard to get this case to stick without a body. If I were a juror, I'd be hard-pressed to buy the premise that a murder occurred without so much as a severed limb.
      --
      Friends don't let friends line-dance.
    4. Re:Groceries? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      And they probably didn't actually find them from her car, but by using CCTV footage from the 7-11 across the road, and zooming in until they could see the lanolin and oil stain on the upholstery where her fingerprint was!

    5. Re:Groceries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg i so didn't think about the conspiracy with 7-11 and 9-11!

    6. Re:Groceries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't be a juror, as you are on slashdot and so more than likely are partial.

    7. Re:Groceries? by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      What, they flew Slurpee machines into the Pentagon?

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    8. Re:Groceries? by dparnass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They ALLWAYS suspect the ex-first unless there is no way on earth the Ex could have done it. There have been many times some one has been arrested, evwen by the FBI, for a crime then released when they realised they had the wrong person. She could have been a victim of a Serial kilelr, or a random act of violence. The groceries left in the car do look suspicious but does not mean he did it, unless they have evidence to the contrary.Then again they have arrested people without any evidence and just on "HEe is the EX it must be him".

    9. Re:Groceries? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Well, the arrest requires considerably less evidence than a conviction.

      Part of the reason for an arrest usually involves the detectives wanting to obtain more information that can only be obtained from the suspect. In this case. Reiser wasn't talking voluntarily (largely because he was upset with the police interfering with a child custody hearing.) I say that not because I'm suggesting the cops don't think he's guilty, but because whether they do or don't isn't really much of a factor here, they have a limited amount of information to go on, Reiser is a suspect (as someone with a motive who hasn't been eliminated as a suspect), and they can only gather more evidence of a particular type by questioning him.

      At the very least, if he claims an alibi, they should be in a position to check it out.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Groceries? by phiwum · · Score: 1

      The article said there were groceries in the van. It did not say that they were bought after she left Hans's house.

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    11. Re:Groceries? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      From the way you're saying that it sounds like it's not common for American surveillance cameras to have a 10 gigapixel resolution...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Groceries? by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      The article said there were groceries in the van. It did not say that they were bought after she left Hans's house.

            This is a really good point. And it's true her blood was found in his house. However, due to the missing front passenger seat of his car, it appears that's where the murder took place, most likely when she came out of the store back to her minivan from shopping.

            I would also expect to see the receipt in one of the bags or her purse, and it would be unusual if it weren't there. No mention one way or the other on that.

        rd

  40. tabloids baby, tabloids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how in the hell is this "your rights online"?

    Granted, finding a spot to post (effectively) tabloid news is hard, but YRO definitely isn't the spot..

    1. Re:tabloids baby, tabloids by st1d · · Score: 1

      Perhaps as a warning to any country that is thinking of implementing an internet-based jury system? That happens, I'm never even speeding again. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  41. This ... is a test by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    Well, this might be a good test of the open source community. Will an open source project meet the challenge of carrying something forward after its creator/lead passes, or will the project die due to developer natural selection. If it isn't that good, or better than a competing project, will it continue to live after something like this plays out to the negative? I would like to believe that if a project shows even the potential of being something useful and beneficial, it will draw a good support base and go forward.

    1. Re:This ... is a test by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The biggest supporter of ReiserFS was SuSE, and they dropped it a couple of weeks ago when this news initially came out. At this stage, Reiser is in the no one cares category. Personally, I think ZFS is the most promising new FS.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:This ... is a test by cblack · · Score: 1

      Any references on SuSE dropping reiserfs support?

  42. This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Ssbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive ... but if he did do it and is found guilty it seems like he'll have a bunch of time on his hand. You know, with the long jail sentence and all. Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail? Also, working on a OSS with your free time in jail seems like it might get you some good behavior points.

    1. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by imemyself · · Score: 1

      The problem I would have with that is(again, this is all if he his hypothetically convicted): If somebody can't be trusted with something as important and easy as not killing the person they have sworn to protect and love, why should they be trusted to do something that is much less important like creating filesystems?

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    2. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by victim · · Score: 5, Funny

      I trusted Mr. Reiser with my mp3 archive once before. I still haven't found all the original CDs to replace the corrupted files. Never again.

    3. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by deek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If somebody can't be trusted with something as important and easy as not killing the person they have sworn to protect and love, why should they be trusted to do something that is much less important like creating filesystems?


        I guess it would depend on how the hypothetical murderer carried out their crime. Was it a clinically planned murder, or was it a feat of rage or emotion? If it was someone who lost control emotionally, I would trust them with computer related projects. That's because computers generally engage our rational selves.

        It's people, and especially relationships, where we use our irrational/emotional selves more often. I would not trust my hypothetical children with this hypothetical person, but I would trust them with my computer, no matter what state of reality the machine is in.

        If it was a clinical murder, something that was rationally acted on, no way I'd let someone like that program my OS!
    4. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it's not like the guy killed anyone..

      Oh, wait...

    5. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Generally speaking, getting to do something you like to do anyway isn't part of punishment. Murderers should get the jobs nobody else is willing to do, not the ones smart people are dying to get. Refraining from killing people gets you good behavior points. Killing people, absent a darn good reason, should get you permanently removed from the rest of us.

      That said, let's just hope that there's an unlikely happy ending somewhere for this story.

    6. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Can you really call it open source if the source of the software is a supermax?

    7. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail?

      Maybe difficult if he has to work in a machine shop or a rock quarry 19 hours a day, or if he's not allowed to have paper (let alone computer stuff.)

      Little early to speculate on this. As far as I know, to convict someone of murder, it is actually a requirement to at least have a dead person.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>> If it was a clinical murder, something that was rationally acted on, no way I'd let someone like that program my OS!

      I don't know. I mean, if he's properly handled the, um, error, and manages to get out of it despite considerable evidence that he's guilty, I'd be more inclined to use his skills. I mean, the guy obviously knows how to approach every angle!

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    9. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by st1d · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>> Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail?

      Er, it might be a little difficult to type when you're bent over the keyboard?

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    10. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by crankyspice · · Score: 1

      Is their[sic] a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail?

      Inmates, outside of a class or specific vocation program, rarely if ever have access to computers. At no time do they have access to the Internet, nor are they likely to have access to compilers or the operating system of the workstations they might have access to. (There are extremely limited and limiting exceptions to this; e.g., the Federal Bureau of Prisons is experimenting with a highly controlled email-like system: http://www.prisontalk.com/forums/archive/index.php /t-139246.html.) He might be able to code via pen (or typewriter) and paper, that can't really be restricted, but most prison systems forbid communicating in "code," and since I guarantee the CDCR doesn't employ any COs that will be able to grok Reiser's C source, he won't be able to mail it out. No, if he's sent up, his work on ReiserFS is done for the duration.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    11. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Ambush · · Score: 1
      Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail? Also, working on a OSS with your free time in jail seems like it might get you some good behavior points.

      Correctional facilities are generally extremely anal about providing computers to prisoners. Remand centres, however, are often legally obliged to provide computing facilities so that the prisoners (who are not yet proven guilty) can study and prepare for their defence. Check this out; http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/_Locked_ down_Linux_dispenses_Justice/0,130061733,139261329 ,00.htm Disclaimer; I work for Cybersource and project managed that deployment.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
    12. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Woy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And i sure hope nobody that matters is seriously considering renaming reiserfs. If he did murder his wife (unknown at this time), that doesn't change the fact that he did create reiserfs nor the quality of that work. If he did do it, he should be prosecuted like anyone else but that doesn't change the past. We should be thankful that Mr. Reiser, in spite of all his ghosts, had the foresight to choose a free license for his work.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    13. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail?

      Computers aren't standard prison-cell equipment.

      Communication between prisoners and the outside world has to be carefully monitored.

      Convicts tend to spend their time studying the legal system, for any opportunity to get out.

      etc.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Sithgunner · · Score: 1

      If you have a second to think what one would think inside a jail, I'm sure he won't be able to continue writing code as if he had spare room in his mind to think about new logic and all.

      Somehow unless some drug can have him forget his real life, i can't really say why one would even suggest someone to code when he is sent to jail of a murder of his own wife...

    15. Re:This isn't meant to be funny or insensitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he did it coldly and rationally, I'd trust him with my filesystem. Anyone who is THAT calculating must write good code.

  43. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by ergo98 · · Score: 1
    I know a lot of Slashdotters are antisocial, but "what will happen to t3h filesystem?!??" is not a reasonable question to ask when a wife and mother has disappeared and possibly been murdered.

    It's an entirely reasonable question to ask, and the only reason this particular crime is getting attention here is the filesystem in question.
  44. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by oohshiny · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?

    Compared to a closed source project that relies so heavily on a single person, the open source project is a much safer bet.

    Are concerns like this valid or is the community able to pick up where someone left off with minimal interruption to clients?

    You should very much take those considerations into account. With open source, you have two advantages compared to the same project when it's closed: (1) you know who the project relies on, and (2) it is clear under what conditions the project can be continued.

  45. He could be innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You gotta consider him innocent until proven guilty though, despite the jokes.

    I mean come on, what happens if he's found innocent/charges are dropped, and he decides to pop back here to make a few comments of his own? You probably won't be feeling so good then, particuarly if he lets loose about his missing wife.

  46. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by garethw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A very important question.

    A coworker of mine uses an indicator he calls the "bus factor" to determine the likelihood of discontinued support for a particular tool or library.

    The "bus factor" is simply defined as "the number of people who have to be hit by a bus before the fundamental understanding of the underlying codebase is lost."

    --
    garethw
  47. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by wrfelts · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is no need to ask for a release. If it turns out that Reiser is guilty of murder and his team disbands, the GPL source is open for use and extension. Being that it is GPLed, it is already available in that sense. It is by common curtesy that we don't fork someone else's code. With the ongoing losing battle to get Reiser and his team to use kernal-approved coding styles so that it can get included into the kernel, forking of this project has come up more than once. Hopefully the following 2 things will happen:
    1. His estranged wife will be found, alive and well, and
    2. He will give up on the pride issue and reformat his, otherwise, excellent code.

    I hope that at least the first one will come about.

  48. finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, someone in open source is a bigger asshole than Theo.

  49. it's like ... the opposite of trust by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know, Microsoft have paid the police to do this, to discredit a Linux FS?

    Totally, dude. Like, this one time, Micro$uxx paid this chick to be this like hardcore open-source dude's girlfriend, and like, she made him chili with peanuts in it, which he like would like totally have died if he ate it? Way of the world, man *massssssivvvee toooooke* way of the fuckin' world.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:it's like ... the opposite of trust by niskel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, sesame seeds.

    2. Re:it's like ... the opposite of trust by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't cloud the issue with facts, man.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    3. Re:it's like ... the opposite of trust by sowth · · Score: 1

      No dude, that isn't the really bad story. Like this one time, like that small and impotent company, oh man that last joint really screwed my memory, dude. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, Mickey's Shaft they like paid this really hot girl to have sex with one of the kernel developers, she like had to go into his parent's mouldy basement and everything. Really gross. Anyway she really screwed him hard, and like he thought he was all cool and everything, so like he stopped messing with his like computer and like duuudddee what happened to Linux? It like sucked!

      The the other Linux dudes, they like totally snaked some penguins from like the south pole, you know? and they made the penguins like violate this really knarly surfer dude, and so he like lost all confidence and like started living in his parents basement and everything. So they like give him a Linux computer and all saying like they're really sorry, so he starts playing with it like all day--he doesn't surf anymore dudes, it sucks. So like he becomes this major linux hacker, and you know, dudes! Linux rulez now!!! Yeah!

  50. Dyslexic? by Skevin · · Score: 1

    I realize that "file" system and "life" system are anagrammatic, but the latter has very little journalling capability. However, the latter may be reformatted, with the simple act of making weapons-grade uranium available to anyone who asks for it. It can be encrypted, by bashing the viewer over the head a few times. It is also read-only, once committed to memory^w posterity.

    Solomon

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:Dyslexic? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Actually journaling in life came first. The problem is you can't roll back to a journal entry.. alas.

    2. Re:Dyslexic? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is also read-only, once committed to memory^w posterity.

      I think that the historians of various dictatorships would be very surprised to find that out, altought they'd be experienced enough to hide that surprise.

      Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

      or

      In Soviet Russia, history commits you !

      --

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

  51. I'm not really sure what to think here. by Dogun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've all seen enough crappy investigative work to know that it's best not to speculate wildly and say things we'll all regret later and wait and see what unfolds. So for once, let's do that.

    1. Re:I'm not really sure what to think here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is quite possible. The brother of the SquashFS developer was arrested on very serious charges in California a few years back which could have meant 25 years in jail. Turned out the evidence had been fabricated by police and the personel department of the company he worked for.

    2. Re:I'm not really sure what to think here. by NexFlamma · · Score: 1

      You realize that you posted that comment to a forum, right?

      If we're not speculating, what the hell else are we going to do? Write long lists of tired cliches and in-jokes vaguely related to the IT profession?

      Oh, wait...

    3. Re:I'm not really sure what to think here. by neuro88 · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're serious or going for a funny moderation. Can you provide any links?

    4. Re:I'm not really sure what to think here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>it's best not to speculate wildly and say things we'll all regret later and wait and see what unfolds

      you must be new around here...

  52. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by nubnub · · Score: 2, Informative

    Reiser's past contributions and notoreity are why it's here. Not because of his involvement in Reiser 4.

  53. Godwin's Law by NoTheory · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do doctors who use information gleaned through Nazi human tolerance testing (i.e. most of them) support Nazis?

    --
    There are lives at stake here!
    1. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do doctors who use information gleaned through Nazi human tolerance testing (i.e. most of them) support Nazis?
      Totally off-topic, but I assert that your premise is wrong. The Nazi's torturous "experiments" had no scientific value. So the moral question of if doctors can use this information is entirely moot, as the information does not exist.
    2. Re:Godwin's Law by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. The Nazi's did some horrific research that nonetheless yeilded useful results. First Aid courses are vastly different today than they otherwise would have been without that information. Look up the research they did on hypothermia. Their methods will make you puke, but the information has saved many a sailor pulled from freezing waters.

      --
      I hate printers.
    3. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comment is why I wade through the detritus of slashdot - thanks for bringing up a fascinating piece of history I'd never heard of.

      I found a rather interesting ethical essay that argues (very convincingly) *against* using this data, even now.

      http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/ethicsbook_fil es/Ethics2/Ethics-ch-15.pdf

    4. Re:Godwin's Law by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      I assert that your premise is wrong. The Nazi's torturous "experiments" had no scientific value. So the moral question of if doctors can use this information is entirely moot, as the information does not exist.

      I mostly agree with you, except for the hypothermia datas that another person mentionned. But the moral question isn't completely moot, because nazis weren't alone torturing prisonners ; japanese did their share too, in the infamous unit 731. Obviously, scientists there had better results because in exchange of their datas, USA granted them a general amnesty even though they'd practiced on US POW, among others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

    5. Re:Godwin's Law by hswoolve · · Score: 1

      A spelling nitpick:

      singular: datum
      plural: data
      alternative pluralization: datums

      datas is a neologism (newly coined word).

      To bring back on topic, the Nazis/Japanese were not the only ones to do research of questionable ethics. Consider the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study.

    6. Re:Godwin's Law by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      A spelling nitpick:[...]

      No excuse, I know, but I'm not a native english speaker ; thank you anyway, it helps me improving to be shown my errors.

      To bring back on topic, the Nazis/Japanese were not the only ones to do research of questionable ethics. Consider the Tuskeegee Syphilis Study.

      I've heard of it, but I wanted to pick my example as close as possible to the subject - unethical experiments in war context.

    7. Re:Godwin's Law by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. Nazis benefit in no way from the use of this information. Furthermore, it would be irresponsible to the patient for a doctor to NOT use information at his disposal.

      The difference here is that Reiser could potentially benefit from continued usage of his work down the line.

    8. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add to your point: given that the atrocities already happened, not using the information doesn't undo said atrocities.

    9. Re:Godwin's Law by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I've read many opinions on why we should destroy such information and never use it, and I disagree with them all. The bottom line is that this knowledge, however morally questionable its source, saves lives.

      I believe that knowledge is intrinsically valuable. How we acquire it may make us morally culpable. Society can do whatever it chooses to do to those who deviate from moral standards, subject them to religious penalties, apply a legal framework, invoke tradition etc. However, our reaction to the behaviour of individuals should not inhibit our abilities to think rationally and use the knowledge if it becomes available, regardless of our moral objection to the methods used to obtain it.

      In this case, to deliberately go out of our way to NOT use this information, we would have to alter many of our medical and safety procedures, such as coast guard rescue methods. If we expunge this information and adjust our methods such that they do not make use of it, they would certainly be less effective. Is it better to throw out morally questionable research for the purposes of discouraging it in the future and *maybe* saving lives as a result, or definitely saving lives *right now*. I'll go with the latter. There are other ways to prevent morally questionable acts in the future, but cutting off our own nose to prevent nosebleeds in the future, is silly.

      Finally, I can't think of anything remotely comparable to the stupidity of taking a moral stand against the wanton disregard for the value of life by assuming a position that is likely to get people killed. No parent, spouse or child would be comforted by the taking of the moral high ground when faced with the preventable death of their loved one.

      What's your position on the matter? Would you accept or reject this knowledge's use? I've discussed this with many people, and I do acknowledge that there are formidable arguments to the contrary.

      --
      I hate printers.
  54. why mail order russians don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this a case of a mail order russian who divorces once her citizenship comes in? Or what happens when some U.S. guy marries a mail order since he he can't get an American girl and she finds out he is a dickwad... but waits till she has her citizenship. If he did kill her they can rename the fs to "murdering bastard file system", or "mbfs"

  55. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. Real reason she died by Epenii · · Score: 1, Funny

    He discovered she was a beta tester for Microsoft and had Windows Vista installed.

  57. Sad. by CanSpice · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's pretty sad that there are fifty-odd comments here, a few jokes about coding from jail, what ReiserFS is going to be called, whether or not single-developer projects should be included in Linux or whatever, but nothing about trying to help the guy out. No calls for donations for his legal defense?

    Sad, really.

    1. Re:Sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No calls for donations for his legal defense?
      It'd be ... amusing if it turns out he actually did it.

      Of course, we probably will never know for sure.

    2. Re:Sad. by glwtta · · Score: 1

      No calls for donations for his legal defense?

      So, all I know about him is that he wrote a kick-ass filesystem. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is innocent though.

      There seems to be very little information, one way or the other.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Sad. by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, generally when somebody gets accused under an unjust law or accused of something many of us don't consider a crime, lots of folks will rally to the cause and suggest donating for their defense.

      When somebody gets accused of something we can all agree is unequivocally bad, like murdering the mother of his children, my reaction is "let justice take its course." This seems fair to me, especially when we have no idea what the evidence is against him. Lots of people get accused of lots of crimes all the time and I don't generally donate money to their legal defense unless I think the law under which they are being prosecuted is terribly unjust.

    4. Re:Sad. by fithmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know if it's all that sad... I'd never really heard anything of the guy before this, other than his name attached to his FS, and the wikipedia article was rather sparse, so I google'd around to get an idea of who he is.

      You call for sympathy for the man, but as far as I can tell from this interview, and a few random forum threads around the internet, he seems like a really smart and clever, well-educated guy, a really good programmer, but kind of an arrogant douche. I mean, he talks about how he hates homework and wishes you could just study and then discuss to prove your knowledge, but then he stresses the importance of code review and benchmarking (which seem, to me, the "homework" of programming tasks) and belittles his own employees for not doing it well enough.

      I'm not trying to flame the guy out or anything. Like I said, I knew nothing about him before my last 15 minutes of searching, but from what I saw in that little sliver (and I know that doesn't provice me a fully developed mental image of the man) it seems like he might deserve some of the jokes.

      I'd say if you have sympathy or money to donate - give it to the kids.

      And watch, I bet I get bad karma for just trying to point out that it seems (to the untrained eye) that he might have bad karma.

    5. Re:Sad. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I wondered how long it would take for this post to appear. Calls for donations for his legal defense are as premature as calls for his conviction would be. Do we know anything beyond that he's been arrested?

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

      Geez... Its always the "kids"..

      I'm sorry, but we have enough of them to worry about with the constant erosion of adult values with the kiddy pushers. If the man did do it, I'm sorry for him (its his dime now on the payback express).

      If he didn't do it... then it just goes to show how foolish this all is.

      If she's dead.. it happens.. millions die each year.. some are helped along by some "kind" people.

      If she isn't dead.. then its a very bad joke.

      But the kids took their chances like everyone else that is born. no one is promised free and safe ride in this world. Some make it.. some don't. If they make it.. I hope they do something useful and productive instead of just being resource wasters. But more likely, they won't. (far too many are for me to get hopeful).

    7. Re:Sad. by Mathinker · · Score: 1

      > And watch, I bet I get bad karma for just trying to point out
      > that it seems (to the untrained eye) that he might have bad karma.

      No one ever gets bad karma for betting they'll get bad karma, here...

      The Slashdot Heisenkarma Principle!

    8. Re:Sad. by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      I demand we put all good programmers under strict observation 24/7, they're obviously all killers just waiting for the oppertunity to strike.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    9. Re:Sad. by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      No calls for donations for his legal defense?

      What legal defense? He hasn't even been indicted. He might go home tomorrow for all we know.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    10. Re:Sad. by msouth · · Score: 1

      The interview you posted paints him as nothing of the sort you are implying. He very humbly states what he learned and where he ended up even though what he did was not what he hoped to contribute to the field. It looks to me like you went off looking for evidence to condemn the man and "found it" because you wanted to interpret it that way.

      His statements about homework all focus on the fact that doing homework didn't make sense to him. He did not condemn it outright as a stupid idea that wouldn't work for anyone. He just said that it would never be something he would do personally, and that that was why _he_ didn't go on in traditional education, but instead wrote an open source product.

      He did describe something that he was willing to do for a real project and as an aside said he would never have done it for a class--so without knowing you were going to misrepresent him here, he countered your argument in advance. You imply that he hypocritically derides homework while supporting the "homework of coding". But he lays out plainly that he wouldn't do the tedious stuff precisely when there is no point in doing it. So he clarified his position on the fact that he sees the importance of tedium but only when it applies to a real product you are working on.

      He didn't claim that tedium will never help anyone. Maybe that's how other people learn, ok for them. All he said was that _he_ wouldn't have wanted to do stuff like that for a class.

      I have no idea if he committed the crime or not. But it's a damn poor time in this person's life for you to be taking a few statements from an interview completely out of context and disparaging hime when he has no time to defend himself.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
  58. not nice by 3seas · · Score: 1

    the story rates as a troll.

    First off, the filesystem is in no danger of being dropped due to this event.
    Thats the benefit of Open Source. Where anyone who starts up a major project is typically going to be wise enough to make contingency plans upon their demise (could be a car accident, health problem etc.)

    Second of all, even if he did it, it won't hurt Open Source Software reputation.There are alot of very good people. Perhaps more so in open source then in proprietary. Anyone who trys to use it in any event, against open source softare, will be admitting what an absolute jackass they are.

    Third, anyone with enough sence and aware enough about teh events that have happened in main stream news these last few years regarding death and killing would know there are people with names known that are much worse then this suspicion.

    Perhaps the story really should have been simply noting the arrest. There was no reason to bring up filesystems concerns.

    1. Re:not nice by TardisX · · Score: 1
      First off, the filesystem is in no danger of being dropped due to this event.
      You think?

      Thats the benefit of Open Source. Where anyone who starts up a major project is typically going to be wise enough to make contingency plans upon their demise (could be a car accident, health problem etc.)
      If Hans had been hit by a bus, then certainly. But if he killed his wife, then the project is almost certainly tainted for life.

      Maybe a name change could save it, but that's on the cards.

      --

      Command attempted to use minibuffer while in minibuffer
    2. Re:not nice by st1d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to be, uh, yeah, what the heck. Aside from the fact that (as a previous poster said) most folks wouldn't know Reiser from raisins, why would the name hurt the project? I could see where it might actually help.

      Admin: "And it's using the Reiser filesystem."

      User: "Oh, that's nice."

      A: "Reiser killed his wife, but people liked the filesystem so much, they kept it going when he went to jail."

      U: "Wow, it must be good! Reiser, huh?"

      The user then shares this tiny twig of information with his friends, who share it with their friends, because all of them want to feel like they have a clue about computers, and the IT world.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
  59. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

    neither, he should get the same sentence that everyone else does.

    --
    Gone!
  60. He's certainly guilty... by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1, Funny

    of trying to kill off ext3!

    Thank you thank you - I'll be here the rest of the week...

  61. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by wrfelts · · Score: 1
    The ReiserFS code (being v 3.x) is well known and stable in the kernel. If the worst case scenario should happen, its maintenance, and even extension, will be simple enough.

    At stake is the Reiser4 Code, which has not yet been included into the kernel due to what appears to be mostly political bickering over source code formatting standards. It is still in a mostly beta state, but has potential for much better performance. This, also, is GLPed, so it is possible for this to be picked up by a major player (SuSe, RedHat, etc.) or advanced team. Being that it is not yet widely relied upon, it is not much of an issue with the status quo.

  62. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Tweekster · · Score: 1

    Yeah but in all honesty as harsh as it sounds, no one cares about his wife. It wouldnt have even made slashdot if he werent a linux geek.

    how many other murders have made slashdot...

    and like i said, no offense to the family, but people are not concerned with her murder, just like you are not concerned with every other murder in the US over the last 24 hours..

    --
    The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  63. Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot temperment by acomj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Jason Haas was in a car acciedent linux PowerPC suffered. But eventually others pick up and run with it. He was alright

    http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/24/ 089246&mode=thread

    Interesting to note the different temperment of slashdot articles 6 years ago. No jokes..

  64. I don't know much about him by phorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Other than his aptitude for coding, and the fact that his filesystem is one of my favorites, I don't know a whole lot about Reiserfs.

    I'm extrapolating greatly here, but if he's a common geek-type, perhaps she left or ran away because he was paying too much attention to work and not the relationship - though that doesn't explain leaving the child behind. There's a comment from her divorce lawyer, so I'm assuming they were breaking up, and there is mention of physical abuse (though in divorce cases it isn't uncommon to have such accusations).

    What about Hans himself, had he filed a missing-persons report? Why and how are they preventing his lawyer from reaching him? Innocent until proven guilty, but I would like to know more of the history on this.

    1. Re:I don't know much about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Hans himself, had he filed a missing-persons report?

      If he's not living with her, and she had a boyfriend at the time of her disappearance (I read TFA), I'm not sure it would be expected of Hans to do so.

    2. Re:I don't know much about him by e40 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live fairly close to where she disappeared. You probably don't know this, but there was an incredible effort to find her. Notices were posted everywhere, with her picture and information about her disappearance. From what I gather, it would be completely out of character for her to have left her children. As a parent, it is easy to tell how connected someone is to their kids. I'm sure her friends know this. For me, there is nothing in the universe that would make me leave my kid. Nothing. I believe she's dead.

    3. Re:I don't know much about him by phorm · · Score: 1

      Sad, but quite possibly true. That or kidnapped, but in this period of time usually something would have been heard of her. However, having the van ditched a few miles from the local neighbourhood doesn't seem like something a smart man would do if trying to avoid being caught, but then again there are many types of smarts, and even smart people do irrational things.

    4. Re:I don't know much about him by crankyspice · · Score: 2, Informative

      there is mention of physical abuse (though in divorce cases it isn't uncommon to have such accusations).



      Relatively uncommon in California, which is a no-fault divorce state. That is, no reason whatsoever needs to be nor can be entered into the record as to cause of the divorce. (Though evidence of cause can be used in child custody fights.)

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    5. Re:I don't know much about him by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm sure her friends know this. For me, there is nothing in the universe that would make me leave my kid. Nothing. I believe she's dead.
      You sir, are an optimist. Few people enjoy the company of their children so much that nothing would make them leave. Offer a new life with a big house, a pretty spouse, security and comfort well over and above what you have now, throw in assurred finacial security for the offspring you leave behind, and you'd be surprised at the fraction of the population that soberly kisses their darlings farewell only to play Abba in the SUV as they drive away.

      "Mama, Mia! Here I go again!
      My my, how can I resist you!?"
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    6. Re:I don't know much about him by evilviper · · Score: 1
      I live fairly close to where she disappeared. [...] I believe she's dead.

      I vote for YOU as the primary suspect...

      Returning to the scene of the crime, tsk tsk.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:I don't know much about him by e40 · · Score: 1

      It's easy to find cases of Men leaving their families for greener pastures, but it is a rare thing for a woman to do it, and I would bet that in 100% of those cases the friends of that woman would never be surprised.

    8. Re:I don't know much about him by phiwum · · Score: 1

      I'm extrapolating greatly here, but if he's a common geek-type, perhaps she left or ran away because he was paying too much attention to work and not the relationship - though that doesn't explain leaving the child behind.

      Boy, you are extrapolating. They were separated. She was dropping the kids off. The article does not say why, but it could certainly be for a visit. Why guess that she was abandoning her children?

      --
      Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
    9. Re:I don't know much about him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe she's dead.
      Nah, she's probably just pining for the fjords.
    10. Re:I don't know much about him by phorm · · Score: 1

      Actually, what I meant is that it would be unusual for the mother to leave the kid (why drop him off at all, if you're going to run from an abusive husband), so that wouldn't fit with the idea that she had dissappeared voluntarily - in other words foul-play of some sort is more likely. From what further I've read, it does seem that she had many complaints that he was paying more attention to his work and less to family, which was the basis of the divorce, as well as allegations of abuse.

      From the further evidence, it doesn't look good for Hans, but I'll leave his fate to the courts.

  65. I'm wondering the same thing by Rix · · Score: 1

    People certainly write books while in prison, so why not code? I suppose he'd have to be given access to hardware and possibly internet access, but it certainly seems reasonable.

    1. Re:I'm wondering the same thing by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Why does it seem reasonable?

    2. Re:I'm wondering the same thing by Rix · · Score: 1

      It seems reasonable in that people are allowed to do similar things, like write books.

    3. Re:I'm wondering the same thing by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Well Reiser, assuming he is convicted and does time, can write a book too. The things people are allowed in prison are specific and no consideration is given to their profession. Furthermore, a computer is far more than pen and paper. If I were a motorcycle builder, would it be reasonable to provide a machine shop for me in prison?

    4. Re:I'm wondering the same thing by Rix · · Score: 1

      You're comparing a machine shop to a laptop?

    5. Re:I'm wondering the same thing by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      It's more than a laptop, but yes I am. Obviously an arbitrary decision to make available computing resources adequate for the task is justifiable. Why stop there? We don't make available tools to continue and inmate's profession in jail!

  66. I wonder what she did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She probably badmouthed the GPL or something.

  67. I think by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

    It should now be calld the Gacy or Speck FS

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  68. Smelly troll! by Lost+Found · · Score: 1

    Oh, did you mean to say that Mr. Reiser's arrest proves his guilt then?

    I don't see lots of people 'making excuses' or 'justifications', I see a lot of pissants cracking jokes, and I also smell some trolls.

    So the real question is, WHY DON'T YOU SHOWER, SMELLY TROLL?

    1. Re:Smelly troll! by tygt · · Score: 1
      From most excellent Troops short movie:
      All suspects are guilty. Period. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?
    2. Re:Smelly troll! by Lost+Found · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that. First time I laughed reading this whole thread.

  69. Way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to see he's getting such support around here. Innocent until proven guilty.

  70. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
    how many other murders have made slashdot...

    In the last week? Two (both in the north of England). One for a free speech issue and one because of the YouTube connection.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  71. Additional info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.nbc11.com/news/10046048/detail.html

    Chilling quote: "All avenues led back to Mr. Reiser being responsible."

  72. Apropos by Dachannien · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Hans Reiser is really fsck'ed now.

    1. Re:Apropos by gringer · · Score: 1

      That's "...fsck.reiserfs'ed now". I don't think the standard fsck works on reiser.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    2. Re:Apropos by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      In many distros, fsck is mapped to a stub that calls fsck.fstype based on the appropriate filesystem.

  73. Coder, or Killer? by Guncrazy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like you'll be able to choose either, if he shows up in this game...

    1. Re:Coder, or Killer? by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Hans Reiser didn't invent any programming language afaik. And I sure hope he doesn't show up on the "killer" side of that game.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  74. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by nubnub · · Score: 1

    Someone mod this up. Notice Hemos's post - thoughts and prayers rather than absolute lack of concern for finding the wife and a focus on "what's the future of Reiser 4 if he's guilty". A good post would have been one that included the find Nina Reiser website.

  75. Circumstantial evidence = generally crap by unity100 · · Score: 1

    arresting someone on circumstantial evidence ? = total incompetence.

    Lets get a number of circumstantial situations that one can be arrested :

    you fight with your wife, you yell "goddamit, woman", and she is struck by a lightning on the way back from the grocery - circumstantial ! you have cursed, a curse has struck !

    you write a novel that involves one of the characters in a situation with s/he having a meteor hit himself/herself. 2 years later, someone in your area is hit by a meteorite, and s/he has the same hair color with your novel character - voila, circumstantial.

    you go to wc in your house and your neighbor's wc gets clogged at the same time - you pay punitive damages

    1. Re:Circumstantial evidence = generally crap by eean · · Score: 1

      I think its pretty easy to tell if someone gets struck by lightening. For one thing, the body doesn't disappear.

      And assuming you live in an apartment building... it would be pretty reasonable to guess that a sewage clog was due to your neighbor using their bathroom at the ame time as a clog. Not enough for a conviction in a court of law, but certainly a conviction in the court of public opinion.

    2. Re:Circumstantial evidence = generally crap by ebh · · Score: 1
      I think its pretty easy to tell if someone gets struck by lightening.

      Yeah, they start wearing smaller clothes...

    3. Re:Circumstantial evidence = generally crap by fuzz6y · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on thinking up the lousiest examples of circumstantial evidence ever. Of course it's stupid to arrest someone on circumstantial evidence if that evidence is, in fact, stupid. Can I play too? Ok, your neighbors saw you and your wife leave your house Saturday and don't remember seeing the car in your driveway the rest of the day. Sunday your wife was found buried in a shallow grave a few hours drive from your house. Nearby was found a shovel with the "Ace Hardware" sticker intact. There's a receipt on your credit card for a shovel bought at an ace hardware in the town 5 miles from the body. A search of your garage has not turned up any shovels. All circumstantial evidence, mind you. I guess someone would have to be a real idiot to suspect you merely based on that.

      --
      If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
    4. Re:Circumstantial evidence = generally crap by unity100 · · Score: 1

      1 - your example bears no correlation to the case at hand, there is no grave, no shovel in the actual case.

      2 - the 'evidence' in the example you gave can be linked to another member of the family as well as the neighbor.

  76. we'll find out next week! by consolidatedbord · · Score: 1

    same reiser time, same reiser channel!

    --
    while true ; do echo this is my sig; done
  77. The ojfs has a deamon looking for the real killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    int main ( int argc, char **argv ) {
            while ( 1 )
                    sleep( INFINITY );
            return( 0 );
    }

  78. 147 Comments So Far by rkcallaghan · · Score: 0, Troll

    and not one has any substance or material about the case. That's sad. Just lame jokes.

    Anyone have something of value? Is there any truth to these claims?

    Slashdot, you suck. And to the mod who mods me down for saying so; that means you, personally.

    ~Rebecca

    1. Re:147 Comments So Far by nubnub · · Score: 1

      What good are human editors if they can't act like human beings? At least digg had some info: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Hans_Reiser_of_reise rfs_has_been_arrested

    2. Re:147 Comments So Far by chill · · Score: 1

      Here, this one is just for you.

      More news at http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=local&id= 4563722

      Lots of interesting "soap opera" information in there about the divorce, extramarital affairs, possible fraud, organized crime threats, etc.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    3. Re:147 Comments So Far by nubnub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good god. Hans Reiser sounds insane.

    4. Re:147 Comments So Far by aiken_d · · Score: 1

      So is a post with no content other than complaints about the other posts more or less socially worthy than a lame joke?

      Seems to me you could have lead by example here.

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    5. Re:147 Comments So Far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that most comments that say "mod me down for this..." actually get modded up?

      Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to speculate about the future of ReiserFS until some hard evidence appears, either way...

    6. Re:147 Comments So Far by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Yikes.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    7. Re:147 Comments So Far by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can enlighten us with any news you might spy from up there on top of your high horse.

    8. Re:147 Comments So Far by rkcallaghan · · Score: 1

      You're not the only one who said something like that, and I expected it. So consider this my catch-all reply.

      I've got the karma and posting history to afford the right to just say how I feel once in a while. This thread was/is disgusting; and I don't need to perform an investigation to be able to say so.

      ~Reecca

    9. Re:147 Comments So Far by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      abc7:

      Hans Reiser, in turn, denied that movies were to blame for their son's nightmares and accused his wife of having an extramarital affair with Sean Sturgeon, a former friend of his, and that Sturgeon was a danger to the children. ... Sturgeon said he became romantically involved with Nina Reiser only when her husband made it clear that the couple were through.

      SFGate.com:

      Nina Reiser's boyfriend, Anthony Zografos...

      How many boyfriends did she have within two years of divorcing Reiser?

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  79. Re:You ain't seen flighty yet... by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

    lost somewhere in the badblocks, perhaps? They should check her journal...

    --
    455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
  80. No, by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It just means that the FBI needs a high level Linux hacker.

  81. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by JanneM · · Score: 1

    This brings up an interesting line of questioning. Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?

    No. It isn't. And ReiserFS isn't trusted for widespread use either (for various reasons).

    If ReiserFS ever gets in the mainline kernel you can probably trust it; it would become part of overall kernel maintenance. From developments so far (and disregarding the recent events) however, it doesn't seem likely to get into the kernal proper at any time in the foreseeable future.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  82. I hope his wife is OK... by Rooktoven · · Score: 2, Informative

    but that is rarely the case after a month...

    That said, he's pretty much of an arrogant asshole and Reiser4 is crap. Why would IBM pick it up when they sponsor the totally superior JFS?

    I say Reiser4 is crap from experience. It ran our system load through the roof and paralyzed us for 3 days until we pulled an all night session to move 1Tb of data to JFS, which has yet to cause a system freeze.

    --

    Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    1. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I say Reiser4 is crap from experience. It ran our system load through the roof and paralyzed us for 3 days until we pulled an all night session to move 1Tb of data to JFS, which has yet to cause a system freeze.

      You know, he'll probably make bail... I'd check your doors and window locks twice tonight if I were you.

    2. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow! You have an anecdote about a bad experience with ReiserFS. I'm sure that JFS has never had any bugs.

    3. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but consistently running server load exponentially up to the point of needing to power cycle isn't a small bug. I din't say JFS had no bugs. I said Reiser 4 sucks.

      --

      Acquiescence leads to obliteration
    4. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      Hans called and asked if you'd drop by his house. He needs somebody to pick up some groceries.

      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    5. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Heavy load and this:
              while :; do sync; done

      JFS dies. FYI.

    6. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      You know, he'll probably make bail... I'd check your doors and window locks twice tonight if I were you.

      Apologies to Nightmare on Elm Street...

      One, two, Hans is coming for you.
      Three, four, compile your kernel source
      Five, six, let your hard disk fsck
      Seven, eight, let crontab wait
      Nine, ten, never save again!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    7. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by neuro88 · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, Hans said reiser4 was mostly safe for home systems, but not quite read for production/server systems.

      He said something along those lines, anyway.

      Why did you try an experimental filesystem on a mission critical system? Let alone one with 1Tb of data.

      With that in mind, I hope he didn't do it, and I really hope his (estranged) wife is ok.

    8. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      It is mostly safe on my own system.

      I've made as dark a joke as anyone else, but I've been following the development for awhile, and I was using Reiser4 before it was released -- hell, before anyone even pretended it was stable. For all the furor on Slashdot, it seems reiserfs-list is having a moment of silence.

      I can't say I know him well, and he certainly is loud and offensive whenever lkml and reiserfs-list collide, but he does have a vision, and he was encouraging to the young, inexperienced wannabe kernel hacker that I was, and still am. I really hope he didn't do it.

      And I hope Nina is ok.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1
      That said, he's pretty much of an arrogant asshole and Reiser4 is crap. Why would IBM pick it up when they sponsor the totally superior JFS?

      Because at least some of his arrogance is justified. Reiser4 is the fastest filesystem I've tried, certainly faster than JFS, and more space-efficient, even without cryptocompress finished.

      If IBM could make it as stable as JFS, it would be "totally superior" to JFS.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If IBM could make it as stable as JFS, it would be "totally superior" to JFS.

      Of course, in 99% of situations, stability is the most important requirement for filesystem.

      Reiserfs and FAT: the only two filesystems I've ever had unrecoverable corruption on.

    11. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You're a zealot.

    12. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      True, but I'm suggesting that Reiser4 could become stable, but JFS will never be as fast. Therefore, I'm not second-guessing your decision to use JFS now, but I do think a company like IBM might have an interest in finishing Reiser4. Even Google might, but I don't know at all how well their Google Filesystem performs.

      After all, the performance and storage characteristics of JFS and Reiser4 are mostly by design/spec now, whereas any stability issues are bugs to be fixed. And if you change the fundamental design and on-disk format of a filesystem, is it still the same filesystem? If there was, say, a JFS2 which outperformed Reiser4, I'd suggest it would take as much work as Reiser4 has since Reiserfs3.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    13. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Krondor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That said, he's pretty much of an arrogant asshole and Reiser4 is crap. Why would IBM pick it up when they sponsor the totally superior JFS?

      Arrogant probably, but let's focus on the quality of the work not the personality type please. I agree that IBM wouldn't pick it up as they have a vested interest in JFS. Novell would be more likely, but they seem more focused on NSS for Linux then resuming Reiser support (which they stopped after 3.6 release).

      I say Reiser4 is crap from experience. It ran our system load through the roof and paralyzed us for 3 days until we pulled an all night session to move 1Tb of data to JFS, which has yet to cause a system freeze.

      First, lets get some things clear. Reiser4 is unlike any other filesystem out right now. It does have high cpu utilization because it believes that most processors are minimally used these days with I/O as the major system bottleneck. This is true in most workloads. Reiser4 delivers remarkable performance in using more cpu cycles then other filesystems. This is nice, but for me the true selling point is atomic transactions (read NO MORE CORRUPTION EVER).

      There are some sticking points, however. JFS has a pretty nice repacker and Reisers kind of sucks at the moment. Also, Reiser kind of reinvented the wheel in some respects to the Kernel and pissed off some of the devs. It also implements extended attributes but in a way that doesn't match other filesystem implementations, and hence breaks things like Beagle (possibly Samba).

      The plugin architecture is neat too .. transparent encryption and compression as a mount option on a filesystem (once again taxing CPU).

      It has its issues no doubt, but was one of the most innovative and interesting ideas in the filesystem space. I really hope the project stays alive. One last thing. JFS is nice and definitely a step above EXT3, but XFS I think trumps JFS and Reiser4 trumps both (assuming you have spare CPU capacity). I am interested in playing with Sun's ZFS a bit.. that seems promising. Calling Reiser4 crap is flamebait, and should have been modded as such. Sorry you had a bad experience.. did you file a bug report?

    14. Re:I hope his wife is OK... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to be an ass, I'll chime in and agree with the parent. I've had miserable experiences with ReiserFS, had an almost humorous trial run of Reiser4, and have not yet had a single problem with JFS, after more than three years of use.

      ReiserFS and Reiser4 are junk; the only reason other distros don't use JFS by default is because IBM makes it.

  83. Selfish by Jerim · · Score: 1

    How completely selfish and self centered can you be? This man may have killed another human being and you are worried about some file system? Holy crap, do you have no moral compass.

    1. Re:Selfish by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      I disagree, humans are inherently ephemeral. A great work of software can last forever.

    2. Re:Selfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Her death affects 10, maybe a hundred people's lives at most. Trouble for ReiserFS affects tens of thousands of people's lives, maybe even millions. I don't know about you, but I could not care less about Nina Reiser, alive, dead, or some indeterminate state in between. In fact, this story is not about Nina Reiser, because I dare say nobody on Slashdot really cares about her. What we do care about is ReiserFS, and if her death by way of murder somehow disrupts that project, we are interested in the affects of that disruption. Nina Reiser's existance is incidental to this story.

      Get over yourself. Thousands of people are murdered daily, and it doesn't appear on Slashdot. Let's not pretend there's any more to this story than potential trouble for Hans Reiser and his software.

    3. Re:Selfish by Jerim · · Score: 1

      Wow!

    4. Re:Selfish by pipatron · · Score: 1

      Best... answer... ever!

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  84. A shame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  85. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of me says, you are correct. The other part says: we are in the business of coding, and one of our projects will experience some delay. These decisions will have to be made whether in these forums or in a boardroom. That is reality, and one should be prepared to deal with worst case scenarios.

  86. Boycott Slashdot by Rethcir · · Score: 0, Troll

    Okay you nerd, geek, dork, slimey, jerk-off assholes, you've finally crossed the line. I'm simply shocked at the that in a matter of life and death you would even think to equate the importance of this piece of software that less than .005% of the population has heard of with someone's LIFE. And don't tell me about how this article wouldn't be up if it wasn't for the software. It's common moral and journalistic decency and respect to simply report the facts and allow people to jump to their own conclusions. I think I'm going to request to have my login deleted and boycott this site. I do not want to generate ad impression revenue to support you scummy dickless douchebags and your fanatical linux agenda anymore.

    1. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure less than .005% of the population has heard of Nina Reiser, so it kind of evens out, don't you think?

    2. Re:Boycott Slashdot by sweede · · Score: 1

      hmm.. I was going to say that his wife was hot...

      but i think you won the wtf award..
      and the learn2type award...
      and the learn2formCompleteThoughts Award..
      and the learn2makeApoint award...

      I do find it funny that deaths of noted open source software authors have all been "treated" this way. The main question was "what about their project" as opposed too "what about the family". I mean, did you just now realize that this is a COMPUTER-TECH RELATED NOT-A-REAL-NEWS site ?

      Anyways, I for one do not care less about the guy, his wife, their kids, or whatever happened last month or one, two or six months from now.

      --
      I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
    3. Re:Boycott Slashdot by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      So... you're boycotting Slashdot by posting on it?

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    4. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not want to generate ad impression revenue to support you scummy dickless douchebags and your fanatical linux agenda anymore.

      Get AdBlock. Then they will be losing money and bandwidth when you visit the site.

    5. Re:Boycott Slashdot by SoulDrift · · Score: 1

      People die all... the... time... and it's always tragic. One hundred innocent people die every day in Iraq, and have for for the last 9 months. Every three seconds someone starves to death. The only reason we're all not paralyzed with grief, all the time, is because it doesn't affect us.

      If Nina Reiser is dead, then her death is tragic. But after the tragedy, after the grief, there's only one way this story will affect my life, and that's in the fate of ReiserFS. Just like the only way the thousands of deaths in Iraq affect me is in my political opinions, and the death every three seconds of someone from starvation affects what charities I give money to. What else can you possibly expect?

    6. Re:Boycott Slashdot by PygmySurfer · · Score: 1

      See ya

    7. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Fullhazard · · Score: 1

      You know what else is disgusting? Traffic reports! HOW DARE THEY! They care more about people not being inconvenienced than by traffic jams than THE HUMAN LIVES lost in the car accidents. I think they should spend all of their time sending out condolensces to people who died in traffic accidents and spend less time benefiting from this carnage. it's disgusting.

      No, wait. The reason traffic accidents make the daily traffic reports and the reason this case made it on slashdot is because it personally effects people. Yes, people dieing sucks, but people die all the time. This particular death is newsworthy because it effects peoples lives.

      Oh, and by the way. What's more important? A piece of software that less than .005% of the population has heard of (roughly 30,000 people) or a person that only .0001% of the population have heard of (Assuming she knew about 600 people).

    8. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, could you be a bigger homosexual?

      Nobody is saying that the death of Nina Reiser isn't tragic. The point that is being made is that for the average Slashdot reader, the eventual fate of ReiserFS will have more of an impact on our daily lives than the fate of Nina Reiser. You may (correctly) point out that it's insensitive to say this, but you may not refute that it is, in fact, completely true.

      I run several large image processing systems on Linux boxes using ReiserFS, and you'd better believe that I'm interested in the future of the filesystem. There are plenty of things that I'm looking forward to in Reiser 4. Furthermore, its fate was the very first thing that I thought of when I saw the headline, before I even read the rest of the text. Does this make me an asshole? Probably. But at least I'm being honest. Hopefully, Mr. Reiser is able to mount a competent defense against these charges, land an acquittal, and get back to work on Reiser 4. If there is a legal defense fund, you can bet than I'm going to be contributing -- heavily.

      Frankly, you sound like you need the Internet equivalent of a plastic bubble. Yes, the alleged murder of his wife is horrible, and I'm sure the legal system will sort it out. But stop with the high-and-mighty act, because I can guarantee you that at least 85% of Slashdot readers were thinking the same thing.

    9. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      You know, the rest of your comment was morally ambiguous. This, however, trumped it:

      Hopefully, Mr. Reiser is able to mount a competent defense against these charges, land an acquittal, and get back to work on Reiser 4. If there is a legal defense fund, you can bet than I'm going to be contributing -- heavily.

      Admit that the filesystem will play a more important role in your life than the death of a stranger. No probs, there. Argue that the filesystem is important enough that you'll try to buy (presuming guilt, here) his ability to escape justice for that end? That's quite a bit more morally unsound.

    10. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I'm simply shocked at the that in a matter of life and death you would even think to equate the importance of this piece of software that less than .005% of the population has heard of with someone's LIFE.

      Nobody's equating anything. A significantly higher percentage than .005% of people on Slashdot actually use ReiserFS themselves, and if something should happen to its creator (convicted of murder, struck by lightning, hit by a bus, loses interest in the project, etc.) it would directly affect a lot of people here.

      Yeah, don't feed the trolls, I know. Sorry.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    11. Re:Boycott Slashdot by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0

      Seconded. If this was a sport site and it was $player who'd been arrested, talk would be about who'd be replacing him in the lineup, how it might affect team tactics and the like.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    12. Re:Boycott Slashdot by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      If there is a legal defense fund, you can bet than I'm going to be contributing -- heavily.

      Wow, could you be a bigger breeder?

      With that affirmation, you've crossed the line from saying "the whole incident will affect my daily life, because it might endanger reiserfs' future" (which is ok) to "we must do everything we can to keep Hans Reiser out of jail (or out of the chair), because we value reiserfs' future higher than Nina's life".

      I do contribute to defense funds if I honestly believe that the accused is innocent (or alternatively, that the laws which make him guilty are bad). However, I usually don't contribute in cases where I believe that the accused is indeed guilty of infringing just laws, just because I want to keep my toys...

    13. Re:Boycott Slashdot by east+coast · · Score: 1

      you're boycotting Slashdot by posting on it?

      Not to feed (nor defend) a troll but a boycott without stating why you're boycotting is pretty ineffective.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  87. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by miro+f · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he still uses plenty of applications with a "bus factor" of 0 ;)

    --
    being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  88. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Reiser's past contributions and notoreity are why it's here. Not because of his involvement in Reiser 4.


    Up until posting this, hansreiser(6963) had two foes, and 375 fans. And my honest guess is that most of those 375 fans were fans because he was the ReiserFS creator, and knew very little about the man.
    (I never found the man palatable, so he's been on my "foe" list for years.)

    I wonder how long that fan list will be in the future, no matter how this case turns out.

    That it /is/ going to damage reiserfs is beyond any doubt, no matter whether he's proven innocent, not proven guilty, or proven guilty. The name is tainted, and a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not.

    Regards,
    --
    *Art
  89. open source by Danathar · · Score: 1

    That's the beauty of open source. If Linus Torvalds were to die (Linus...not looking for you to kick the bucket!) the source code would still exist and people would continue to work with it.

    I'm sure that even if the originator of the ReiserFS is convicted, if the software is good it will continue onward.

  90. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by daveb · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When an OSS maintainer gives up, you can still maintain the software precisely because you have the source so that there are ways of maintaining the software.


    Actually no.

    I can not maintain the code.

    Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer. To suggest that I can is as farcical as suggesting that OSS is more secure because many eyes are critiquing the code - when in actual practice very few eyes are involved in most of the code on sourceforge etc.

  91. People are animals too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And there are lots of them.

    If one has a proven record of despicable behavior*, what's wrong with getting rid of him?

    a) There is no God, society is rid of him
    b) There is a God, it is His problem now (assuming souls, afterlife, whathaveyou).

    Either way, the rest of us no longer have to deal with it.

    * = this is the problem. Define this.

  92. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    What happens if Linus and Andrew Morton die in a plane crash? Who becomes the new kernel "gatekeeper"?

  93. normal values? by essence · · Score: 1

    What makes your values the norm? You just said it to make your own point of view look accepted and make me look like a crazy.

    In fact, there is a substantial amount of the population that is against the death penalty.

    Indeed I probably would be in a pretty fucked up state of mind if it was someone I knew, but it's not, so I can I comment objectivly.

  94. Disturbing by z_gringo · · Score: 1

    This is very disturbing as ReiserFS is a very important part of SUSE. Perhaps he will get a lighter sentence so that he can continue work on this project.

    --
    -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
    1. Re:Disturbing by demon · · Score: 1

      News flash - SuSE isn't going to be incorporating ReiserFS into future versions of the distribution. Funny that they'd choose just recently to make that call... of course, the recent controversy around Hans Reiser probably is influencing them at least a bit.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
  95. why? by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Really, I don't get it. The guy can be the best coder in the world _and_ be a murderer. Why does it have to be a XOR? From what I read from kernel mailing lists, Torvalds isn't the finest person to deal with. Perhaps the problem is putting people on pedestals to start with. One should respect them for their abilities, but that doesn't mean they are nice people. I mean, suppose he is proven guilty beyond doubt. Would it be right to dump ReiserFS from my machines because the writer is a murderer? The code is fine, the code has nothing to do with the murder. It seems just stupid to me thinking there is or ther should be any relationship between the two things. Am I not really trying to troll here; in my mind there is a clear separation between ReiserFS and Hans Reiser's personality, whatever it may be.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
    1. Re:why? by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      VOltaire (response to your sig) Other than that, I don't think I'm interested in separating the person's personality from his code. That would be like if you divide "life" out of "music" and end up with pop/rock. A better question to ask (even though it pisses off both the idiot left and the wacky right) is "How do his traits as an alleged murderer make my filesystem better/worse?" I.e. how do those things translate into code.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  96. Hans is INNOCENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The racist anti-Linux Windows-using Oakland PD is out to get Hans because he's a Linux developer.

    Tell me, how many Windows developers have been arrested for murder? ZERO. I rest my case.

  97. Maybe, maybe not by BeeBeard · · Score: 1

    Well no, I'm not sure it's just case closed, end of story. In the same sense that companies tend to be concerned about hiring felons, people who use a unilaterally coded software program should be concerned if the person who coded the program is a murderer. My point was that if their character has been called into question, to rule out deliberately planted backdoors only because the code is open source is to ask for trouble.

    1. Re:Maybe, maybe not by miro+f · · Score: 1

      so then if you are relying on the program in question, since you have the source code you can perform a software audit. I don't see How this is ruling out deliberately painted backdoors. But the code is available and you are perfectly able to scrutinise it all you want, if you think the character of the maintainer has been called into question.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
  98. jump! jump! jump! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think I'm going to request to have my login deleted

    Do it!

  99. Uh, hows that now? by glwtta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Du Bois complained today that police had not allowed him to meet with his client after the arrest. He said investigators were keeping Reiser in isolation.

    Did the whole "everybody is an Enemy Combatant if we say so" thing start already and no one told me? What exactly is this "isolation" where you can't contact your laywer?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Depends. If isolation was actually 'suicide watch', as flagged by a competent mental health expert (leaving aside questions as to whether Alameda County PD employs same for this purpose), then I think it would be expected that people would be denied access to you, legal representation included.

    2. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Depends. If isolation was actually 'suicide watch', as flagged by a competent mental health expert (leaving aside questions as to whether Alameda County PD employs same for this purpose), then I think it would be expected that people would be denied access to you, legal representation included.

      Why, because somehow his lawyer might help him commit suicide?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:Uh, hows that now? by crankyspice · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did the whole "everybody is an Enemy Combatant if we say so" thing start already and no one told me? What exactly is this "isolation" where you can't contact your laywer?

      Until and unless he's formally charged (indicted), the right to an attorney doesn't actually attach, except as has been judicially constructed/interpreted. For light reading on the topic: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment06/11.html#1 If he hasn't been arraigned yet (and it sounds like he hasn't), he doesn't technically have a right to counsel yet. (The 'custodial interrogation' right to counsel, Miranda et seq., says that an interogatee, upon clear demand for the assistance of counsel, either be provided with assistance of counsel or that interrogation stop until and unless the party under custodial arrest voluntarily reinitiates contact with his interrogators. It doesn't mean the attorney automatically gets access to the guy.)

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    4. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Noxx · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were afraid he would whistle some launch codes and start World War III. He is one of them evil hax0rs right?

      --
      Study everything, you'll find something you can use - Jason Bourne
    5. Re:Uh, hows that now? by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Until and unless he's formally charged (indicted), the right to an attorney doesn't actually attach

      Huh, never realized that you are not charged until you've been arraigned. I'm sure I am not the only one who always assumed that you are charged when you get Mirandized (after all, they are supposed to tell you what you are "charged" with at that point.

      Thanks for the explanation - everything I know about law comes from watching Special Victims Unit (which essentially boils down to: "Mariska Hargitay is exteremely hot.").

      But it's still true that he can only be held for a very limited amount of time, without being charged, right?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Woah, I never said I agreed with the concept. :)

    7. Re:Uh, hows that now? by mikelieman · · Score: 1

      "Huh, never realized that you are not charged until you've been arraigned."..."everything I know about law comes from watching Special Victims Unit"

      And this, Ladies and Gents, is why I don't watch Crime shows.

      "But it's still true that he can only be held for a very limited amount of time, without being charged, right?"

      72 hours or so, and then you have to be cut loose, IIRC, IANAL.

      Of course, that was one of the anti-protester strategies used for the RNC in NYC, wasn't it? Just round 'em up, shove 'em in the hole for the weekend, and then cut them loose. MOST people will just be glad to get out, and won't pursue the lawsuit for false arrest, etc...

      --
      Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
    8. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      From reading the comments above, it seems hasn't been arrested so he isn't being held. Technically, he's there voluntarily. Is that how it works?


      I think that's what they mean in the UK when they say someone is "helping police with their enquiries".


      IANAL. YMMV. VWP.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    9. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can spend up to 48 hours in police custody without getting to speack to a public defender in California. It's been that way since before 9/11. Americans have less rights and always had less rights than they think.

    10. Re:Uh, hows that now? by kjs3 · · Score: 1

      So a lawyer said it, it must be taken at face value. Because lawyers never misrepresent or exaggerate in order to lay the groundwork for appeals or other legal shenanigans.

    11. Re:Uh, hows that now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They Mirandize you because they think they might get something incriminatory from you, and they want to be able to use it in court. They aren't necessarily charging you at that point, although it's a pretty good bet that they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't think they might have grounds for it.

  100. Runs on a new architechture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reiser is better with a lot of "small" files
    He no doubt "filed" her remains (FS driven by a MEAT processor).

  101. Very very sad... by borgheron · · Score: 1

    Nina is probably in Russia. Have they checked with the airlines? This is unbelievable.

    Later, GJC

    --
    Gregory Casamento
    ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    1. Re:Very very sad... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Wait! I'll call the police and ask! I'm sure they haven't possibly considered the fact that a Russian native divorcing her American husband might possibly return to her homeland! And after that, I'll call police recruitment, and see if they have any openings in homicide for a razor sharp mind like yours!

    2. Re:Very very sad... by borgheron · · Score: 1

      I think you overestimate the average intelligence of most police officers. With very few exceptions, they're really not that bright.

      Then again, perhaps her husband is as big of an asshole as you are, in which case... I wouldn't blame her for running away. :) Perhaps she even murdered herself out of the agony of having to put up with an ass such as yourself.

      G.

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
  102. Benevolent Dictator GETS life. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    Possible headline a couple of years from now...

    Reference to Benevolent dictator for life.; first sentence.

    Heh, benevolent? Ask Nina...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  103. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by garethw · · Score: 1

    You're probably right.

    I've written a fair bit myself. :/

    --
    garethw
  104. I call Bullshit.. by buswolley · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So long as he has community support, he won't commit a murder.. I call Bullshit. It is equally simplistic to think that all cases can be rehabilitated as it is to think that there are no cases that can be rehabilitated.

    People are complex. There brains are complex. Sometimes there is no amount of love and support that can turn a guy around.

    Secondly..Prison is the worst rehabilitation... Constant contact with other violent people usually is a negative influence.

    Lastly, your logic is horrible. I'll use your line of argument in another situation:

    I know a smoker who is 95 years old, therefore smoking is safe.

    ??? Well--Are you ready to say, "point conceded?"

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    1. Re:I call Bullshit.. by essence · · Score: 1

      obviously, smoking IS safe for some people.

    2. Re:I call Bullshit.. by buswolley · · Score: 1

      Obviously. That is not the fallacy. The fallacy is to apply the result of a single case to a parameter of a population. The danger is from taking the result of a single instance and deciding it will be the same for you.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:I call Bullshit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated

      He didn't say all murders can be rehabilitated. He said 'even' which in this case means any number of.

      The statement is true if number of murderers that were rehabilitated is > 0, and since he gave an example, he has proved the statement.

      Therefore, I call Shenanigans... Ma, get me my broom.

    4. Re:I call Bullshit.. by oddfox · · Score: 0

      Smoking causes damage to many parts of one's body regardless of whether that damage kills you or not. Smoking is not safe for anyone, and I say this as a smoker. Don't be an r tard.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    5. Re:I call Bullshit.. by hey! · · Score: 1

      People are complex. There brains are complex. Sometimes there is no amount of love and support that can turn a guy around.

      Personally, I don't think the the limitation is the redemptive power of love on the human individual. The limitation is the power of humanity to love.

      But either way, in the cases you are alluding to, the reform is unlikely.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:I call Bullshit.. by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 1


      There brains are complex


      Where brains are complex!

    7. Re:I call Bullshit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a realy bold statement!

    8. Re:I call Bullshit.. by naasking · · Score: 1

      I call Bullshit. It is equally simplistic to think that all cases can be rehabilitated as it is to think that there are no cases that can be rehabilitated.

      I actually think everyone can be rehabilitated. I just don't think most people are willing to accept the measures needed to rehab serious cases. Other cases we simply don't know how to properly rehab yet, but "retraining" is a first step.

    9. Re:I call Bullshit.. by buswolley · · Score: 1

      oops :)

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    10. Re:I call Bullshit.. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Or the implications. "Rehabilitation" strikes at the entire concept of free will in humans.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    11. Re:I call Bullshit.. by naasking · · Score: 1

      Or the implications. "Rehabilitation" strikes at the entire concept of free will in humans.

      If rehab is necessary to prevent the offender from infringing on the freedoms of others, then it is justified. I believe that is the only rational, moral justification for rehab.

    12. Re:I call Bullshit.. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I don't feel comfortable even talking about it as long as there are a large chunk of people in jail for stupid things like the drug war. Not all criminals infringed on anyone else's rights.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    13. Re:I call Bullshit.. by naasking · · Score: 1

      I don't feel comfortable even talking about it as long as there are a large chunk of people in jail for stupid things like the drug war. Not all criminals infringed on anyone else's rights.

      Right, which says a lot about our legislators.

    14. Re:I call Bullshit.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prison is the worst rehabilitation... Constant contact with other violent people usually is a negative influence.

      Doh. Violent people are put in prison because it is the best place to protect the non-violent people from them, not because it is the best place for the violent people to be.

  105. Hmm.... by HaloZero · · Score: 1

    ...I wonder if they'll (they being IBM or associated developers) include an implementation of The Evil Bit in the next build of ReiserFS.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  106. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Ixitar · · Score: 1

    At my office, we prefer to go by the number of people who win the lottery instead of the number of people killed by a bus.

  107. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?

    What, you don't think proprietary code projects often rely heavily on a single person? I've certainly worked on projects where if a critical team member (or even a less-critical guy with poor documentation habits) got hit by a bus, the whole thing would have tanked.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  108. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Sinbios · · Score: 1

    The two events are of completely different natures. While both are tragic, the Haas incident was, in a way, mundane; it happens to many people, on a regular basis. As such people took the mundane approach to it, which was to mourn his passing. This on the other hand is so completely out there (killer OSS nerd!!) that you can't help but see the funny in it.

    --
    Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
  109. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by m6ack · · Score: 1

    First off, I am filled with regret over this loss for Niki's family. I hope Hans is innocent -- and I hope even more that Niki is alive. It is such a tragic situation.

    When it comes to his life's work -- the code, well, honestly, the prospect of Hans' silence might HELP reiser4. Much of the issue with inclusion of reiser4 into the Linux Kernel, from my vantage, has been personal conflicts between Hans and the kernel developers. Now, the code is there and visible -- it can speak for itself. If the code has value, then distributions and companies will pick it up and incorporate it into their distributions and systems.

    The open source model is different from what many corporate folks are used to... If you wish to take advantage of the technology and use it in your infrastructure, you have several options -- from "winging it" & relying on support from the development community, to purchasing a support contract from a distributor, to hiring a consultant, to hiring a full time developer -- depending upon how dependent you are on the functionality for your core business needs and the maturity of the solution.

    In the case of reiser4, it is not a "mature" universally accepted solution -- you are likely in a niche that requires some unique performance advantage that only reiser4 can provide -- you are officially on the cutting edge. In this case, I hope that you are fully invested in the development community and have hired someone to support/develop reiser on a full time basis.

    m6ack

    -- My sig used to be pretty cool.

  110. Life vs Software by hhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it might at first seem a bit strange to put the fate of some software ahead of the fate of a women, but this is a technical forum. People who might be planning to use the next Rev or use the current Rev. of the software might need to rethink that, and maybe some other group will pick up the pieces.

    At least for me it seems perfectly natural to discuss the technical aspects of an issue in this forum, even when the human life/death aspect of the story is more univeral and appropriate as a topic for any other random 'chat board.'

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  111. She's missing, body not found yet by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    She left their kids at his home, then drove away, and vanished. Only the car has been found. Or at least that's what the article says. Who knows what could have really happened?

  112. Ha! Just wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nina Reiser is a young wtwwa (Where the white women at). I predict that Nancy Grace will start covering this story any day now. And then it'll be all Nina all the time.

  113. Wife's missing person flyer up in Rockridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's pretty sad. I just happened to be walking around Rockrdige (an area next to Oakland) and noticed his wife's flyer. She was very beautiful and looks very sweet. I had no idea that it was Hans Reiser's wife though.

    Here's the flyer:
    http://www.nbc11.com/news/9948582/detail.html

  114. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the reasons the code took so long to make it into the kernel was that the maintainers were worried that he'd drop support for it in favor of working on the latest version. Could be interesting.

  115. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by zenslug · · Score: 1

    The huge difference between the story of Jason Haas and the murder of Hans Reiser's wife is in one case you have the victim of an accident as the main player, and in the other case the main person is arrested and accused of murdering his wife. In one situation it makes sense to express concern, while it might feel a little weird to express concern for the welfare of an accused murderer. I'm not trying to put anything extra into this, but the differences are not minor.

    I think people feel OK, for better or worse, to tell jokes at the expense of an accused murderer.

  116. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Alpha42 · · Score: 4, Funny
    The name is tainted, and a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not.
    If your business executives know anything more specific about your systems/servers then "it runs Linux" and "it works", then you have major issues that are well outside the scope of this article. The CEOs, CFOs, even CIOs, CTOs, and VPs of MIS/IS/IT (Whatever the flavor of the week is for "Data Processing Department") that I've had the pleasure to meet generally couldn't tell the difference between a FAT partition and a NTFS partition, let alone throwing Ext2, Ext3 and ReiserFS into the mix. :)

    Long ramble short? Within a week or two no executive is going to remember who this Reiser guy is, let alone that his filesystem may be powering their systems... and that's ASSUMING someone points them to this news article and they make the connection in the first place. :)
  117. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Jonny_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ya, who wants to use a filesystem designed by an accussed murderer!
    WTF? Who cares? The source code is open, you can inspect it yourself to ensure that it won't murder you. Yeesh. The sad thing is that you're probably right :(

  118. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    You really should read past the first sentence in posts you're responding to... The "you" he spoke of is "plural" and "generic." Not *you* specifically. Technically he should hae said 'one' I suppose, but really - don't be a clueless ass.

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  119. Actually, the more relevant thing is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the lawsuit settlement that Reiser reached with that Sturgeon guy (the one Reiser accused of diddling his wife). If Reiser had to relinguish some, or all of his Namesys assets, it's possible that he may have had to sign over his copyrights to Reiser4. There's just not enough information available yet.

  120. Hans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was just learning how to install Fedora with a reiserifs file system in class today, it's amazing how fast technology becomes outdated!!

  121. He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by rufusdufus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to this Reiser lost custody of his children based on "secret information" the police have. How can you defend your rights when the evidence against you is kept secret?

    1. Re:He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Woah, dude. Hang on. A press conference mentioned information that the police could not reveal. That the local press didn't get to hear it doesn't mean that Hans hasn't...

    2. Re:He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That does not necessarily mean "secret from Hans", or secret from his lawyer. Perhaps it was in both parties interest not to release the information.

    3. Re:He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See what happens when police information is closed source?
      When you stumble upon bugs which send you to to jail, you can't correct them yourself.

    4. Re:He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      How can you defend your rights when the evidence against you is kept secret?
      Kill your wife!

      Oh wait....
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:He lost his kids due to 'secret information' by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      How can you defend your rights when the evidence against you is kept secret?

      Do you work for SCO?

  122. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Funny

    The name is not tainted. Whatever one's opinion of Hans Reiser (I personally have none), ReiserFS is pretty much universally accepted as a very fine filesystem, and there's no reason why that should change.

    However, having said that, it might in fact be a plus to describe it as a killer filesystem... ;-)

    *ducks*

  123. Suspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it's possible that Hans really did murder his wife. However, after reading other, related news stories, it seems
    that if there was any foul play, many fingers would also point toward Nina Reiser's boyfriend, who one might rightly
    label "unstable," "reckless," "devious," "subversive," etc., thus making the boyfriend the most likely suspect.
    Still, Hans' lack of cooperation with the police (at one point he disappears; another time he skipped a court hearing)
    is also troubling.
    Poor Nina. It sounds like she shouldn't have been involved with either of those men.

  124. Re:You ain't seen flighty yet... by Tolleman · · Score: 3, Funny

    /lost+found ofcourse. No wait!

  125. Arrested for suspicion? by ip_freely_2000 · · Score: 1

    How can you be arrested for suspicion of murder? You get arrested for murder. The cops at least think he did it.

    1. Re:Arrested for suspicion? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      How can you be arrested for suspicion of murder? You get arrested for murder. The cops at least think he did it.

      s/think/suspect/;

      Make sense now?

      He is suspected of having committed murder. He has not been proven guilty. Until he's convicted by a jury of his peers in a court of law, he's still just a suspect.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  126. Not sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing about trying to help the guy out. No calls for donations for his legal defense?

    nope, no donations and no tears.

    1) he didn't do it -> he gets acquitted (the legal system still works, rrrright?). he's a smart guy so he takes the hassle as a learning experience.

    2) he did it -> he goes to jail and serves his time.

    i might be an insensitive jerk, but it seems to me either way your compassion and donations would be wasted big time.

    1. Re:Not sad by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      he gets acquitted (the legal system still works, rrrright?). he's a smart guy so he takes the hassle as a learning experience.

      Geeze, it's one hardcase that considers going through the process of being charged and tried for the murder of your wife when you're innocent as a "hassle".

  127. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And why is that exactly? People should get credit for their contributions to society, just as they are punished for causing harm to the same. Nobody is suggesting letting convicted murderers go free, but perhaps someone who led an exemplarily life - volunteer work, good parenting, clean record - until the age of 40 shouldn't spend the rest of his/her life in prison for a single murder. Certainly a person who still have a high potential to contribute shouldn't be denied this opportunity even in jail. Think of a PC/broadband setup in a cell, parole to work in a science lab, canvas and paint and so on. Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?

  128. For More Info by smclean · · Score: 3, Informative
    This article, ran almost a month ago when Hans' ex originally went missing, contains quite a bit more background on the case than I've seen elsewhere:

    http://cbs5.com/localwire/localfsnews/bcn/2006/09/ 13/n/HeadlineNews/HOME-SEARCHED/resources_bcn_html

    --

    "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

    1. Re:For More Info by Shai-kun · · Score: 1

      Man, that's insane. BDSM? "Death Yoga"? WTF?

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    2. Re:For More Info by sweede · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I read that and i started thinking wtf are they going after hans for? Sure, she's been fuckin him over for a while, but there seems to be plenty enough evidence to prove what they [Sturgeon & the wife] were doing was extortion. She probably threatened Sturgeon too get more from him or she's tell the truth about things and it backfired on her.

      Hans getting rid of his x-wife, it would be irrational for him to do since it would destroy his company and any other goals he may have had. Based on his history, he is waaaaaaaaaaaay to smart and knows what would happen if his wife dissapeared.

      --
      I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
    3. Re:For More Info by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that I'm saying anything about Hans, but smart people do stupid things... Many people will commit crimes they think they can get away with ranging from jaywalking and speeding to embezzelment and murder. A lot of serial killers, in particular, are smart enough to cover their tracks and don't get caught until they get bored by the fact that they've outsmarted everyone for so long(see Dennis Rader, aka BTK, for an example).

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    4. Re:For More Info by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Which suggests that it was this Sturgen guy or one of his associates who made her disappear. Maybe Hans *was* going to hang out their dirty laundry in court and has been framed by Sturgen. Hell, maybe one of their BDSM games went too far. Really, who knows... Sure sounds like a mess anyways.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:For More Info by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So let me get this straight:

      In most such cases the woman will have been murdered by a man she was in a relationship with. For this particular woman that leaves the police with two suspects:
      1. A man who -
        • Allegedly had repeatedly drugged and "taken advantage" (iow: raped) her in the past. This is a married woman with 3 kids.
        • Enjoyed violent sexual activity
        • Allegedly attempted to swindle her ex-husband out of a large sum of money.
        • Has allegedly threatened physical violence by proxy via criminal associates
        • Tried to contractualy obligate someone to nearly kill himself.
        • Allegedly engaged in extortion
        • Has been living with her for the last 2 years
      2. Her estranged husband, the Linux geek
      ...and they arrest the Linux geek? I mean, sure he could have done it. But, I hope they at least looked at the other guy too.
    6. Re:For More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I read that, Hans is bat-shit insane. I doubt any of his accusations towards Sturgeon are true. It made me all the more convinced he's the killer.

      Of course, I have no proof, and can't say that definitely. But I believe the police when they say he's the killer, and they do have proof.

    7. Re:For More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...and they arrest the Linux geek? I mean, sure he could have done it. But, I hope they at least looked at the other guy too.


      If you haven't paid attention, our cops are not overly bright. Seriously. They're not about "finding the right person" in many cases, but about closing the case as expeditiously as possible.
    8. Re:For More Info by jafac · · Score: 1

      Either Sturgeon disappeared her, or she disappeared herself, with the money.

      If the latter was the case, she did a good job of making herself look dead, with the abandoned car, and the groceries.

      If what Reiser is alleging is true, it would really suck for him to end up going to jail (or getting executed) for essentially being a victim in an extortion/love triangle.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:For More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have enough faith in the police that you believe in his guilt based on no other information than that they've arrested him and haven't even presented evidence at a trial yet, and enough faith in the normalcy of people to consider the accusations against Sturgeon entirely implausible, you probably haven't been around much. While the accusations seem quite outrageous, I've seen stranger and more sinister things happen, fortunately not to me directly (but affecting me).

      I'll wait for the trial (if it even gets that far) before deciding what I believe.

    10. Re:For More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my god. To my reading, the article implies three basic possibilities:

      1) Sean Sturgeon is a psychopath
      2) Hans Reiser is paranoid-delusional
      3) Both

      Reiser has, of course, developed credibility for his technical work and for his persistence over the past several years in building a business and a place in the online community. I hope that credibility was put in the right person, and I hope that Reiser can present evidence to support his claims.

    11. Re:For More Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of those allegations except for the last one come from the Linux geek. Most of them are things that are possible, but more likely to be a paranoid delusion.

      Except for the death yoga. Why would Resier sign a contract that requires him to do death yoga? Even if you sign a contract that involves death yoga, how could it be legally binding? And what is death yoga, anyway? As far as the web knows, there is no such thing as death yoga.

      If Reiser really did make the 'death yoga' complaint as described in the article, he has got some mental problems. Doesn't mean he's guilty, but it does shorten the odds somewhat.

    12. Re:For More Info by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Lets see. Suddenly his wife and child disappear, and he is suspected of murdering the wife. What about the child? When both disappear, I would say that the problem was one of "Lets see what interests you more? "Your PC and programming" or "your wife and kid".

      Only close associates for Hans would know if he is prone to violence. A man can scream, a man can yell and wave his hands, and say wrong things, but if he never lifts a finger, then it is frustration speaking.

      I think Hans is innocent. The wife and child have gone into hiding, or even back home, whereever that is.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    13. Re:For More Info by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Based on his history, he is waaaaaaaaaaaay to smart and knows what would happen if his wife dissapeared.

            More importantly, he knew what would happen if she didn't disappear. A court date for non-payment of child support was coming up, and he was $170K in the hole, broke and bitter.

            The divorce wasn't final, and if she disappears not only does he no longer have child support payments to her, but possibly collects a life insurance policy on her. See Scott Peterson. Laci Peterson's disappearance is covered on http://www.justiceforchandra.com/ also.

        rd

    14. Re:For More Info by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight:

            All you are getting straight are the claims Reiser made in his counter lawsuits, none of which appear coherent to me.

        rd

  129. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can, if you choose to do so. The code is available to you. The resources to learn the language and the environment are available to you. The license of the software allows others to work on it.

    "Can" means "is able to".

    It sounds like you have made the choice to spend your time on something else.

  130. Can I have your shoes after you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Probably a lot of people. But, what's wrong with that? It's natural for people to think of how an event will affect them.

    A lot of things are natural to me and I'm not willing to discuss them with anyone.

    I hope Mrs. Reiser is ok and reappears in healthy condition, and Hans is freed, even if only to conclude his divorce. But now, there's a personal drama going on.

    There was once upon a time something now clearly outmoded we used to call "tact". That is, putting empathy above personal gain considerations... I guess this kind of thinking shows my age, but we could honor this guy with a little more respect, whether or not we believe his innocence, for all his amazing techno-adventures...

    I'm no saint and I have had my quota of errors, not meaning to be holier-than-thou yada, yada... but c'mon, these facts are overwhelming, let's give the guy a hand, shall we?

    1. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by st1d · · Score: 1

      I agree. After all, he was truly a gentleman to take care of his kids the same weekend he killed his wife.

      Ah, crap. I'm no good with this tact thing...

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      On a discussion board about software and technology, how are we suppose to discuss this topic? It would consist of one of two types of posts "I believe Reiser is innocent" "I believe Reiser is guilty." Why not take it to www.iloveresiser.com and www.ihatereiser.com

      If we don't discuss the software angle, this article doesn't belong on slashdot.

    3. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      After all, he was truly a gentleman to take care of his kids the same weekend he killed his wife.

      Wouldn't his kids have seen the deed? Presumably, his wife was killed after she dropped off the kids to Hans... So after that point in time, Hans was no longer alone, and his kids must have witnessed something!

    4. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Why not take it to www.iloveresiser.com and www.ihatereiser.com

      There already is www.ninareiser.com. And it even has a guestbook! Let the innocent until proven guilty comments roll!

    5. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by st1d · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe it wasn't Hans at all...what do we know about these kids, anyway?

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    6. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > On a discussion board about software and technology, how are we suppose to discuss this topic? It would consist of one of two types of posts "I believe Reiser is innocent" "I believe Reiser is guilty." Why not take it to www.iloveresiser.com and www.ihatereiser.com

      Whoa! Not so easy!

      This is not "about software and technology". Maybe for you, maybe for most, but I, for one, am interested in news like this and "Ray Noorda dead" (great guy, btw, may he be with GOD now). I come here to sip a coffee _and_ read about a lot of things, including people that make a difference in our free (not open) software world. You can call me time waster, I won't even argue with you.

      If you're because of technicalities, it would be more productive to start an "Ask Slashdot" about Reiser4FS.

      >If we don't discuss the software angle, this article doesn't belong on slashdot.

      Again, your opinion.

      In mine, FWIW, Taco asking his gf to marry him was one of the greatest moments of /. And I'm neither a woman, nor gay, just a guy who values little events of great emotion.

      Have a nice day. And I really mean it, whoever you are.

    7. Re:Can I have your shoes after you die? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > ... he was truly a gentleman to take care of his kids the same weekend he killed his wife.

      So you like to utter opinions without any evidence. Good thing Slashdot gave you a 2 score. Good thing to know amoebas like you will attain good karma. That surely renews my faith in /.

      I would say if you don't care about having tact this will probably turn against you, because people will also treat you badly. But, what do I know? I suggest being a gentleman and get zero and you get 2 just by talking sh*t...

      Pardon me if I go unimpressed by your careless attitude...

  131. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by j-pimp · · Score: 1
    OSS and Linux zealots scream the advantages of using that kind of software, but is it a smart business decision to deploy something that could potentially lose all support if its project manager is in a fatal car accident?

    If the software is stable enough, how important is it? For example, gzip, bzip2, and infozip (the zip command on unix). The software does a great job of compressing and decompressing. Bzip2 is not going to stop working suddenly.

    Have you ever needed support for your reiser file system? Has your file system stopped working for no reason? Now lets assume that some flaw is found in reiser that has security implications? Plenty of people will be affected by this. As long as one of them has the skillset to fix it, it will get fixed because that person will be motivated to understand Han's code.

    --
    --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  132. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Saxerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer.

    I don't think there is any need to be pedantic here. Can you afford to run closed source applications knowing that the vendor could drop support? From a risk assessment standpoint, is it better to have access to the source code even if you could not personally do anything with it? At the very least, if the program is worth something to you, you have the option to drop some spare change into a bounty to have your problem fixed. And if the program is worth nothing to you, what difference does it make if it doesn't work for you?

    --

    A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

  133. Tragic - Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by PongStroid · · Score: 1

    Neither tacky nor cute - the comment is simply mean-spirited and shows a complete lack of empathy... when you grow up, you'll understand...

    Just this weekend there was a search for Nina organized at the park across the street from my house. The children went to a local school. These same kids have lost their mother - and if the Oakland police are correct - they'll be losing their father. My kids are exactly the same age and it causes me physical distress thinking what the Reiser children are going through right now.

    Tragic.

    1. Re:Tragic - Re:You ain't seen tacky yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just this weekend there was a search for Nina organized at the park across the street from my house. The children went to a local school. These same kids have lost their mother - and if the Oakland police are correct - they'll be losing their father. My kids are exactly the same age and it causes me physical distress thinking what the Reiser children are going through right now.

      Oh, stop the, "I'm involved so the rest of you fuckers have no right to say anything that offends or even contradicts my feelings" bullshit. I get so tired of people who try to terminate discussion in their own favor because "You wouldn't say this to my face." I for one would. The world does not stop because of your individual pain. If you're that easily offended, stop reading as soon as you've seen this posting. It's not likely to get any nicer.

  134. Somewhat off topic: the kids by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I realize that this isn't a "news for nerds" kind of comment, but since we're into bashing each other tonight regarding each others' reactions to the news: I just feel for the kids.

    Think about it: two little (?) kids just had their world collapse. Their mother may be dead. Their father may be in prison. Aside from these two unimaginable losses, the kids probably also face the uncertainty of who will raise them at this point. They're scared, and can't turn to either parent for comfort perhaps for the first time in their short lives. IMHO the status of ReiserFS inclusion is completely insignificant compared to this issue.

    1. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by FreeIX · · Score: 1

      Please, please, somebody think of the children! oh wait... (kidding asside, you're totally right man)

      --
      My UID is bigger than yours.
    2. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Think about it: two little (?) kids just had their world collapse. Their mother may be dead. Their father may be in prison. Aside from these two unimaginable losses, the kids probably also face the uncertainty of who will raise them at this point. They're scared, and can't turn to either parent for comfort perhaps for the first time in their short lives. IMHO the status of ReiserFS inclusion is completely insignificant compared to this issue.

      Of course you're absolutely right, but Slashdot is not the appropriate place to discuss what will happen to Hans Reiser's children. It is the appropriate place to discuss what will happen to Hans Reiser's filesystem. You're more than welcome to do both, of course, but please don't complain about the latter here.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by trifish · · Score: 1

      You're totally right. The cops should really think what impact on the children it will have. If there's no real evidence (just circumstantial) they should not arrest him, let alone tell his kids about it. I'm afraid it will be devastating for the kids.

    4. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      That's why this got posted to Slashdot! The OSS community will raise the children.

    5. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Unxmaal · · Score: 1

      And who, exactly, are you to declare what is and what is not appropriate to be discussed on a public forum?

      --
      http://unxmaal.com
    6. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone with good judgement will understand there is an appropriate for almost any sort of discussion. Slashdot is for technology discussion forum and not a social discussion (for a small number of lifes affected - however important they may be for some people). This post does not mean to be unkind or to reduce the importance of the family/social issues, but just points out the obvious "you don't cook in the living room."

    7. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_topic

      The think about which part of this mess is relevant to an IT- and Linux-oriented newsblog inhabited by techies.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      As you can see from my user ID, I've been a member of Slashdot for a lot longer than you have, and over the past nearly-a-decade I believe I've picked up a pretty good idea of what is and is not appropriate to discuss in this particular public forum. Who are you to declare what is and what is not appropriate here?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, did you mean to reply to a different comment, or is this a dumb joke? Unxmaal has user ID #231.

    10. Re:Somewhat off topic: the kids by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Ha! Wow, thanks, I'm dumb. It was late, I was tired, and I saw the comment ID instead. I respectfully withdraw my comment.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  135. Bill Gates... by buckysphere · · Score: 1

    Suddenly Bill Gates doesn't seem to be quite the Satan that most of the Linux bigots
    believe he is, does he? ;-)

  136. And for all your finger pointing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    neither did you.

  137. re: ahem ... evidence ? Is that required ? by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    now that you mention it, anyone notice how the friends in the guestbook say support her family and her boyfriend, but don't say support Hans, too?

    They must either already believe him to be guilty, or there's enough spite involved among her friends that if he's innocent, they still don't think he should get support, just because he's the ex.

  138. How comforting by finiteSet · · Score: 1
    But from memory, the reoffence rate for released murders is 5%
    Oh good, only 5%. Clearly we should let them all out.
    --
    If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
    1. Re:How comforting by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Conversly, if the number is correct, 95% wont reoffend,
      clearly, we should keep them all locked up?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:How comforting by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am SO glad I use XFS!

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    3. Re:How comforting by finiteSet · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Conversly, if the number is correct, 95% wont reoffend, clearly, we should keep them all locked up?
      Until their sentence is complete, yes. Perhaps we'll do a dance of semantics, but if the crime is murder, a life sentence doesn't seem excessive to me. Manslaughter, accidental this or that, then no. I can understand a lot of frustration with the justice system, but since when has it become fashionable to be soft on murderers?
      --
      If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
    4. Re:How comforting by benplaut · · Score: 1

      For your own safety!
      FUnny this is right on the heals of ext4's announcement...

    5. Re:How comforting by fuzzix · · Score: 3, Funny
      I am SO glad I use XFS!

      Is is possible for filesystems to inherit personality traits from their programmers?

      I always wondered why ReiserFS was so damn unstable
    6. Re:How comforting by testadicazzo · · Score: 1
      Actually, if we go back to the start of this conversation (fitness of the death penalty), the real question is, if 95% won't reoffend, clearly we should execute all of them? It's worth killing 95 guys who won't ever be a threat to get rid of the five who will?

    7. Re:How comforting by orasio · · Score: 1

      I use Reiser 3.x, but ext4 is not that a great idea, in fact, all ext* are sub par.
      The only sensible reason to have an ext3 paritition is to have a partition easily readable by the gaming OS.
      Aside from that, ext3 is way slower than reiser for everyday use, specially for system files (everything that involves a lot of small files - slooooooooow), and needs a full fsck every once in a while.
      Granted, Reiser takes more work to get recovered from a broken disc, or power source, but when it works it's way superior.

      I was going to try reiser4, but now I'm not that sure, there is not a great community behind Reiser, if the guy gets caged, I will lose my FS.

    8. Re:How comforting by osee · · Score: 1

      I think sometimes innocent people are sentenced.
      So it's good to put everyone away for life who is thought to have killed someone...

      Just as it's not all that good an idea to execute them. What if you realize 5 years later that he/she didn't do it?
      Daddy wasn't a killer afterall, we deeply regret our mistake.

    9. Re:How comforting by david_g17 · · Score: 1

      you've never had a family member murdered, have you? There are more reasons to kill a murderer than merely to stop him from killing again.

    10. Re:How comforting by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Funny

      No. It's worthwhile to deter the 100% of potential future murderers by promptly executing the ones we do manage to catch and convict.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:How comforting by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Will somebody think of the inodes!

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    12. Re:How comforting by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I intended my point a bit different than you seem to have taken it.
      And I think I took yours differently than you meant it.

      The point was to have been that whatever sentencing they are doing
      for murderers seems to be working, if the reoffence rate is 5%.
      So, it seems to be working. Locking them up for longer is probably
      not warranted, was my point ( unless it be proved that longer sentences
      drive that percentage lower, and the false positive rate is also
      very low ).

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    13. Re:How comforting by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      If 95% will not reoffend, then clearly ( unless our goal is vengance )
      we should not execute.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    14. Re:How comforting by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Do people not think about the expressions they use? It's *heels*, as in the part of the foot that would be farthest back on a person one is trying to catch up with. Running right behind someone would literally put you "right on their heels".

      Ok, I feel better now. :)

    15. Re:How comforting by tinkerghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LOL, sorry, took me a few minutes to stop laughing at that.
      You will never deter 100% of murders through the death penalty. To think that you can crosses from nieve to insane. Check your statistics, there is a temporary decrease in the number of murders following the implimentation of the death penalty in a state - followed by a continuation of the general upward trend. The murder rate for the US is now higher than it was before the death penalty was reinstated. So, no, the death penalty does not significantly deter murderers.

    16. Re:How comforting by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      How convenient. I never thought Ted Ts'o would stoop that low.

      Now you see why Hans was always talking about conspiracies.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    17. Re:How comforting by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      slightly offtopic...

      What does work is allowing conceiled carry of firearms; you get people who are sane enough to know they're going to die right there, people who are insane but really REALLY want to actually kill you and not die right there, and people who just don't care and usually (but unfortunately not always) get themselves killed trying. A couple years ago when a few communities in the US relaxed CC laws they had rapes and assults go down by 5-10%, and accidental shootings go up by ~1 per year; but most significantly, public shootings (school shootings fall into this category--I hate school shootings, teachers should all be armed so somebody can shoot these assholes back before the death toll gets too high) went up by 68%. It's true.

      There's all sorts of factors about shooting someone in an armed society. If you're in public, you're going to have a large number of guns trained on you really fast. If you're in your house in the middle of the night, any neighbors waking up will be to some degree likely to get their guns and come over to see what's up -- either someone just walked into your house and shot you, or you shot someone, and I want to make sure the situation is stable so I don't have some nut running around killing people (me next?) in my neighborhood.

      Perhaps the nicest thing about increased CC is that the death sentence becomes much more effective. For any given murder you have an improved chance that the person committing the crime is already dead; you don't have to investigate, you don't have to try to find a faceless jackass, and--most importantly of all--you don't have to risk executing an innocent person. You also don't have to risk NOT finding them and having a dangerous criminal on the loose.

      The other side of this is that people carrying guns are people carrying guns. They're quite useless; you can point and shoot easy enough but you have to be properly conditioned to function under stress at the very least. Being trained to aim the gun and use it effectively is also helpful. Most people will duck and hide when threatened; they need to be taught to be alert and to have the balls to actually defend themselves. Having it does not imply knowing how to use it.

    18. Re:How comforting by Morlark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not justifiable ones though. Is it really ok to kill someone who is no threat to you (or anyone else), in cold blood, just because it will make you feel better? Even if that person might go on to do great works for society? No, it is not, and if you think that it is then you are worse than they are, because at least they accept the responsibility for their actions.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
    19. Re:How comforting by SlickCow · · Score: 1

      You mean retribution? That is, killing because you are angry?

    20. Re:How comforting by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "I hate school shootings, teachers should all be armed so somebody can shoot these assholes back before the death toll gets too high)"

      That will only ensure that the teacher will get shot first by said asshole.

    21. Re:How comforting by jnik · · Score: 1

      Oh good, only 5%. Clearly we should let them all out.
      Nah, just 19 in 20. The question is....which 19?

    22. Re:How comforting by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You went to a school with only one teacher?

    23. Re:How comforting by Forseti · · Score: 1
      The point was to have been that whatever sentencing they are doing for murderers seems to be working, if the reoffence rate is 5%.

      I don't know about that... To be sure, we'd have to know the reoffense rate of murderers that were never caught or convicted. Might be it's not that much higher, because most people don't encounter occasions that they feel warrants taking a human life more than once in a lifetime.

      --
      Delay is preferable to error. (Thomas Jefferson)
    24. Re:How comforting by L0rdJedi · · Score: 1

      That will only ensure that the teacher will get shot first by said asshole.

      To echo the other poster "You went to a school with only one teacher?"

      And I'll add this. It'll also keep the Principals and Assistant Principals from having to run to their cars to retrieve their guns in order to stop the asshole.

      http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/other/4_Apr/sh v.htm

    25. Re:How comforting by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      I suppose one would have to do a study on the issue.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    26. Re:How comforting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i propose we execute everyone who uses the deterence argument.

      that'll show'em.

    27. Re:How comforting by bodan · · Score: 1

      Unless all teachers have guns. Someone'll get shot anyway. Though I don't think I agree with teachers having guns; we used to be pretty stressful when we were in school...

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    28. Re:How comforting by fbsderr0r · · Score: 1

      Well, then we shouldn't try to get rid of the death penalty,
      it may be a slow process to thin down the population, but
      compared to someone never getting out until they die....
      people may think this is a troll, but should we really keep
      killers like John Wayne Gacy and Geoffrey Dahmer around
      so they can have a chance of rejoining society.

    29. Re:How comforting by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Wow, a 100% correct statement supporting people's freedom, yet Soviet Slashdot hasn't modded you down yet? How long will you last?

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    30. Re:How comforting by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "went up by 68%" wtf, went down by 68%. At least I cited my source so it can correct me.

    31. Re:How comforting by nametaken · · Score: 1


      No, but 100% of murderers who've gotten the death penalty have never murdered again.

  139. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1
    OSS and Linux zealots scream the advantages of using that kind of software
    Ummmm no. Perhaps you should go back and read catb again. And try to understand it this time. <gross oversimplification>It claims the superiority of software developed by many people all doing a small part </>, which is pretty much the opposite of relying so heavily on a single person.
    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  140. SUSE dev proposes ext3 as default fs over reiserfs by szap · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just a SUSE developer's (Jeff Mahoney from SUSE Labs) opinion and suggestion. http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-dit ching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/

    Note that it's not "dropping support for reiserfs", it's "not using reiserfs as default". You're still free to use ext3/reiserfs/xfs if you know they perform well for your workload.

  141. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 1

    Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?

    Not that I'm saying he's guilty, but for the sake of argument, suppose he is: Are software projects that rely so heavily on an unethical mind to be trusted for widespread use? Isn't that part of the common argument around here against Microsoft, for instance?

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
  142. I'm going back... by koafc · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...to ext3 until this is all resolved.

  143. Re:You ain't seen flighty yet... by genooma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are all going to hell, everyone who posted in this thread is going straight to hell, and also I will for laughing so fucking hard.

  144. Re:Boycott VA Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh noes!!!!

  145. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by LindseyJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    In fact, it's probably a bad idea to tell your CEO that his filesystems are FAT. You may lose your job.

  146. That's an outdated notion by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

    You used to be presumed innocent till proven guilty. Since the Bush administration came to power, you're presumed whatever the government says you are till you're granted the ability to prove otherwise or they change their mind about you.

    At least they don't consider him an "enemy combatant." Since they're making up legal statuses for people, and don't so much have to give the habeas corpus to foriegners (including permanent residents), you're more or less screwed if they take a dislike to you.

    And, yeah, in case you're wondering, we're starting the slow slide towards fascism.

  147. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The problem is two fold. First, inclusion in the kernel doesn't mean you don't have to maintain it. Note that Suse who has paid for Reiserfs 3 has decided to dump it as the default in the next version of Opensuse in part because it has pretty much been abandoned by Hans. This is an issues that has been discussed a lot, Linus and his team don't just want to collect dead pieces of code and carry them for you and it does actually increase the amount of work for them to do certain things. That doesn't do rfs4 a lot of favors in terms of being accepted.


    The other thing is there are some incompatibilities with the rest of the kernel architecture that haven't been fixed and the discussion always ends up with people trying to explain to Hans what has to happen and change and Hans bitching about politics and showing some benchmarks or something. It's almost an ideal example of the process of getting code in to the kernel, show the code, respond to the requests to fix it and answer questions with something other than a benchmark. In the Reiserfs3 days the same thing happened, people asked questions about reliability and the answer almost always came with some kind of number showing that rfs3 could delete a directory of 1million files faster than ext2 could. Benchmarks are nice but they aren't reliability. In some sick way I can understand the desire to respond to an unwanted request with numbers but it doesn't cut it and you can't just snow Alan Cox, Andrew Morton and the others. They are really fscking sharp, probably sharper than you are if you can't answer their questions.


    I see a couple things happening, rfs4 might be picked up by some people, there is some vocal interest in it and it's always possible, Novell/Suse is throwing their weight behind ocfs2. Ext4 is underway and looks to be the next main filesystem for the masses, Redhat is putting their cart behind this horse. The other thing is more people seem to be getting involved with XFS which is already very well supported and can scale as much as we appear to need for any time forseeable. I'm not sure what SGI is doing with it anymore but other people are looking at the code and doing things with it which is a good sign. I'm not sure who will pick up rfs4, it's possible namesys could continue and it's always possible that Hans won't be charged with anything, will be freed and might keep it going; he's certainly a volatile chap though and I'm not sure he's done himself a lot of favors with the things he's said to the media so far.

  148. you watch too much TV... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Even the OJ trial doesn't represent what really happens in courtrooms.

    Go sit in on a real trial sometime.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  149. Actually no by porkThreeWays · · Score: 1

    In many law enforcement officers eyes, if they think you are guilty you are guilty. It's sad, but true. They'll chase down evidence and witnesses and whatever they need to support their case.

    Real police departments aren't like the ones you see on CSI and Law & Order. Mistakes happen constantly. Most don't have scientists or real foresincs experts (actually I have yet to see a real scientist in a police department). They just have a couple people who went to a class to learn to operate the DNA and fingerprint machines. Some reports say that up to 25% of people operating these machines aren't properly trained and have wrongly put away people. Juries think that DNA evidence means you did it, when it could really mean the lab tech doesn't know what they are doing. Things are ignored and swept under the rug all the time. Lie detectors are way overused. Fake confessions due to pressure. Lying and decieving tricks in the interrogations. BTW, for those that don't know, detectives can flat out lie to you to get a confession. They can tell you they've got evidence to put you away for life and it won't be so bad if you confess. Most cops keep tape recorders in their cars and will even try to get you to say something incriminating on the ride back.

    With all that going on, you have to wonder the validity of "innocent until proven guilty". Hans could have done it, but I refuse to form an opinion until some concrete evidence comes out. And even then you won't really know.

    --
    If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
    1. Re:Actually no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit. I saw an episode of Cold Case Files that just left me speechless. A young girl was murdered in her bed while the whole family was sleeping. The police tried their damnedest to pin it on the brother and his friends. They showed the police interrogation video... One word: wow. They badgered this kid till he didn't know up from down and convinced him to believe everything they told him that he did.

      So, the defendent's attorney digs into the case farther and all this evidence points to this disturbed transient who was hanging around the area earlier that day. They've got the girl's blood on his shirt, DNA evidence, the works. But the cops never persued that avenue. So presented with this evidence that's damaging to their case, the DA drops the case against the brother, but doesn't bother trying to get the guy who really did it. Nobody would do anything. Talk about the cops trying to cover up their fuck up with whitewash..

      Anyhow, it all ended good, they finally got a cop who took the case and saw it through to prosecuting the psycho who did it, but it took the intervention of the State in order to do it since the local authorities would just drag their feet all over it.

    2. Re:Actually no by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Lie detectors are way overused.

      And meaningless. There's a reason they're inadmissible: no scientific credibility at all. (And yet the FBI still uses them to screen applicants, amazing).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    3. Re:Actually no by jcr · · Score: 1

      Lie detectors are way overused.

      Call it a polygraph, please. "lie detector" is just wishful thinking.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  150. zomg by WindowLicker916 · · Score: 1

    Wow, good thing I read slashdot. I work for a Satellite TV company and I had a service call on the same block as this guys home....and the damn road had crime scene tape up and I couldn't get to my job! Well now I know what was up. 3 slashdot

    1. Re:zomg by WindowLicker916 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know...for someone that is so well known...it's not really that nice of a neighborhood he is in. Surprising.

    2. Re:zomg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thornhill Drive in the Oakland hills looks pretty nice to me...

    3. Re:zomg by cunina · · Score: 1

      I live in Piedmont, very nearby. Thornhill is quite a nice place to live.

    4. Re:zomg by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      You know...for someone that is so well known...it's not really that nice of a neighborhood he is in. Surprising.

            What's surprising about it? He's well known because people use his software, but how much did they pay for it?

        rd

  151. Remember folks by chaos-five · · Score: 2, Funny

    Filesystems don't kill people...people kill people.

  152. Priorities... by dvicci · · Score: 1

    "While the disappearance (and possible murder) of his wife is tragic, Linux users will wonder where this will leave Reiser 4."

    That sentence really bothers me. It should read "While Linux users will wonder where this will leave Reiser 4, the disappearance (and possible murder) of his wife is tragic."

    Come on, people.

    --
    ] D
  153. Explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    capital punishment is always wrong

    Always? Explain how warehousing a worthless lump of living flesh is good for anything?

    Granted you have a couple of hurdles to overcome; a) how bad is bad enough, and b) are you sure you have the right guy for case "a"? But the parent has already stipulated this to be the case.

    Do you really think societies money is better spent to keep such a person behind bars than to spend it in more productive ways?

    1. Re:Explain... by mccoma · · Score: 1
      Do you really think societies money is better spent to keep such a person behind bars than to spend it in more productive ways?

      I have no moral problem with capital punishment, but (due to court costs and such) it is actually cheaper to keep them in jail for the rest of the criminal's life then to kill them. I seem to remember the cost of keeping someone in jail for a year is less than $30k. On the other hand, it is several million $ to get through the appeals process. (I need to find the $ reference, it is a couple of years old).

      The problem is most of us assume that if they aren't executed, then they get a life sentence that really isn't.

    2. Re:Explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is interesting.

      If 'Worthless' humans beings ar able to be disposed of so easily perhaps we can get rid of the some mentally handicapped people too? Or at least some homeless non-productive people?

      Or maybe it's the money issue? No, it can't be that. A country that spends so much on an unwinnable war each day, is not going to concerned with the small cost of killing a single person surely?

      As you mentioned, one has to be sure. It has been shown time and time again, that 'sure' is not always 'sure enough'.

    3. Re:Explain... by malilo · · Score: 1

      I know I'll get yelled at for not citing sources, but I'm sure (with all the legal expenses attending appeals upon appeals), a death sentence costs the taxpayer more than life in prison.

      --
      "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
    4. Re:Explain... by e4g4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My problem with capital punishment is that it implies 100% faith in the system. For a government based on checks and balances (i.e. the lack of 100% faith in the system) this seems contradictory to me.

      Do you really think societies money is better spent to keep such a person behind bars than to spend it in more productive ways?

      It costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for life...just keep that in mind.

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Explain... by stinkytoe · · Score: 1
      My problem with capital punishment is that it implies 100% faith in the system.

      This is somewhat similar to my opinion on Capital Punishment. I really don't have a moral objection to executing individuals who have both engaged in premeditated murder, and who also have shown no remorse (i.e. will quite likely kill again). Not as a deterrant, or as a token of justice, but simply because they have made society choose between the individuals' safety and everyone elses.

      That being said, I am not sure if the state should weild that right. Too much possibility of the state executing someone who simply committed a crime of passion, or an act of self defense, or to be totally innocent in the first place, etc....

      I honestly don't remember the name of it, but there was a documentary on this very subject something like 5 years ago. Maybe the slashdot groupthink can remember. They basically investigated a bunch of death row inmates in TX and CA, and followed their cases. It really changed my mind on this subject, rare thing for a video documentary.

  154. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1

    Considering the huge amount of code and media we find in computers these days I'll bet anything that if it was possible to audit the provenance of anyone computer we could easily find programs/content produced by pedophiles, murderers, scammers and even RIAA lawyers. Is that a reason to throw the computer to the garbage? I think that corporations would only throw away the code if it become and issue popular in the media, otherwise just changing the name of the project will be enough for any company.

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  155. Re:Unbelievable - burning the sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reply to sig Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me...
    I'm using aersol hairspray all I can and I don't even have hair.
    Hah, that will teach you!

  156. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by HiThere · · Score: 1

    IF it gets accepted into the kernel. Will it though?

    There may be a better chance now than before. (I don't follow it, so this is wild speculation.) Sometimes the original developer is so possessive and difficult to work with that once his project reaches a certain stage it is more likely to be accepted if he ceases his involvement with it.

    OTOH, I haven't used the Reisser file system since ext3 was released, so I don't follow it. I might have already been accepted and I wouldn't know. (OTOH, I remember SOME project recently where the people who needed to accept the code into the kernel? just refused to work with the developer. For some reason I associate this with Reisser.)

    Note that FOSS code doesn't require any particular group to support it. If enough people like the Reisser file system, they can maintain it/have it maintained even without support from the kernel maintainers. Whether this happens may be as much a function of social networking as technical competence, however.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  157. Implications for ReiserFS by setuid_w00t · · Score: 2, Funny

    ReiserFS will now be known as the killer app for Linux.

  158. Re: ahem ... evidence ? Is that required ? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Well, they are divorced and if she has a boyfriend then its very likely that she has moved on. We can't really tell anything about their post-divorce relationship other than they shuttle the kids back and forth, for all we can tell from the website the custody thing might as well be a court ordered result of a bitter divorce.

    So, it is quite easy to imagine a situation where their current relationship status means Hans just doesn't merit mentioning.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  159. And what of kidnappers? by ChePibe · · Score: 1

    Does pulling a kidnapper off the street, depriving him or her of freedom, and locking this individual up in jail make the state "just as bad" as a kidnapper?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    There are lots of good arguments against capital punishment. This isn't really one of them.

  160. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by broody · · Score: 1

    ...a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not.

    How many executives do you know?

    It will be a very rare executive will be able to indentify linux flavors. Very few follow open source file systems and their creator's private lives. This is a geek issue, not a business issue.

    --
    ~~ What's stopping you?
  161. How they caught him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They looked in his journal.

    Thankyou, I'll be here all week, try the veal.

  162. I may not know him personally... by Arceliar · · Score: 1

    but from what I've heard, Hans is a killer coder---but not THAT kind of killer coder.

    No matther what happens, I'm sure reiserfs will go on as it would have before, though it'll be nearly crippled in the short term till things get reorganized. But that's not what's important right now. Many of the people reading this article likely owe at least a little respect to Hans (I'm looking at you, ubuntu users. His FS is the default) and should be doing what they can to help Hans out. Let's face it, the justice system in this country always blames the husband when a wife goes missing or is killed or something. That or an anonymous african american male, but let's not get into that arugment. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? Blaming the husband, especially a would-be ex-husband, is usually an easy way out, and if that is what actually happened then I really hope we see some conclusive proof of it, but let's please not try and turn this into another one of those court cases where regardless of the evidence, the population at large (that's aware of the case) goes into it pointing fingers and really wanting nothing more than a good show.

    Hans deserves better than that.

    1. Re:I may not know him personally... by Dan+Farina · · Score: 1

      It is? News to me. I believe you are incorrect: ext3 is indeed the default filesystem.

  163. Linux is for murderers by Monsuco · · Score: 1

    Now in addition to calling linux a cancer and anticommercial, MS can say it is a murder weapon.

    1. Re:Linux is for murderers by buckysphere · · Score: 1

      Linux definitely is not a murder weapon. If that were true, I would have been in prison quite a while ago...and then out again, would have written a book or two...would have been on Oprah (figuratively...puke!)...and would be rich right about now. But to say that Linux isn't anti-commercial and/or anti-capatalist is just incorrect. It is clearly both of those. Those who choose to be idealists of any sort must also be honest about their ideals or they look pretty stupid, unfortunately.

  164. Doesn't there have to be evidence of murder first? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    They arrested him for murder, notified the press, but they don't actually have a body?

    So if they are wrong, what does Reiser get? Does he get to ask for compensation equal to the projected value of the remainder of his career, which this defamation, it could (and should) be argued, has already ruined?

    That's presuming he is innocent of course. Which, of course, the law in his country requires the state to presume.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  165. Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "On the contrary, far from being crass, the fate of ReiserFS is the only part of this sorry subject that merits discussion on Slashot. "

    Does it? Here's the Cliff Notes version. ReiserFS is released under GPL. The "hit by a bus" fallacy has been debunked. The community (and code) carries on. Anything else is "lurid".

    ---
    "It's been 10 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"...for an AC.

    "Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment."...unless you're logged in. But I guess people will believe anything.

    1. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      The "hit by a bus" fallacy has been debunked.

      What about his ideas in his head for the future of Reiserfs? Or those GPL'ed too? Or are they doomed to be locked away forever (or for so many years that it won't matter) along with his body in prison?

    2. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by darkonc · · Score: 1
      Even though RieserFS is under GPL, he still lead(s) the team that has done most of the development. Having him in jail is, at the very least, going to be somewhat disruptive to the current development of ReiserFS, and at worst, going to put a really big kink in the future development and stability of the filesystem.

      Happily, the GPL-ness of the code means that further development can't be fataly pinned by lawyers and accountants for his estate (should he be executed), but to say that the GPL makes him irrelevant is also a falacy.

      Does it? Here's the Cliff Notes version. ReiserFS is released under GPL. The "hit by a bus" fallacy has been debunked.
      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    3. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by LittleBigLui · · Score: 4, Funny
      Having him in jail is, at the very least, going to be somewhat disruptive to the current development of ReiserFS, and at worst, going to put a really big kink in the future development and stability of the filesystem.


      If he is found guilty, the name of the filesystem will have to be changed, too. Otherwise it will fall into obscurity along with MansonFS, OswaldFS and the great-but-forgotten object-based, journalling OJSimpsonFS.
      --
      Free as in mason.
    4. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

      DalmerOS failed to gain ground due to unwanted eating of data.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      you've forgotten CheneyFS

    6. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by hey · · Score: 1

      We could rename it to the NinaReiserFS (his wife).
      Or just NinaFS sounds good to me.

    7. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Anne+Honime · · Score: 1

      I don't want a FS where some inodes are unlinked on a random and concealed basis.

    8. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      Yep, that one has "in-your-face" performance.

      --
      Free as in mason.
    9. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      That was the anti-journaling OJFs, journaling is where you leave a trace of where you have been, and what you did.

    10. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      OMG NinjaFS!!!11!!

      (or, even better, SlowDownCowboyFS. And for all your "bigger" files, SlowDownCowboyNealFS).

      --
      Free as in mason.
    11. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that was probably meant as a joke, but if he still loved his wife/exwife, that would be pretty sweet. Of course, even if he is innocent, it sounds like they unfortunately had some real problems.

    12. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OJSimpsonFS was great, but for one flaw:

      It couldn't fit files as big as /bin/finger...

    13. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    14. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      If he is found guilty, the name of the filesystem will have to be changed, too. Otherwise it will fall into obscurity along with MansonFS, OswaldFS and the great-but-forgotten object-based, journalling OJSimpsonFS.

      At least that FS won't have any trouble with un-freed blocks

    15. Re:Unbelievable-Hit by a bus. by JabberWokky · · Score: 1
      The same thing happened much earlier in the history of Unix. There was a great filesystem called DonnerFS: it ran great at AT&T, but was lost when Berkley tried to rewrite it. The BSD version kept eating not only data, but it's own inodes. Pretty bad... it just never survived the trip to the west coast.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  166. Possibly relevant Hans Reiser mail list post by quinnharris · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=1095355 06122706&w=2

    Hans Reiser:

    Well, I am going to try being honest and see what happens.

    I am more than 170k in debt, and Namesys is doing badly fiscally. A
    technical great success being stabilized now, but then there is my
    ongoing fiscal disaster. Once again, we are missing payroll. My wife
    is divorcing me in part because I keep going deeper into debt, and I
    thank her for divorcing me now rather than later. Unfortunately she is
    making the divorce messy enough to keep me from pulling Namesys out of
    the fiscal tailspin by consuming all my time with things like proving I
    am not making the fantastic amounts of money she claims I am. I hope
    next month is better."

    Others
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=1083531 78128079&w=2
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=9842467 5720520&w=2

  167. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Myrcutio · · Score: 1

    Actually, its possible that this could be good for publicity, in a roundabout sort of way. I regret to say i'm not much of a linux user, so i had never heard of ReiserFS before. But since he was accused of murdering his wife, it showed up in the headlines, and it piqued my interest as to why it was of so much consequence. No publicity is bad publicity as they say.

  168. Jail vs. Punishment by 5of0 · · Score: 0
    Generally speaking, getting to do something you like to do anyway isn't part of punishment.

    You have stated one of the fundamental problems with the jail system in the US - the attitude of "heaven forbid that prisoners should be uncomfortable in jail." It would depend on where the hypothetical criminal hypothetically gets sent, but I wouldn't be surprised if inmates had internet/computer access. There's a difference between how things should happen, and how they do.
    --
    You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
    1. Re:Jail vs. Punishment by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Actually if you watch Oz you might notice in a few episodes that they have access to computers and even internet (which they even use to browse for porn). Considered how Oz wants to be realistic, I guess you really can have access to internet in jail.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  169. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by scotty · · Score: 1

    It is not about the business people. It is about ReiserFS being tainted amongst the moral-conscious geeks. They'll stop implementing ReiserFS in their Linux boxes because it is closely related to an accused murderer.

    After all, open source/free software is an ideology to some. They will not use a piece of software that limits one's freedom, nor will they used a piece of software created by someone who has severely limited another person's freedom, i.e. murder.

  170. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by mccoma · · Score: 1
    So, if I build up enough good "karma", I should be able to get off on a heinous act? What about the potential of the person who was killed?

  171. Innocent unless proven guilty by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why does everyone forget this cornerstone of the legal system, an accused person is innocent unless proven guilty. It is very easy to accuse someone of something bad, but the accusation alone causes a lot of damage to reputation.

    This doesn't change what I think of Hans Reiser at all. If he's convicted of murder, that's different, but nothing like that has happened. A husband is a natural suspect in such a case. I hope that his wife is OK, but I have no reason to believe that Hans is responsible.

    When I was in highschool, our principal was accused of sexual misconduct due to some activities that allegedly took place with a student. This shocking accusation made the news, and all the parents were horrified. But very few people went to the actual trial, and when the man was acquitted it did not make the news. Give everyone their chance and let the legal system do its job.

    1. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by trifish · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why in the UK the media are forbidden to inform about any person or case until his or her trial ends with the verdict of "guilty".

      All civilised countries should adopt such laws quickly. I myself live in the EU, but not in the UK, and would love the EU to require all member countries to adopt such law.

    2. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Seems to me to be a too harsh limitation on freedom of press and freedom of speech.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    3. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by trifish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems to me to be a too harsh limitation on freedom of press and freedom of speech.

      It does, until you are (for example) falsely accused of a serious crime and you make into the press and on TV. Nobody will care if the jury finds you not guilty. You have been seen on TV as the murderer, rapist, you name it. Your life is ruined. Game over man.

    4. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by east+coast · · Score: 1

      When I was in highschool, our principal was accused of sexual misconduct due to some activities that allegedly took place with a student. This shocking accusation made the news, and all the parents were horrified. But very few people went to the actual trial, and when the man was acquitted it did not make the news.

      I'm glad you've brought this up. This is a serious problem with today's media... being accused of anything means little. I wish they'd feel the need to protect the alleged criminal's identity as much as they do the victim's. It has to be a real raw deal for the likes of Kobe Bryant (sp?) who now has to wear the tag of "rapist" for the rest of his life regardless of the fact that he wasn't guilty. Just the fact that his face and name were associated with the crime with no conviction means something is going wrong somewhere.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by quisph · · Score: 1
      Why does everyone forget this cornerstone of the legal system, an accused person is innocent unless proven guilty.

      Slashdot is not the legal system. We can declare him guilty, or not guilty, any time we feel like it. Of course, we don't actually have the power to do anything about it, so you can relax; his rights are still protected.

      Give everyone their chance and let the legal system do its job.

      Who's stopping it? We couldn't if we tried.

    6. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why in the UK the media are forbidden to inform about any person or case until his or her trial ends with the verdict of "guilty".

      Well, when the suspect runs a well-known company, which has to deal with calls from customers, it's a little bit difficult to pretend the guy isn't in jail.

    7. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everyone forget this cornerstone of the legal system, an accused person is innocent unless proven guilty. It is very easy to accuse someone of something bad, but the accusation alone causes a lot of damage to reputation.

      It also makes someone unemployable. Reiser was arrested on a felony charge, so if he ever has to fill out an application to work he'll have to check "yes" on the box asking if he was arrested or charged, making his resume hit the trash heap quick.

      I hope that a) he didn't do it, and b) his technical reputation remains strong enough that he can get a job without going through the official HR hiring process.

    8. Re:Innocent unless proven guilty by trifish · · Score: 1

      They can tell the customers a myriad of reasons why he's not avaliable. He may be ill or whatever. However, AFAIK the restriction applies only to mass media not to "ordinary" entities.

  172. Not using Reiserfs if... by novafire · · Score: 1

    he is proven guilty that he killed his wife.

    Reiserfs ain't THAT good.

    I can deal with anything else basically.

    That all being said, maybe I am just out of it, but I had not heard of her even being dead. On slashdot and other internet sites you would think it would be better news.

    1. Re:Not using Reiserfs if... by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Why not? (Genuine question)

    2. Re:Not using Reiserfs if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generic answer - Who would want to use anything murderman criminalmind has created?

  173. SUSE switching to ext3 in 10.2 by nigham · · Score: 1
    --
    I don't want to read /. I want to go home and re-think my life.
  174. Interesting perception of what murder is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't consider killing someone found guilty of killing another human being murder. I've long considered murder as the killing of an innocent - the unwarranted and unlawful killing of another.

    You might disagree with me on this definition, but I frankly have little problem with the state executing murders. And you might think that murderers can be rehabilitated, and I'm sure that some very well may be able to be rehabilitated. Unfortunately, just because a murderer can be a "productive member of society" (I guess killing someone was productive) doesn't mean they should be. I don't trust murderers to be members of my community - if you can't figure out that making the ultimate bad choice is bad before you do it, I'm not convinced you'll be any better off making the right decision a second time.

  175. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by LordLucless · · Score: 1

    So how is that different from a small company that sells filesystems? If the company goes belly-up, not only do you lose support, but if the code is proprietary, you lose the possibility of there ever being anyone else able to support it. There are no guarantees when it comes to dealing with companies, any more than there are when you're dealing with people. People can die at any time, and companies can close down at any time.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  176. Find Nina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aforementioned website here

    1. Re:Find Nina by kabloom · · Score: 1

      Linux developers everywhere will start searching, so that they can present her alive to police so Hans can get on with his life.

  177. Re:Boycott VA Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will be missed....

  178. Hmph by retro128 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently Reiser not only deletes files, but wives, too.

    --
    -R
  179. Look on the bright side by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    He may now have a full 24 hours a day to dedicate to releasing the next version of ReiserFS ;) Well, maybe 23, you've gotta spend a little time "dropping the soap".

  180. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've ext3fs on my Linux, but if I had ReiserFS, I can guarantee it wouldn't affect me whatsoever. Anyone who equates an invention with someone's unrelated deed is a retard (anyone wanna Godwin this with reference to the Autobahn? Go ahead, I don't give a shit). And besides, he hasn't even been found guilty. Get off your high horses, people.

  181. Hans just doesn't merit mentioning? by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    He's the one accused of murdering her! Without there even being a body or obvious evidence she's dead! (Or at least not that we've been told)
    Also, I can't imagine that all of her friends were made only after the divorce. Surely some people knew them both.
    If they don't want to support him at least until there's real evidence otherwise... bah! That's heartless.

  182. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Error27 · · Score: 1

    Mostly people use fan vs foe to give automatic +5 ratings to comments. It's not a character judgement.

  183. Unbelievable-Hit by an idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What about his ideas in his head for the future of Reiserfs? Or those GPL'ed too? Or are they doomed to be locked away forever (or for so many years that it won't matter) along with his body in prison?"

    Read a slashdot patent or copyright story sometime. According to the comments you can't lock ideas away. Apparently we're so overflowing with them.* People keep tripping over them (the "obviously" patented ones anyway). Now if you'll excuse me, I have some tapiers to light.

    *To the point that "artists" are supliferous. Knee deep in good ideas, I tell ya. Shame someone else has the money to make something of it.

  184. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by goldspider · · Score: 1

    Since when do reputable software vendors just drop support for their product out of the blue without any notice or suitable upgrade/replacement?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  185. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by kithrup · · Score: 1

    If Hans Reiser were less well-known -- or were involved in a non-Linux project -- maybe the story would have made Slashdot when his wife first disappeared, rather than when he was arrested for her murder.

    (Obvious disclaimer here: I still hope she's alive and all right; I hope he wasn't involved in anything nefarious; and I hope everything works out for the best as soon as possible, and the children do not end up traumatized.)

  186. Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a person who helped Hans Reiser get some sponsorship in his early days and an early adopter of his filesystem in major corporate use I never would have expected something like this. It's a disaster for him but there isn't much we can do about it at this point aside from debate his innocence based on zero information. So what about Linux? Even if he turns out to be innocent (and I hope he is) the name is tarnished and the filesystem will probably languish. I was expecting reiserfs4 to be an important part of the future of Linux and Free Software's answer to WinFS. Now what will we do? We all know it takes ages, years even, to design, implement, and test a filesystem. XFS, JFS, ext3, etc. are nothing like reiser4 and lack it's capabilities. WinFS will someday be ready and will someday ship. And with this setback for Free Software the proprietary world has a huge head start over us.

    This is certainly a disaster for everyone involved. :(

    1. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by kubrick · · Score: 1

      there isn't much we can do about it at this point aside from debate his innocence based on zero information

      This is Slashdot, that's never stopped us before.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    2. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      There always is ZFS, the GPL guys just have to figure out whether they can link to CDDL code or not... There is not too much in Reiser4 which ZFS does not have implemented but vice versa there is a lot which Reiser4 still does not have.

    3. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by Lost+Found · · Score: 1

      ...except for the fact that Reiser 4 is a good deal faster than ZFS.

    4. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by dodongo · · Score: 1
      This is Slashdot, that's never stopped us before.


      Fair point, but it's still the case that for most crimes in the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. Unless the "Presniz" decides you're a "tarist", then may God have mercy on your soul, because they'll torture you're sorry ass til you're proven innocent. Or longer.
    5. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by TheSacrificialFly · · Score: 1

      WinFS isn't shipping. Ever. The project has been completely cancelled, you may see some minor tech bubble up to SQL Server but that's it.

    6. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by sowth · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what all the doom and gloom is about. Even if Reiser is convicted, it won't destroy open source. I seriously doubt it will even destroy the reiserfs project or even change its name. Do you think the judge will somehow make his code illegal?

      Anyone can take over the project, and since it is obviously very popular, undoubtedly there will be plenty of smart people who want to take it over. Maybe there will be a few forks, but as open source has shown, competition is a good thing. You get to choose the best one.

      It is nice to have the fantasy of people being untouchable supercoders and leaders, however the reality is: just about everyone is going to be replaceable, even Linus Torvalds. There may be some geniuses who may need several people to replace them, but they are still replaceable.

      If Hans or his wife was your personal friend or parent or whatever, then my condolences, no matter how this turns out, you are probably going through a rough time. However, if you are just worried about the project, then don't worry, there is no reason to do so.

    7. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by cheshire_cqx · · Score: 1

      This is certainly a disaster for everyone involved. :(

      Especially for Nina and the children who survive her.

      After reading excerpts from the court case, it certainly seems Mr. Reiser was making very hyperbolic accusations (adultery, bondage, drugged by ecstacy, and so on).

      Also, you left out ZFS.

    8. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what all the doom and gloom is about. Even if Reiser is convicted, it won't destroy open source. I seriously doubt it will even destroy the reiserfs project or even change its name. Do you think the judge will somehow make his code illegal?


      The doom and gloom is that reiserfs was a project coded mostly by paid coders in Russia and Hans himself with few other contributors. It is open source in license but not much else.

      The other problem is the negative publicity this gets reiserfs. After this I will never again be able to mention reiserfs without hearing comments about murderers. Whether he did it or not won't matter. Every time reiserfs comes up this incident will be mentioned.


      Anyone can take over the project, and since it is obviously very popular, undoubtedly there will be plenty of smart people who want to take it over. Maybe there will be a few forks, but as open source has shown, competition is a good thing. You get to choose the best one.


      Not just anyone can take over the project. Reiserfs is a very complicated codebase and he made some controversial design decisions. It has had a hard time getting into the kernel.


      It is nice to have the fantasy of people being untouchable supercoders and leaders, however the reality is: just about everyone is going to be replaceable, even Linus Torvalds. There may be some geniuses who may need several people to replace them, but they are still replaceable.


      Knowledge in someones head is extremely difficult to replace. Linus would be more easily replaceable in the context of the Linux kernel than Hans in the context of reiserfs because there are a lot more independent people contributing to the kernel who understand it. Not many outside the project contribute to reiserfs. The vast majority of the work seems to come from the paid Russian coders. Hopefully SuSe will step in and support it instead of dump it. It seems like they will have to do either one or the other. Time will tell...

      Oops...just ran across this:
      http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-dit ching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/

      It seems SuSe isn't too happy with reiserfs technology anymore and I'm sure this event won't help. So we can probably count them out. Looks like Linspire is their next biggest sponsor. Think they will step up to the plate?

      There has been a discussion on the reiserfs mailing list about this also but either I was just banned from it for talking about the code instead of talking about the kids (isn't political correctness a drag?) or they have shut down the list:

      : host mx.comstar.ru[83.242.139.27] said: 554
              : Client host
              rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)

    9. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by sowth · · Score: 1

      So you are saying Reiserfs has an unmaintainable codebase? Then you point to a Suse story where it basicly says reiserfs sucks (did when I tried it a few years ago), and suse may have kept it, but Mr Reiser refuses to update version 3. Well, now maybe suse will fork version 3. Though this convinces me even more that maybe it should just be trashed. There are plenty of other filesystems out there, and ext2/3 are good enough for many uses. It sucks to lose lots of work, but it happens all the time.

      About the mailing list, sounds like they got emotional. Nothing suprising, as many people do when they are so close to a tragedy. I imagine the other coders will be back in operation after they pull themselves together. They may need a few weeks.

      Same with Mr Reiser if he gets out--this arrest just sounds like standard police procedure. Maybe they will stick a charge to him (reguardless of wether or not he is guilty), but it is hard to say. Then again, his wife may just show up, or they'll find her body and discover someone else did it.

      I suppose it is possible they will drop their work, but as long as someone is there to pay them, I'm sure they'll stay with it. This news may have slowed the development, but I'm not so sure this project will fall apart. This event hasn't made it much more likely, though it did sound like it was having some trouble before, but Theo de Raat (sp?) is an asshole too, and OpenBSD is still going strong.

      If your job somehow depends upon this project, believe me, you will find a way to make it work. I certainly don't see the drivers falling apart and not working on updated kernels any time soon. Even if no one maintains it. At the very least, you will have plenty of warning in case you need to switch filesystems.

    10. Re:Didn't see this coming...what now for Linux? by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it is unmaintainable just that nobody may choose to maintain it. Also the mailing list may actually be working. It seems my MTA was picking the lower priority MX which apparently isn't properly configured to accept mail for that domain or something. And finally, as for my company we will probably just migrate off of reiserfs during our upcoming move to a Xen based architecture/server consolidation.

  187. Presuming guilt??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Admit that the filesystem will play a more important role in your life than the death of a stranger. No probs, there. Argue that the filesystem is important enough that you'll try to buy (presuming guilt, here) his ability to escape justice for that end? That's quite a bit more morally unsound.
    Presuming guilt? Methinks you need to brush up on the way that the American system of justice works. If Mr. Reiser is guilty, then I am confident that he will be found as such by a jury of his peers. Until that happens, he is (by definition) presumed innocent, and is entitled to a competent defense. If I can help provide him with that defense (as a repayment for his wonderful filesystem, if nothing else) then what in the world is wrong with that?
  188. No way by ryanhos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A person like Hans, who has the intelligence and persistence (no pun intended) to put together a complicated and successful OSS project is smart enough to know that there's no way in hell he's going to get away with murdering his wife with whom he is waging a custody battle. He is immediately flagged as the prime suspect. If he had time to plan, he had time to come to this realization. Ergo, he did not premeditate this murder. If it were a crime of passion, the cops would have a much better case against Hans already as he would have made more mistakes and left behind more evidence. Ergo, he did not commit this crime on a whim. No premediation, no crime of passion, not guilty.

    --
    "I threw up my hands in disgust and wondered if it had been such a good idea to have eaten my hands in the first place."
    1. Re:No way by bangenge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just playing devil's advocate here dude, but what if he planned it out meticulously, to the point that he gets away clean? I'm not saying he's guilty, but stress (accdg to your post, he is in a custody battle) can do really weird stuff to people. I think it's only fair to tag him as a SUSPECT, but not tag him as GUILTY.

      I'm almost speachless on this.

      --
      . o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
    2. Re:No way by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      A person .. who has the intelligence and persistence (no pun intended) to put together a complicated and successful OSS project is smart enough to know that there's no way in hell he's going to get away with murdering his wife with whom he is waging a custody battle. He is immediately flagged as the prime suspect.

      Such a person might think he has enough intelligence and persistence to "ties up the loose ends" well enough to avoid conviction in spite of being the prime suspect.

      There just might be reasonable doubt, once a jury starts hearing about people who are into "Death Yoga."

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:No way by ryanhos · · Score: 1
      but what if he planned it out meticulously, to the point that he gets away clean?

      That's like saying you've written test cases for every possible usage scenario. Nobody could ever plan a crime to the point at which no loose ends remain. In every crime, there is always an unknown variable: the other person (the person you're killing, stealing from, or injuring).
      --
      "I threw up my hands in disgust and wondered if it had been such a good idea to have eaten my hands in the first place."
    4. Re:No way by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      A person like Hans, who has the intelligence and persistence (no pun intended) to put together a complicated and successful OSS project is smart enough to know that there's no way in hell he's going to get away with murdering his wife with whom he is waging a custody battle.

            I've got a site full of missing women cases that says otherwise.

        rd

      http://www.justiceforchandra.com/

  189. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

    Yeah. For instance, OJ got off because he's famous. To quote Chris Rock, if OJ drove a bus, he'd be Orenthal the bus driving murderer. ACtually, I think prisons should be for rehab where possible and isolation when necessary. This pretty much makes your value to society irrelevant.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  190. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    It wouldn't be the first time that ReiserFS has been under suspicion because data went missing, presumed corrupted.

  191. Oh, boo hoo! by talornin · · Score: 1

    It is so annoying that ever time some quasi famous person who did work that affects other people or had half published books or something gets wacked or arrested or whatnot there is always the nagging, penetrating, insanley annoying keepers of the morale trying to make themselves look good and richeous by pointing out the personal tragedies and making everybody else look curel for not really giving a rats ass about the personal fate of somone they never met or knew but rather beeing conserned about the work they did and what will happen to it now because this actualy has an influnece in their lives.

    Go home naysayers! Shut your pieholes whiners! I dont care about the children or the wife! Worse things happens to people every day! C'est la vie! It is not every day we stand at the brink of loosing such a major contributor and contribution to OSS.

    --
    When in danger, whewn in doubt! Run in circles, scream and shout!
  192. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That it /is/ going to damage reiserfs is beyond any doubt, no matter whether he's proven innocent, not proven guilty, or proven guilty. The name is tainted, and a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not."

    More, please! That is _the_ funniest thing I've read in a while.

    Show me again a suit that knows what sort of filesystem their mail server is running and I'll retract this statement.

    What a stupid comment.

  193. paging Greta Van Susteren . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story has "Greta" written all over it.

    You go Girl!

    Nina . . . the next Lacy Peterson.

  194. Holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess it's ext3 for me from here on out

  195. Sorry... by wolf369T · · Score: 0

    ...but I will not use the filesystem of a murderer (if he's found guilty). It's just sick.

    1. Re:Sorry... by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      First of all, I don't see what the big deal is, who gives a rat fuck if someone murders their batfuck insane wife. Secondly if he is convicted the code wasn't written by a murderer, as when he wrote the code he hadn't commited murder. Thirdly who give a flying fuck who wrote the code as long as it's good.

      Innit.

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  196. interesting difference: by towsonu2003 · · Score: 1
    normal person => did he kill her?

    geek => did they kill "the code"?

    1. Re:interesting difference: by st1d · · Score: 1

      You forgot the rest of the story:

      If yes:
      Normal person=>What, where, when, why?
      Geek=>Oh. Well, who's leading the project now?

      If no:
      Normal person=>Who else might have done it?
      Geek=>That's good, that backlog is really building.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:interesting difference: by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Don't try to be so holier-than-though!

      The reality is:

      Normal person: oh shit, that accident means the 135 is blocked and I'll have to take the detour, and I'll be late, and those guys at work will eat all the donuts before I get to the meeting.

      False person: oh, but don't you feel sorry for the family of the person who was killed in that accident?

      Normal person: um, no.

  197. article on wife's disappearance by Phleg · · Score: 1

    I didn't think to send in this article when I read it about a month ago. Basically, it talks about the disappearence of his wife. This is honestly one of the most fucked up news stories I've ever read -- read on about the part regarding "death yoga". http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_256204954.h tml

    --
    No comment.
    1. Re:article on wife's disappearance by Cytlid · · Score: 1

      If that Zografos fellow was Ninas current boyfriend, and it looked like Sturgeon was out to get Hans (if everything Hans said was true), and at some point Nina broke up with Sturgeon... wouldn't Sturgeon have a motive to kill Nina and make it look like Hans did?

        Makes me wonder what evidence the police found to consider Hans a suspect...

      --
      FLR
  198. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd venture to guess Alan Cox... he was Linus' right hand for years until deciding to take a break from kernel maintenance and development to get his MBA and has since returned.

  199. I won't be reading any mail about this by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 0

    because it will be sent to my kill file.

  200. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    I found the question about the future of ReiserFS absolutely appropriate for a Slashdot article, especially since as another poster pointed out, if it weren't for ReiserFS, this wouldn't be on Slashdot at all.

    Other people seem to disagree, saying it's insensitive to discuss such things. I find that to be an absurd and immature attitude. I think most of the off-color jokes were in response to exactly this: the idea that discussing the future of ReiserFS is inappropriate is so childish, that we'll throw in a similarly-absurd off-color joke, because the discussion has already been lowered to that level.

    When you lose someone close to you, of course you grieve for them, but if there are mundane day-to-day issues that need attention, you deal with them, postponing your grief if necessary. In this case, most of us don't know anything about the Reiser family personally - I'd be surprised if more than a handful here were aware of Nina's disappearance. It's tragic, but no more so than the millions of other tragic deaths that occur each year, unless you had some connection to the family, which we don't.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  201. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by westlake · · Score: 1
    The "you" he spoke of is "plural" and "generic." Not *you* specifically. Technically he should hae said 'one' I suppose, but really - don't be a clueless ass.

    He is speaking in the plural as well. We don't have the time. We don't have the skills. We don't have the money to pay those who do.

  202. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Trogre · · Score: 1

    After reading that article I scrolled back up to the top to find

    "Posted by Hemos on Friday March 24, @09:11AM"

    I, like several before me I'm sure, have found myself asking (in Kyle Reese style) "WHAT YEAR?"

    I managed to work it out from the URL but wouldn't a year field in the timestamp be nice for these archived articles?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  203. Beowulf... Of Doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he was finally done in by the ultimate geek nightmare--- building a beowulf cluster, not even you can control.... And having it turn on you, and frame you for murder. Maybe I shouldn't add that extra node...

  204. big whoopee! by brennz · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who cares about a lil murder? I think his productivity for society far outweighs the negatives of removing one estranged wife that was probably past her 'normal' reproductive period anyways.

    I vote we let him go free, regardless.

    Even if he strikes again, so long as it is some statistic and not me, I could care less.

    Not a sermon, just a thought. lol.

  205. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You realise you can get the year to show up by editing your settings right?

  206. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by annodomini · · Score: 1

    And likewise, if there's only one user, a piece of commercial software will probably stop being maintained pretty quickly. The thing is, for any reasonably widely used piece of software, there are likely to be enough users that they can maintain the code, or pay enough for someone else to maintain it. If it's something like ReiserFS, that is included in major Linux distributions, then part of the money you pay to buy those Linux distributions (if they're commercial ones like Red Hat or SUSE) goes towards maintaining that software. It's not like you have to maintain it yourself. You have that option, sure. You also have the option of single-handedly funding it's maintenance. And other companies have the option of taking over maintenance themselves. The difference between OSS and proprietary software is that you have these options. When a piece of proprietary software is cancelled, there's nothing you can do other than try to fight the bitrot of the old software, or the headache of trying to migrate your data to a new system (if you can even access your data, which may be stored in propriety formats with no export or conversion options). Yes, it will cause problems if Hans Reiser is not able to keep maintaining ReiserFS. However, from what I've heard, his leadership of the project has also caused problems. Maybe someone will fork it now, take control, and actually get Reiser4 to a reasonable degree of quality. Or maybe not. There are lots of other good linux filesystems out there, and maybe the effort will be better spent on them. The key is that with open source, you have all these choices, rather than being forced to do whatever the vendor wants.

  207. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by quantaman · · Score: 1


    Actually no.

    I can not maintain the code.

    Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer. To suggest that I can is as farcical as suggesting that OSS is more secure because many eyes are critiquing the code - when in actual practice very few eyes are involved in most of the code on sourceforge etc.


    Most of the code on sourceforge only matters to a handful of people, and if any of them really need it after the developer(s) quit they can either maintain it themselves or hire someone to (if they really need it they'll make the time).

    For a major project like reiserfs if the lead developer goes than it's important enough that it will be easy to find new maintainers. Of course these new maintainers may not be as good or as familiar with the code (as with any project) and it may cause some delays during the transition but there's no question that reiserfs will continue to exist (even if it does change names).

    --
    I stole this Sig
  208. Reiser accused his wife of bondage & cheating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dispute Over Loan, Accusations Of Affair According to filings in Alameda County Superior Court, a notice of settlement was filed on Hans Reiser's behalf Wednesday to resolve a lawsuit filed against him by Sean Sturgeon on Dec. 30, 2004, seeking $131,552 in damages. The terms of the settlement weren't disclosed. Sturgeon claimed that Reiser and his company, Namesys, Inc., which he ran out of his home, failed to pay back a loan. In a response to the lawsuit that was filed on Feb. 15, 2005, Reiser, acting as his own attorney, said "under no theory of liability is defendant Reiser liable personally for repayment." Reiser alleged that Sturgeon "had been having a secret affair with defendant's wife, Nina Reiser, at the time of the loan." Reiser said Sturgeon "continues this illicit affair even during divorce proceedings currently in action" and that Sturgeon "even apparently is, in defiance of a court order, residing with defendant's wife and children." Reiser also alleged, "It is well known and was well known to plaintiff (Sturgeon) that the majority of the allegedly loaned funds were spent exclusively by Nina Reiser." Reiser said the fact that Sturgeon didn't name Nina Reiser as a defendant and named him as an individual "is clear evidence of his malicious intent to destroy defendant's marriage and leave the defendant to clean up the wreckage and pay the debts." In a cross-complaint that Reiser filed against Sturgeon on Sept. 8, 2005, Reiser said Sturgeon acted as his financial agent from 1999 through 2002 and had access to and control over deposits, withdrawals and funds at the Patelco Credit Union. Reiser said Sturgeon "worked with my wife Nina Reiser and eventually drugged her with ecstasy and seduced her." Reiser alleged, "He then engaged in Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism techniques and continued to redrug her repeatedly over time." He said Sturgeon engaged in those techniques "in an effort to show that he was a better man than I and to convince my wife Nina to conspire with him to steal the Namesys Inc. company assets." Reiser alleged that, "Sean has threatened to have me beaten up by some of his associates in illegal activities and that he would hurt me, my mother or my children if he did not get what he wanted." He also accused Sturgeon of engaging in extortion by threatening to make calls to the Internal Revenue Service to report him and his mother. In addition, Reiser alleged that Sturgeon wrote into a contract that Reiser must participate in "Death Yoga," which he said has the purpose of "slowing down one's heart to the point of death." Sturgeon's attorney, Richard Meier, didn't return a phone call today seeking comment on the case. Reiser's attorney, Gregory Silva, declined to comment.

  209. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 1

    What kind of good karma? If you literally save the world, perhaps the society doesn't have the right to imprison you for a single personal crime, no matter how much people condemn you privately. In more common cases, juries already consider character testimonies to decide on death penalty and judges impose sentences based on prior criminal background. In any case, why should society punish itself by not making use of someone's extraordinary abilities even as that person is being punished?

  210. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
    I've heard from enough managers some conventional wisdom, that if a programmer becomes irreplaceable, fire him/her immediately.
    There is no such thing as irreplaceable.

    There is only "very expensive to replace."

    Whether that expense is in time, money, labor, or all three is besides the point. It can be done, just not cheaply.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  211. Immunity? by pen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't there some kind of immunity for authors of large open source projects?

  212. OJ is innocent by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    Get over it. Yeah, he's black, and his wife was blonde. So what? Why do you care more than any other stupid murder of someone you don't know.

    1. Re:OJ is innocent by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I care because an obviously guilty man walked free. I care because his kids have to life with a murderer. I care because the story was shoved in my face every day for two years.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:OJ is innocent by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Naah, you care because you think a black man got away with killing an attractive white woman.

  213. His lawyer says this... by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    There are several stories that talk about secret evidence, like this one:
    DuBois said that at a hearing in Alameda County Superior Court last week, police officers said they had evidence against Hans Reiser but said they couldn't share their secret information with Reiser or the court

  214. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can not maintain the code.

    I doubt you can tie your own shoes.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  215. Re:Unbelievable - YRO? by sulli · · Score: 1

    Almost as classy as putting it in Your Rights Online. As in .. you have the right to remain silent?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  216. Communist Terrorist by dabrickbat · · Score: 1

    I am waiting for someone to say "See what open source programming does to you?. He must be a communist terrorist."

  217. Oh, and also... by rufusdufus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Another disturbing thing is you'll see in many of these articles that the police claim Reiser was the last one to see his wife. However, the facts of the state that she went shopping after she left his house; her car was found with the groceries she bought. Clearly then, he was not the last person his wife, as the checker at the supermarket obviously interacted with her.
    I dont see how the story works: she drops the kids at his house, she goes shopping, and then..how does he end up killing her? He has the kids with him..at home..she's on the road. When does he have the opportunity to kill her?

    1. Re:Oh, and also... by julesh · · Score: 1

      What they usually mean by this is that he is the last person whose identity is known who saw her. Obviously they should be following up leads at the supermarket trying to find anyone who saw her there, etc.

    2. Re:Oh, and also... by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you just saved me the time of writing a similar comment.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    3. Re:Oh, and also... by neuro88 · · Score: 1

      Well, looks like they arrested two others. Although the police don't really think these other 2 people had anything to do with it. But unless he did have other people helping him, I'm not really sure how he could have murdered her if she had gone shopping after she left his house. Maybe the kids have said something about their father leaving the house for a bit that hasn't been released to the public yet?

      http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/local news/ci_4474339

    4. Re:Oh, and also... by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Another disturbing thing is you'll see in many of these articles that the police claim Reiser was the last one to see his wife. However, the facts of the state that she went shopping after she left his house; her car was found with the groceries she bought. Clearly then, he was not the last person his wife, as the checker at the supermarket obviously interacted with her.
      I dont see how the story works: she drops the kids at his house, she goes shopping, and then..how does he end up killing her? He has the kids with him..at home..she's on the road. When does he have the opportunity to kill her?


            There are cases like this on my site http://www.justiceforchandra.com/ as in, for example, Sue Ann Ray in the Atlanta area. The guy leaves his estranged wife's vehicle somewhere looking like she went shopping after dropping something off at his house, but she in fact had never made it out of his house alive.

            In this case it looks to me like he left the children with his mother at home after she dropped them off and followed his estranged wife to the supermarket and attacked her similar to the murder of college student Dru Sjodin in a mall parking lot in North Dakota.

            Several bags of groceries were found in her minivan, however, I saw no mention of anyone such as a checkout clerk in the store saying they saw her. It could have been after she came out, or he could have bought the groceries to place her at the supermarket, which is the critical piece of making it look like a stranger attacked her in a parking lot, such as for example Tracey Tetso whose car was found in a parking lot in Baltimore.

            In all these cases the women disappear, and the ex ain't talking. Unfortunately, the site is full of them.

        rd

  218. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by SashaMan · · Score: 1

    I actually think the interesting question is to why you assume that this is not the case for proprietary software. They may not admit to it, but there are plenty of companies out there who would be totally screwed (or at least individual projects would be screwed) if their lead developer was hit by a bus.

  219. An entire new meaning by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    This gives an entire new meaning to the term fatal file system error.

  220. Where he hid the body by FreemanPatrickHenry · · Score: 1

    I hear he hid the body in the trees...

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous .sig which, unfortunately, this space is too small to contain.
    1. Re:Where he hid the body by arcanumas · · Score: 1
      I hear he hid the body in the trees...

      Yeah, but they were dancing trees...

      --
      Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
  221. Another classy comment by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    After this, how could ReiserFS not be the default Linux filesystem? I mean, come on, what's the worst that can happen if Linux dumps Ext3?

  222. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by arodland · · Score: 1

    You're assuming that people can actually read Reiser code. It's scary, and it doesn't really conform to Linux conventions. I don't particularly think Hans Reiser cares at all about Linux or its users; it's just a convenient playground for testing his filesystem code, and it comes with a whole bunch of schmucks who will test it for free.

  223. Character witness? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    From my own experiences on lkml and reiserfs-list, I would guess he is innocent.

    Is he an arrogant asshole sometimes? Yes.
    Does he have a bit of a temper? Yes.
    Does he take things personally far too often? Yes.
    Does it surprise me that he's divorced? No.

    I would be surprised (happy, but surprised) if he was still married. But I would be shocked if he killed anyone.

    Shocking things do happen, every day. I have no way of really knowing, but until we know more, I call him innocent.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  224. That's actually the problem by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's actually the problem. Your average PHB indeed doesn't know jack shit about the difference between ReiserFS or FAT, or between Java and Visual Basic. So he'll take that kind of decisions not based on their actual merits, but based on rumours, over-simplified half-truths they half-understood from some IT-for-managers ragazines, fashion, and what the nice MS/IBM/whatever salesman filled their head with during a round of golf.

    I've seen people actually take such stupid decisions as "let's use a single-user database and just copy the database file on the department's file server", in that case MS Visual Fox Pro for a reason as stupid as "Visual Fox Pro is more visual than Java". Once the nice MS salesman showed them some dragging and dropping buttons around (and, as everyone knows, there's nothing else to programming an app than dragging and dropping the buttons on forms), any other considerations like concurrent access, transactions, available tools and libraries, etc, went right over their head.

    So the danger is precisely that at some point a nice salesman shop drops by and goes "whoa, you guys run SuSE? Did you know they paid a convicted murderer to develop their filesystem? Every time you save your powerpoint presentations on that file server, you have an innocent's blood on your hands, not to mention all over your neatly formatted presentation. Now if you upgraded to Vista Super-Professional Snake-Oil Edition, you'd show your support for the Bill and Melinda Gates Charity and be _much_ more fashionable among your peers."

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  225. Depends on the project by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    If it's something with a wider base of interest and multiple contributors than ya it usually can continue on, though perhaps at a much slower pace. However sometimes things do die with their creator, even if OSS, because nobody else has the willingness and/or skill to continue it. If the code is open there's always the ABILITY for someone to pick it up, but that doesn't mean that someone will.

  226. 6900 Exeter?? Holy shit! by eh2o · · Score: 1

    Two years ago I used to live on that block of Exeter drive... no joking!

  227. Smart and Cockey by KidSock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Note that this guy is very smart and very cockey. This isn't Scott Peterson making anchor weights in his garage. The standard interview isn't going to do the trick with this guy. If he did do it I bet he thought of a special way to get rid of the body. And now we have OJ going to LUG meetings. Same deal even if he didn't do it.

    1. Re:Smart and Cockey by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but lot of things indicate if ANYTHING happened involving him, then this must be certainly crime of passion, not of clever planning.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    2. Re:Smart and Cockey by titzandkunt · · Score: 3, Insightful


      "... The standard interview isn't going to do the trick with this guy..."

      I, too, used to think that a smart person, taking the time to consider their responses, could easily confound an interrogator.

      Now I'm not so sure.

      I've changed this opinion, very recently during an ongoing "talking therapy". Although the psychiatrist isn't trying to get me to confess to the execution of a crime or to implicate myself in a criminal matter, she is very interested in getting at the best version of my truth regarding my actions and experiences.

      She's extremely skilled at spotting the inconsistencies, the loose threads, the big gaps in my narrative, what is unsaid, what is paraphrased, what is glossed-over as unimportant... Then by redirecting the discussion, she can home in on what really happened, sometimes resulting in important, sometimes uncomfortable revelations.

      Add in the pressure of a murder charge, the much more oppressive nature of the police interview, the fact that you are (hypothetically) lying for the hugest stakes; all the while a skilled interrogator, backed by an investigative department and a team of researchers, is looking for that one loose thread that doesn't fit. Just the slightest tug on the smallest thread can unravel a whole garment.

      I wouldn't fancy my chances, personally speaking.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
    3. Re:Smart and Cockey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is titzandkunt. Titzandkunt sees a psychiatrist for "talking therapy". Dr Chopper prescribes you a dose of HARDEN THE FUCK UP!

    4. Re:Smart and Cockey by Detritus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The smart person keeps their mouth shut and asks for a lawyer.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:Smart and Cockey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be genuinely smart in a police interview, no matter how clever you think you are, the only words that should leave your mouth are "I want a lawyer". Repeat as necessary.

    6. Re:Smart and Cockey by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      May I recommend a good book to you?

      The Contortionist's Handbook by Craig Clevenger.

      An excellent read, and it seems that it would strike your fancy.

      it's about a 6-fingered man who needs to constantly change his identity and is eventually interrogated about what happened by a therapist who is trying to lock him up in a mental institution because he thinks he tried to commit suicide. The whole time, he's calculating his movements to faux discomfort during the discussion of certain subjects and he tries to steer the conversation the way he wants.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    7. Re:Smart and Cockey by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      That's what a *good* interrogator can do. Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases of the "lazy investigator" who will exploit whatever he thinks will stick to you, crop your statements, maybe hold you for so long that you just get so mentally exhausted that you say "yes," or tell you that he just needs you to sign a confession to make his boss happy and that you can go afterwards. After the Central Park Jogger's convicted rapists were found to have been innocent, one of the crime channels had a great expose on how cops coerce confessions; usually from the underclass.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:Smart and Cockey by BobStikigreen · · Score: 1

      Add in the pressure of a murder charge, the much more oppressive nature of the police interview, the fact that you are (hypothetically) lying for the hugest stakes; all the while a skilled interrogator, backed by an investigative department and a team of researchers, is looking for that one loose thread that doesn't fit. Just the slightest tug on the smallest thread can unravel a whole garment.

      Exactly, like an old Columbo episode
      "Thats good, ok sir." *pause* "Ya know, there is this one thing I just don't understand..."
      =)

    9. Re:Smart and Cockey by titzandkunt · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct, but smart != cocky.

      The inference I took from the OP's post, was that Hans was cockey[sic], therefore a conventional interview would be of no use because he'd be able to run rings around the interviewer(s). My contention was that such a scenario may be harder to achieve than one imagines, when the interview is conducted by one who is skilled in identifying the gaps, prevarications and inconsistencies. Doubly hard when one is lying because the liar must keep two parallel realities in mind - the truth and the tale - and make sure that they coincide and remain consistent at all times.

      But, as you pointed out, the cheapest and best legal advice you'll ever get is to state: "I have nothing to say. I want to see a/my lawyer". And keep your mouth tightly shut until he/she appears.

      --
      Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable...
  228. Computer smarts have nothing to do with it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Plenty of smart people commit stupid crimes. In the case of murder emotions are probably the most common reason. Stress, rage, whatever, emotions get the better of logic and there you go. Also just because you are computer smart doesn't mean you are street smart. I know many people with domain specific intelligence that are morons when it comes to everyday life. Worse, a number of them suffer from what I call SMITU, Smartest Motherfucker In The Universe, syndrome. Basically because they are so good at their field (or at least they think they are so good) they think they are really smart in general, WAAAAY smarter than the rest of us plebeians. This can lead to situations of thinking they can get away with something because they are so convinced of their intellectual superiority.

    Though smarter people are perhaps less likely to engage in crimes, at least petty ones, because of an ability to find gainful employment, it doesn't stop them from committing crimes.

  229. New FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just prooves that OSS is only for MURDERERS and other criminals!!! This message brought to you by Microsoft. Buy our crap.

  230. Depends by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    You are running too narrow a risk assessment. The reason is that there is often a big disjoint between an OSS and commercial project. If all other factors were equal, yes having code is less risk than not. However they often aren't. Suppose you have two solution choices:

    1) A commercial product from IBM. It costs $500 up front, not cheap but you can afford it as a small firm. IBM guarantees to support it for at least 5 years.

    2) An OSS product that does just as good a job. No charge, however there's just a single guy that works on it, nobody else has really shown an interest. You don't have any programmers on staff.

    Now in this case, the OSS product is drastically more risk. Why? Well while it IS possible that IBM could go out of business or could decide to break their contract (illegal by the way) it is extremely unlikely. They are a massive organization and the possibility of them failing anytime soon is next to none. However what happens if the OSS guy dies or simply loses interest? You are stuck with a product you can't update.

    Well now you have to hire someone to do it for you. Thing is, that shit doesn't come cheap. No, that bounty system isn't very realistic if you want real, timely support. You'll have to hire a contractor (individual or more likely firm) and that generally will run in the range of 5 figures.

    Having code may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but unless you have the resources to do something with it, it really does nothing.

    1. Re:Depends by ben+there... · · Score: 1
      1) A commercial product from IBM. It costs $500 up front, not cheap but you can afford it as a small firm. IBM guarantees to support it for at least 5 years.

      2) An OSS product that does just as good a job. No charge, however there's just a single guy that works on it, nobody else has really shown an interest. You don't have any programmers on staff.

      3) A company that produces, maintains, and supports an OSS product. You buy a contract of support and development time from them, and if their company disappears, you find another company to continue supporting it.
    2. Re:Depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A commercial product from IBM. It costs $500 up front, not cheap but you can afford it as a small firm. IBM guarantees to support it for at least 5 years.

      Keep in mind, however, that IBM may charge additional for a support contract that may come close to the original purchase price, or in some cases, exceed it, per year. You'll possibly also have to pay yearly for a basic subscription service, to which support for each component will be at nearly the cost per year of the component, as mentioned above.

      When I was working with OS/2 Warp Server v4, you could go to the site for some updates, but only about a quarter were available that way. The rest were only open to you if you had the contract.

      We had a basic contract, but had to pay extra for each additional program. So we were hit for an additional charge for each of the server program, the workstation program, Comm Server, the IBM compiler, etc. This was beyond the same foolishness for our mainframe and the per component charges for each of its major components. Add in the AS/400 we had to maintain for clients on that platform and you're talking about a substantial chunk of change -- every year.

      The server product alone was over $1000 and its share of support was roughly the same -- again, per year.

  231. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
    That it /is/ going to damage reiserfs is beyond any doubt, no matter whether he's proven innocent, not proven guilty, or proven guilty. The name is tainted, and a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not.
    And that is why you should never name your project after yourself. I mean, imagine if Linus Torvalds was caught abed with a penguin rent boy within the arctic circle. You could kiss your linux support goodbye, and the Tux logo would just become plain creepy.
    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  232. +10, Insightful by ben+there... · · Score: 1

    Can I convince you to show up and post that every time a story is submitted about death/murder? ;-)

  233. That's big news and all... by Tarlus · · Score: 0, Troll

    But how is this classified under "Your Rights Online"?

    --
    /* No Comment */
  234. That's a mandidate to the government by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It's not a law private citizens must follow. What it means is that the state is responsible for presenting evidence of someones guilt. If they can't do that, the person walks free. While you have the right to defend yourself (and have a lawyer assist) to try and poke holes in the state's case, you needn't actually do so to be found innocent. The burden is on the state to prove your guilt.

    Outside of a courtroom, it has no legal force. You as a private citizen are free to believe and express whatever you wish. You can even believe someone guilty after they have been found innocent in court.

    The law is only applicable to how trials proceed. In some countries, it's not the case, the state needs to do nothing but charge you. If you can't present evidence of your innocence, you are convicted.

    Also people in this case are not unjustified in assuming foul play was a part. It is extremely unlikely that a woman would simply leave her child, and even more unlikely that if she were alive the massive manhunt (there was on in this case) wouldn't turn her up.

    By the way, OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a criminal court. However you'll find few people that believe that's the case. Just how it goes. Courts are the final say legally, but people have a right to their opinions.

    1. Re:That's a mandidate to the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, of course citizens are entitled to their opinions.

      However, I suspect people are posting without thinking first,expressing shallow opinions -- hey that man is arrested, what a killer!

      It seems everybody is assuming that he's guilty. How do you know? An arrest doesn't mean anything at all. That's why we have judges and courts.

      As users of ReiserFS, I think we owe him at least this much. He's not a street bandit.

    2. Re:That's a mandidate to the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is extremely unlikely that a woman would simply leave her child, and even more unlikely that if she were alive the massive manhunt (there was on in this case) wouldn't turn her up.


      It is also extremely unlikely that a man would kill the mother of his child, a woman he loves, or has loved.
  235. Rename to KillerFS? by ben+there... · · Score: 1

    Sounds like something Intel would come up with.

  236. Everybody loves Eric Raymond by slyall · · Score: 1

    The cartoon "Everybody loves Eric Raymond" had a take on the affair:

    http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/so-i-marri ed-a-kernel-programmer

    --
    "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
  237. No. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    His name isn't tarnished at all. Not yet. He's been arrested. On circumstantial evidence. So what?
    As far as I can tell this really is no big deal in the US. Let's not forget this is the country that arrests 12 year olds and drags them before the judge in chains for losening their litttle sisters pants and sitting them on the pot. I'm sure many still remember that little swiss kid and the uproar the bizare american legal system caused throught the world when that happend. So, no, being arrested shouldn't be a big deal at all.

    Back to Reiser: Innocent until proven guilty. Ring a bell? It should even still apply in the US at most times. Unless they find his wife dead and the evidence that he killed her his name shouldn't be tarnished a bit. She's probably just off and undercover with that other guy and will turn up in a week or two.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:No. by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      I'm sure many still remember that little swiss kid and the uproar the bizare american legal system caused throught the world when that happend.

      No, but I am intrigued. Do you have a link you can cite?

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    2. Re:No. by gerddie · · Score: 1

      There you go.

    3. Re:No. by StressedEd · · Score: 1
      That's absurd!

      At least they didn't try slapping on "terrorism" charges.

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    4. Re:No. by demon · · Score: 1

      Well, come now, we Americans didn't really learn the word "terrorism" until a couple years after that incident... of course, now everything's "terrorism" after that. Sheesh. Just when you think we can't look any more stupid and backward, we manage to do ourselves one better.

      --

      Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
      Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
    5. Re:No. by khallow · · Score: 1

      He's been arrested. On circumstantial evidence. So what?

      Circumstantial evidence includes most forms of evidence. Eg, finding the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, but usually very damning circumstantial evidence. But you are correct in that US police often arrest the wrong person or mishandle cases in eggregious ways.
  238. No by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Because it's not really fame that does it, as much as money. In a strong circumstantial case (meaning that there's no direct physical proof someone committed the crime but plenty of good indirect evidence) the outcome is highly dependant on the legal team. Come to the table with a public defender, you are likely going to jail. Come to the table with three, multi-million dollar lawyers, chances are they can figure out ways to poke enough holes in the case that there's reasonable doubt.

    Now of course maybe the case against him is really weak, but then status is irrelevant, unless his lawyer sucks he's likely to walk. However if it's a solid case, then it mostly comes down to the quality of the defense team and the quality mostly comes down to money.

    This is all assuming of course that they don't have direct evidence. Generally then you are screwed. A good lawyer can convince a jury that the string of coincidences the state presented are just that: coincidences, or at least not certain enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt. However if there's direct evidence, like your finger prints on the gun that killed someone, you are done unless your lawyer can find a way to suppress it.

  239. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by FromellaSlob · · Score: 1
    Since when do reputable software vendors just drop support for their product out of the blue without any notice or suitable upgrade/replacement?

    There are plenty of suitable replacements. ReiserFS was becoming irrelevant anyway, it had scalabilty issues and Hans seemed to have lost interest in fixing it. If a free/OSS project that really is crucial stalls, then invariably it gets picked up. For an example look at how X.org forked off XFree86, and that wasn't even "dead" it just had a ridiculously protracted development process.

  240. everyone should check out this site by imbaczek · · Score: 1

    http://www.ninareiser.com/inthenews.html

    The first link I followed is interesting, too - it says that Hans didn't talk to the police for the whole time his wife was missing, because he was upset that they searched his house...

  241. They went further than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... many of the Amish actually attended his funeral and mourned his death.
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/ 10/07/national/a191914D02.DTL

    I can't preach to anyone here about hate and revenge myself, due to my past reactions to things, but what those Amish people did really impressed me. Any members of the phoney religions of peace on here(you christians, muslims, jews, etc...) might want to take some notes from the Amish. I realize they are a christian sect, but their EXAMPLE spoke to me louder than the millions of words I've heard come from christians(or the other two "religions of peace"). If all religions did their preaching that way, they'd make the world a better place, instead of the shithole they seem bent on turning it into in the name of their "faith".

    1. Re:They went further than that... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      what those Amish people did really impressed me. Any members of the phoney religions of peace on here(you christians, muslims, jews, etc...) might want to take some notes from the Amish.
      Point of information>: the Amish are Christians.
      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    2. Re:They went further than that... by pointbeing · · Score: 1

      An excellent post. Thank you.

      --
      we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
      -- anais nin
    3. Re:They went further than that... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...from the Amish. I realize they are a christian sect, but their EXAMPLE spoke to me louder than the millions of words I've heard come from christians(or the other two "religions of peace"). If all religions did their preaching that way, they'd make the world a better place...

      The Amish merely walked the walk instead of just talking the talk. I don't think any religion can point to all or even a simple majority of its adherents and say, truthfully, that "Those people live according to their beliefs." Nearly all religions (and, without trying to write a book on the subject, I have to say that Christianity is the most severe in this regard) require more, for lack of a better word, "goodness" from its followers than any human being can deliver. Even the Amish realize this and allow their younglings to taste the world before making an informed decision to adhere to the practices of the community for life. Their system works well for them and illustrates what Christianity *should* be. I don't mean the physical trappings, the dress, the low-tech, the separation. I mean the state of the spirit and how adherence to spiritual principles provides certain guidance even when the bad old world busts in and murders your family members.

      Inner peace like that comes at what, to a non-adherent, seems to be a very high price. Whether it is or isn't and whether it should be paid is a decision for each individual. It's too bad that most people never consciously make that decision and instead choose to pursue what they think of as "life," only to find that when that life throws them a curve they don't have the principled, spirit-based skills needed to handle the situation.

      The Amish are different in that regard. In Slashdot parlance, the Amish have mad skillz. :-)

    4. Re:They went further than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen Devil's Playground? While I am all for the Amish, their teens aren't "tasting the world" and making an informed decision, they are experiencing the really scary ex-Amish party circuit. I also think that the separation really is necessary for the Amish to hang on to their world-view. Popular culture is completely contrary to many Christian beliefs, e.g. what proportion of films celebrate forgiveness of criminals? (extra credit: how many star Steven Segal or Bruce Willis?)

    5. Re:They went further than that... by Aapje · · Score: 1
      Their system works well for them and illustrates what Christianity *should* be. I don't mean the physical trappings, the dress, the low-tech, the separation. I mean the state of the spirit and how adherence to spiritual principles provides certain guidance even when the bad old world busts in and murders your family members.

      The Amish might be very Christian in their forgiveness, but there is also a downside to it. Victims of crimes have to deal with little punishment for the perpetrators of crimes, who only have to repent and are then shunned for a while (usually some weeks). This is especially painful when the perpetrator keeps committing the same crimes over and over again (and is forgiven again and again). An example is the Mary Byler incest and physical abuse case:

      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=316371

      The unconditional forgiveness is not necessarily granted by Amish victims out of their hearts, the church and community requires them to do so (they will be punished if they do not). In many ways this is similar to the restrictive environment in the 50's, where victims of domestic abuse were often encouraged, if not required, to simply accept it. In contrast, there are now mandatory arrest laws in many states where arrests have to be made when the police finds it likely that domestic violence has occurred, to give a victim some breathing room to decide freely how to deal with the abuser.

      This is also an interesting story, explaining how Amish victims are often not granted the same rights as regular Americans:

      http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-Februar y-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp

      Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish, but more to illustrate that a perceived utopia of virtue and spiritual enlightment always has it downsides. Every community, culture and religion has it's strengths and weaknesses. Usually, a strength is also a weakness.

      BTW. The 'informed decision' to join the Amish is debatable. Rumspringa rarely introduces the Amish youth to a 'regular' life. The rules are simply not enforced that harshly, but the Amish parents are supposed to keep a strict eye on them. The 'rebelling' usually limits itself to materialistic and shallow rule breaking, such as wearing 'English' clothes, drinking and listening to music. Given the limited education the Amish receive, both of their religion and 'worldly matters', they cannot really make an informed choice. Also, choosing to leave the Amish often means that the youngsters are seperated from their family and friends (sometimes this is enforced by the Amish through shunning). It is a very tall order for someone to seperate himself from those who he loves, even if he doesn't agree with the Amish rules.
      --

      The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
    6. Re:They went further than that... by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish,

      Yeah you are. But it's okay, the Amish are deranged religious zealots. But the point of the OP was not that the Amish are so perfect, but that most other "Christians" are raving hypocrites. They preach love and forgiveness, but absolutely refuse to practice it in their daily lives. They support the military, police, prisons, etc. Most of them even watch and practice violence (eveything from action movies, to football, to cockfighting) as entertainment.

    7. Re:They went further than that... by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      Nearly all religions (and, without trying to write a book on the subject, I have to say that Christianity is the most severe in this regard) require more, for lack of a better word, "goodness" from its followers than any human being can deliver.

      That's not true. I am not a Christian, but my understanding is that Christianity doesn't "require" any goodness of you at all. On the contrary, what it requires of you is that you recognize and acknowledge that you are incapable of living up to the standard of goodness set by Jesus, and that in your heart you should honestly want to apologize for your shortcomings. Plenty of Christians have been drug addicts, thieves, even murderers. People who don't understand religion say that makes them hypocrites, and because they are hypocrites, all religion is therefore bullshit. But all it really means is that those Christians were flawed, fallible people -- as Christian doctrine says all of us are.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:They went further than that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any members of the phoney religions of peace on here(you christians, muslims, jews, etc...) might want to take some notes from the Amish. I realize they are a christian sect, but their EXAMPLE spoke to me louder than the millions of words I've heard come from christians(or the other two "religions of peace"). If all religions did their preaching that way, they'd make the world a better place, instead of the shithole they seem bent on turning it into in the name of their "faith".

      The problem is you are probably listening to mass media, who love to feature windbags like Pat Robertson. When the news shows want to talk about video games, do they mainly talk to people who make or play video games? No, they go to cultural critics like Jack Thompson, who makes outrageous claims that (for example) video games are murder simulators. The goal is to boost ratings by stirring up conflict.

      Anyway, perhaps you don't realize it, but most of the opposition to the death penalty in the US comes from religious people. But like I said, this generally doesn't make the news. The last time I can recall that it really hit the cultural radar was the film Dead Man Walking, based on the book by Sister Helen Prejean. But that was years ago.

    9. Re:They went further than that... by Aapje · · Score: 1
      Now, I'm not pointing out these things to attack the Amish

      Yeah you are.

      No, I'm attacking the perception that Amish forgiveness is key to an utopian society with spiritual enlightment and no violence (which was pretty much what the parent, grandparent and overgrandparent to my post were saying). Pointing out great injustices in their community is a pretty weak attack given that those can be found in any society. Attacking the Amish way of life on the whole would require actually making the point that their society is worse than others, which may or may not be true, but afaik there is no good research to argue that objectively.

      However, it is quite clear that Amish forgiveness, which some see as the ultimate adherence to Christian faith, is unable to deal with some kinds of violence and actually increases suffering for some (especially the victims).

      But the point of the OP was not that the Amish are so perfect, but that most other "Christians" are raving hypocrites.

      Actually, the point of the OP was indeed that the Amish are so much better than regular Christians on this issue and that the strict adherence provides 'inner peace' and 'principled, spirit-based skills'. If you read the links I provided, I think you'll see (physical) punishment and medieval herb remedies, rather than these qualities.

      ...but that most other "Christians" are raving hypocrites. They preach love and forgiveness, but absolutely refuse to practice it in their daily lives. They support the military, police, prisons, etc. Most of them even watch and practice violence (eveything from action movies, to football, to cockfighting) as entertainment.

      I don't believe in unlimited love and forgiveness, because it results in problems such as those the Amish have. I don't care about doctrines or strict adherence to a belief, I care about results. I'm against the military when it is used to bring suffering, such as in Iraq, but not when it is used for peace keeping. I'm in favor of a well-disciplined police force that serves the people, but not of police officers who behave like criminals themselves. I would like to see prisons replaced by something that is more effective at removing criminal tendencies from people, but a well-managed prison and rehabilitation system is better than forgiving criminals, so they can make more victims.
      I much prefer that people manage their violent/aggressive tendencies in the safest way possible, rather than deny that they are human and pretending that those tendencies won't find a (more) damaging outlet.

      So I don't agree with your belief that someone is a hypocrite when he preaches love and forgiveness, but watches violent movies (for example). IMHO the greatest failing in many Christians is they refuse to accept basic human traits and attempt to suppress them, which will not result in better humans, but in sinners. The real challenge is finding a practical framework in which people can be happy without hurting others, not a theoretical one.
      --

      The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
    10. Re:They went further than that... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 1

      Your understanding is correct and my original post was oversimplified. I *did* say I wanted to avoid writing a book. The deeper point is that while being a Christian does not require perfect emulation of the life of the Son of God to get into Heaven (the standard that many non-Christians *think* is required, thus granting themselves infinite permission to belittle a perceived hypocrisy of Christianity) it does require a more than your post would indicate. It's not enough to simply accept that we're flawed and sincerely ask for forgiveness and be done with it, knowing that's enough to get into Heaven. (Again, I don't want to write a book about doctrinal ideas of ultimate rewards and their relation to how we live our lives. There are even Christian sects who believe that *everyone* will go to Heaven, no matter what's in their hearts while they're here on Earth.) Christianity does, however, require some effort. In fact, it requires a *lot* of effort. Christians are expected to reach out to others, to help each other, to live lives that will, by example, show the world that belief in God is something special, something that makes you different. (Contrast, for example, the Christian idea of the Golden Rule, "Do unto other as you would have them do unto you", with the way Eastern religions approach the topic. In most Eastern religions, the nearest equivalent would be "Don't do to anyone anything you wouldn't want done to you." Christianity is many things, but passive isn't one of them. And I can't really expand that point further without writing a whole sermon. Sorry.)

      The Amish do this. In spades. Many Christians don't. Oh, heck, *most* Christians don't. And if you don't at least *try* to live your life according to your Christian principles, are you really a Christian? That, according to Christian doctrine, can only be determined by God who judges what you are, inside, spiritually, instead of what you do, the face you show the world.

      Now, lots of people show a good face to the world and we judge those people the only way we can, in our limited, earthly existence, judge those people - by what they do. But if they do it for all the wrong reasons, if their motivation isn't pure, then (again, according to Christian doctrine) they can't fool God who knows what's in their hearts and will judge them accordingly. Folks like that have limits, though. I doubt you'd see some fake "Everybody watch me while I donate to charity and do other really nice things" only-on-Sunday Christians come out with sincere forgiveness for a man who murdered their innocent daughter.

      In the Amish, we have an example of forgiveness under even the most trying circumstances. As another poster in this thread has pointed out, this is not necessarily because the Amish are saints; there are community pressures involved. But, at minimum, we can say the Amish do an awfully good job of setting up the infrastructure, if you will, for an entire community to act in accordance with Christian principles. I think that's admirable. It may also be impossible without separation from the larger society, but that's another issue.

    11. Re:They went further than that... by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the point of the OP was indeed that the Amish are so much better than regular Christians on this issue and that the strict adherence provides 'inner peace' and 'principled, spirit-based skills'.

      Actually, no. When I wrote that, I wasn't judging the Amish as superior. I was simply pointing out that true Christian belief (requiring, as I've expanded on the topic in another post in this thread, lots of hard work) will equip anyone with skills to handle evil when it attacks. I was citing the Amish as having made practical strides in achieving this, so much so that when their attitudes wind up on the evening news people are shocked.

      Christians who have made much effort at all to understand their religion are not shocked by this. This is the sort of thing the faith requires. Indeed, I'll go further and say that anyone should be able to do this. You don't have to establish a separate society (though that is the method the Amish chose) nor do you have to dress funny or eschew violent movies.

      The Amish are human. I didn't say otherwise. According to Christian doctrine, every single one of them is flawed and sinful and not deserving to be in the presence of God. IOW, they're just like everybody else. However, (and this is what I think is admirable) you make a good point when you say

      The real challenge is finding a practical framework in which people can be happy without hurting others, not a theoretical one.

      That is precisely what I find admirable about the Amish. They've made the effort to meet that challenge and, by and large, they've succeeded. You do a fine job of pointing out that neither the people nor their society are perfect. As a Christian, I accept that and consider it no real indictment; we and our institutions are all imperfect.

      But how many societies would react with anything other than rage after the attack suffered by the Amish at that schoolhouse? Few, if any, I'd say. I know I'd be screaming for blood. The Amish didn't. It seems obvious to me that they're doing something right. I doubt their solution scales, but it's awfully nice to see a working prototype.

      And now, after making nice and essentially agreeing with everything you said, I do have one strong negative reaction to your post. Here's the relevant passage:

      IMHO the greatest failing in many Christians is they refuse to accept basic human traits and attempt to suppress them, which will not result in better humans, but in sinners.

      I'm not sure what to do with that. It seems wrong on so many levels that I fear I'm misunderstanding you severely. It's not a "failing" of Christianity to refuse to accept basic human traits. We accept that the nature of man is what it is. And what it is, is sinful. Christianity isn't in the business of creating better humans (though that's a nice side effect that *should* be universal and is actively encouraged); we're in the business of seeking forgiveness for the flawed, sinful creatures we are.

      So are you saying that "basic human traits" should be accepted, not suppressed, and that would somehow lead us to a better society populated by better humans? Since Christianity holds that many "basic human traits" are sinful and that *not* accepting them but striving against them through various means is part and parcel of being a Christian, I think you'll find that one a very hard sell.

      So, did I miss your point somewhere? (About this one little thing, remember. For the most part, we're pretty much in sync on most of what's been discussed.)

    12. Re:They went further than that... by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      On the whole, your explanation makes sense. I think we differ in our perceptions of Christianity a little bit, though.

      Christians are expected to reach out to others, to help each other, to live lives that will, by example, show the world that belief in God is something special, something that makes you different.

      I'm not sure I agree with this statement. It doesn't seem like Christianity itself is what makes Christians want to demonstrate the value of belief in God; it seems like that's just human nature. If you honestly believe something is the truth then it's going to be hard for you to accept that other people can't see it that way -- this seems logical to me. People who are big into politics do the same thing, all the time. There are some Christians who believe that proselytizing and "spreading the gospel" are requirements for entry into heaven, but there are many who don't. I don't think I'd call them "fake Christians." Is a Jew who likes bacon a "fake Jew"?

      And as far as being expected to reach out to others and to help each other, it seems to me that these are societal values; they are what makes a collection of individuals into a society. Christians have no monopoly on this behavior.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:They went further than that... by Aapje · · Score: 1

      But how many societies would react with anything other than rage after the attack suffered by the Amish at that schoolhouse? Few, if any, I'd say.

      That is not my perception. There have been school shootings and other gross acts of violence in Europe (where I'm from), which have more often than not been greeted with mourning and a desire to understand, rather than rage. Even the case of serial child rapist and murderer Dutroux in Belgium, where many mistakes were made by the police, was greeted with peaceful protests (to demand reform) instead of violent outrage. We also have a program in my country where a victim and a perpetrator can meet each other. This is often liberating for the victim, who can ask the perp for his reasons (which is usually very helpful in allowing the victim to give the crime a place) and who can explain to the perp how much hurt he caused, which they often underestimate (so the criminal starts to realize how much damage he has done). Programs like these are in my opinion a more practical way to deal with the fallout of serious crimes; they actually address the needs of both the victim and the perp. In contrast, I see the Amish's focus on forgiveness as a more theoretical exercise. Especially when the forgiveness is required by (community) law, you can wonder what good it actually does. I do see value in it, but only if it is granted freely, where both victim and the perp can see eye to eye.

      We accept that the nature of man is what it is. And what it is, is sinful.

      That sentence is at the core of where our beliefs systems are at odds. If you look at the basic traits that (normal) humans have, then each of those has value, even those that are often seen as negatives. Sexual desire is needed for reproduction. Fear protects us from avoidable threats. Anger allows us to communicate our essential needs ("I will not accept that you endanger my life, by doing ...") and overcome fear so we can meet a threatening situation that cannot be solved by fleeing or posturing. A desire to punish allows us to preserve our social order by punishing destructive behavior. Selfishness allows us to restrain our efforts to manageable levels where we don't try to solve the world's problems. These traits are often balanced out by other tendencies. Love makes us commit to a partner and care for our children (the result of sexual desire). Empathy allow us to try and overcome threats for others (overcoming our fear), since we do not like to see others suffer. It also helps to resolve conflict, by trying to understand our opponent. By punishing those who do not obey the rules of the group, we are able to trust our fellow humans to a greater extent, which allows us to have an advanced society. I could go on and on.

      The key to being a good person, is IMO to have the proper balance between these traits. A well-educated, mentally stable person is not inherently sinful (although he may still make mistakes and commit wrongs). I believe that the challenge lies in helping people to find this balance. This balance also depends on our environment and technological abilities, so historical dogma's have no place there. For instance, condoms allow people to safely act on their sexual desire. Before they were widely available, premarital abstinence was a good idea to prevent problems such as single mothers who cannot take care of their children or unhappy marriages. It was flawed, since quite a few people did have sex before marriage (which resulted in other weak solutions, such as forced marriages and having young girls marry), but there was no better choice. Condoms allow for a more mature solution, where unmarried people can act on their sexual desire in a sensible and responsible way, without having to repress it.

      Christianity isn't in the business of creating better humans (though that's a nice side effect that *should* be universal and is actively encouraged); we're in the business of seeking forgiveness

      --

      The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
    14. Re:They went further than that... by howlingfrog · · Score: 1

      Grandparent: IMHO the greatest failing in many Christians is they refuse to accept basic human traits and attempt to suppress them, which will not result in better humans, but in sinners.

      Parent: I'm not sure what to do with that. It seems wrong on so many levels that I fear I'm misunderstanding you severely. It's not a "failing" of Christianity to refuse to accept basic human traits. We accept that the nature of man is what it is. And what it is, is sinful.

      The miscommunication here is that the original poster was talking about "many Christians," meaning a large number of specific individuals, and you're talking about "Christianity," meaning the the teachings of Christ. It's the difference between what people should do and what they actually do. It has been my experience that most people have no real comprehension of the ideas they claim to belive, and that this is especially prevalent in people who don't interact much with those who belive differently. This is why religious monocultures come up with ideas like "the Qoran says we should crash some planes into buildings" and "let's round up six million German and Polish Jews and gas them." Christianity is the majority religion in the USA, so American Christians are susceptible to this. Thanks to the first amendment, the country isn't a monoculture and isn't likely to make any mistakes as colossal as my examples, but thinking critically about one's own beliefs still takes more effort than most people are willing to put forth unless they're forced to, and members of the majority are rarely forced to.

      You're saying that Christianity teaches that even though you're going to slip up now and then you should still keep trying to improve yourself. The original poster said that a lot of Christians either see sin as an all-or-nothing proposition and give up entirely after one mistake or see Jesus as a get-out-of-hell-free card and just do as they please from the start. The two claims are not contradictory, and I have no reservations in agreeing with both. The Bible says that Christians should live their lives as you say, but in practice, a noticeable percentage do not.

      --
      The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
  242. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Braino420 · · Score: 1

    You fail to realize the poster was not referring to you specifically.

    Very few eyes involved in reading most of the code? Compared to what, closed source software? Again, you fail to realize the actual point at hand. The point is that you can, if you are so inclined (and yes, people are inclined). You are obviously a user, which is quite a bit different from a coder or contributer. You are not expected to look at source code or even care about its existence.

    --
    They call me the wookie man, I guess that's what I am
  243. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see some evidence. I'm interested too.

  244. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    WTF has this got to do with my rights on line?

  245. Re: insurance costs by hany · · Score: 1

    Well, IMO (at least some) companies are susceptible to the same problem: key person dies and project ... is in deep problems.

    Yes, companies (especialy big ones) can throw other people and money at the problem but in such cases customers would be maybe far better off if they were just given the source code. Rather than accept "improvements" or "fixes" done by people which do not understand the code, were not willing to work on it and did so under threat and pressure.

    But yes, companies with more that one guy for the problem are supposed to better handle such loses of individuals. It costs, but it is ussualy good idea to be "insured".

    So at the end it's only the question of whether you (I, whoever - as customer) want to be "insured" and willing to pay for it. :)

    --
    hany
  246. Force him to code, along with the other prisoners. by elucido · · Score: 1

    This is a good idea. Instead of asking him to code, simply force him to code, it's prison, and if he is a murderer, he owes society. So do the other prisoners, and if they are allowed to code, it would be a lot cheaper than paying people in India to do it. The money generated by their code could be used to pay for upgrades to their prison.

  247. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The source code is open, you can inspect it yourself to ensure that it won't murder you.

    Yeah, but is it understandable?

    Some device drivers in the Linux kernel are so obscure that you can't be sure that it won't try to insert its floppy dick into your anus.

  248. it's like ... by hany · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's like giving a teenage boy a home arrest without taking computer from his room: he can than play games and surf all day long.

    Assuming a lot of teenage boys like playing games and surfing the Net on computer it would be realy "awfull" for them to be locked in the room.

    Such punishment may be considered reward and then, what's the point of such punishment?

    --
    hany
  249. Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by elucido · · Score: 0, Troll

    All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt, thats why they commit murders in the first place. If you murder, and it's someone like your wife, chances are you are psycho, because you are right, the average person would never be able to kill their wife because they'd feel guilt, remorse, empathy, psychopaths don't feel this.

    1. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the moment they feel overwhelming rage? what then?

    2. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful
      All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt, thats why they commit murders in the first place.
      Psychopathy isn't exactly common you know. Contrary to popular opinion, most criminals aren't psychopathic. Moreover, those criminals suffering from it aren't automatically violent; a criminal psychopath can just as easily be an embezeller. In fact, one could argue that the best "white collar" criminal would be a clinical psychopath in a position of corporate power - they'd make a great CEO in the short term.

      Now, that isn't to say there aren't violent psychopathic criminals. Most serial killers, and violent sex offenders who target adult women, would qualify. And it is true that they are extremely hard to rehabilitate (some would say impossible). But they aren't the only ones behind bars. In fact, I'm not even convinced they represent a signifigant fraction of violent criminals - the numbers I've seen vary wildly, which suggest to me that nobody knows how many of them exist with any certainty.

      To give them as an example of the futility of rehabilitation is utterly ridiculous. It's like taking a rabid dog as a typical example of what most strays are like.

      the average person would never be able to kill their wife because they'd feel guilt, remorse, empathy, psychopaths don't feel this.
      The "average" person is quite capable of murder, given the right incentive, or the right lapse in judgement. Most "crimes of passion" would qualify. Do you really think somebody who, to give an example, kills their wife after catching her in bed with another person is automatically psycho? Granted a psychopath put in that position is more likely to commit violence than an average person, but that doesn't make the average person incapable of murder, it merely makes him statistically less likely to commit it.

      To presume all who commit crimes are suffering from mental illness, or are in some way less human, is a common error. We wish to distance ourselves from those we consider evil, by claiming that we could never do such a thing. But make no mistake; this is denial, plain and simple.

      That's not to say that there aren't criminal psychopaths in the world; rather it is to admit that average, mentally healthy people, under the right conditions, can do things we as a society consider monsterous. For every psycho killing people at random, there are a dozen "average" people killing for revenge, for profit, for ideology, or for any number of other reasons.
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      he said evidence about most killers, in the form of peer reviewed studies, not dogmatic assertions about "all psychopaths."

    4. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 0
      Psychopathy isn't exactly common you know. Contrary to popular opinion, most criminals aren't psychopathic. Moreover, those criminals suffering from it aren't automatically violent; a criminal psychopath can just as easily be an embezeller. In fact, one could argue that the best "white collar" criminal would be a clinical psychopath in a position of corporate power - they'd make a great CEO in the short term.


      Murderers are not exactly common either
    5. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by elucido · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's not dogma, it's based on statistics. Study the prison population, study the criminals, about 20% of the prison population are psychopaths, about 20% of prisoners give or take, don't feel any guilt at all for what they have done, and just don't give a fuck about you, me, or themselves.

      You can call it dogma, but you know that these sorts of people exist and are common, you've met people with the "I don't give a fuck" attitude before havent you? Hell you may even have that attitude yourself. The difference is, when a psychopath has that attitude, they actually mean it. All violent acts, are violent expressions of violent thoughts, so it makes more sense to study psychology than numbers, as the brain does control the actions of the body, not statistics.

      If you don't want to call these people psychopath murderers, fine, call them evil, or better, evil psychopaths. Don't get me wrong, not all psychopaths are evil, it takes a certain mix. Either way it's important to study criminology and the criminal mind, this is what he police and FBI do when they want to solve a crime or prevent crime. So if the FBI is involved, they already know if this guy is psycho or not, and they know about his wife too, and if he is a suspect it might be for a lot of very specific reasons.

      First you have to ask, is this guy capable of killing his wife? Okay sure, depending on the situation anyone is capable of killing anyone, so was he suicidal? was he depressed during the informal interview? Just look at Scott Peterson, he was interviewed on national TV and because he displayed all the signs of a psychopath in his response, this is one of the main reasons why the public turned against him. He displayed no remorse at all to the general public, and it scared people, and when he did display emotion, it did not even seem real, it looked forced.

      If you want peer reviewed studys, use Google, if you want to study criminology, go study it, everyone knows about the criminal mind, if you want to study how people can commit these crimes in the first place, study psychology, as it takes a certain personality type to actually pull off THIS sorta crime, not manslaughter, not homicide, this was murder, planned out, not the sorta crime that normal people spend all night and day thinking about. Normal people don't even hit their wife.

      Let's hope, that it's not as bad as it seems or that some information is missing, because if it isnt, he could get convicted, and yes the jury will take his psychological profile into account when it's brought up in the case.

    6. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by RsG · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd fully beleive that, on average, a higher percentage of psychopaths commit muder than healthy people. The number I usually see for psychopaths in the general population is about 2% (higher for men, lower for women). I could easily see that number rising by a signifigant factor if the population you surveyed was composed entirely of convicts - ie a survey done on death row would yield a much higher number of psychopaths than a survey done from a totally random sampling.

      What I disagree with is the assertion that "average" people don't commit murder. It's quite possible for someone to be guilty of murder and not suffer from any mental illness. And this is important to the discussion - rehabilitation doesn't seem to do much good for psychopathy at present, whereas it does do some good for criminals who actually regret their actions. In other words, both extreme views ("all criminals can be rehabilitated" and "all criminals are irredemable/incurable") are equally wrong, as is typically the case with extremes.

      The other point I disagree with is the assertion that psychopath = killer. There is an overlap to be sure, but it is not total. Not everyone who commits violent or sexual crimes is a psycho, and not every psycho is a dangerous offender.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and when he did display emotion, it did not even seem real, it looked forced.

      But aren't psychopaths experts at convincingly faking any emotion they want? If it didn't look real, he was probably not a psychopath, or else he would have done a much better job at his acting.

    8. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by osee · · Score: 1

      Thus the intersection of the two groups should be even smaller.

    9. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because clearly, 20% is the same as "most".

      Also clearly, psychopaths at most go to prison twice as much as the normal run of the mill non-psychopaths, therefore 20% in prison clearly equates to at *least* 10% outside..

      Riddle me this: If being psychopathic didn't result in a much greater likelihood of violent criminal behaviour, why the hell do we care about it again?

    10. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by hcob$ · · Score: 1
      It's not dogma, it's based on statistics.
      I seem to remember a quote along the lines of: "It's all lies, damned lies, and statistics."
      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    11. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In fact, one could argue that the best "white collar" criminal would be a clinical psychopath in a position of corporate power - they'd make a great CEO in the short term.
      Or a president in the long term.
    12. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

      Study the prison population, study the criminals, about 20% of the prison population are psychopaths, about 20% of prisoners give or take, don't feel any guilt at all for what they have done, and just don't give a fuck about you, me, or themselves.

      Sounds like you're comparing apples and carrots. Someone who kills a person, goes to prison, and feels no guilt may very well be a psychopath. Someone who smokes a joint, goes to prison, and feels no guilt may just be someone who is too logical to accept 'beer is ok, oxycotin is ok, marijuana is the devil.'

      And there are a lot more people in prison for non-violent drug crimes than for violent someone-ends-up-dead crimes.

    13. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment is an example of how ordinary people can be compelled
      to do things that most 'normal' people would find abhorrent...

    14. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by mysqlrocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      An interesting post overall. I take issue with only one statement, however:

      Do you really think somebody who, to give an example, kills their wife after catching her in bed with another person is automatically psycho? Granted a psychopath put in that position is more likely to commit violence than an average person...

      I am not a psychologist, but my hunch is that a psychopath may actually be less likely to kill in that situation (but would not feel guilt if they did). My reasoning is that a psychopath doesn't feel emotions the same way a "healthy" person does. The jealousy and anger that may drive a person to kill in that situation may very well not be the emotional response of a psychopath in that situation, even though a "healthy" person would be jealous and angry in that situation

    15. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by maggern · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree. Any normal human being is capable of murder. Just watch what happens when you give them a rifle, uniform and some idea to fight for. War.

    16. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by RsG · · Score: 1

      Actually, psychopaths aren't emotionless. In fact, problems with anger management often go hand in hand with psychopathy. The particular problem with them in the clinical sense is lack of empathy and lack of guilt (this is oversimplified, but will serve well enough here). Their other emotional responses aren't totally normal, but neither are they absent.

      So yes, a psycho could indeed murder in anger or a jealous rage. What a normal person would have more trouble with is premeditated murder, where it takes more than a momentary overreaction or lapse in judgement to push someone over the line.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    17. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

      OK, 20%. Not "most." Now, this figure is from which peer-reviewed study? Oh, the one by Mr. "Pulled-it-out-of-my-ass"?

    18. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by capnchicken · · Score: 1

      Psychopathy isn't exactly common you know.

      Some would disagree and belive them to be as common as schizophrenics.

      --
      A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
    19. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "average" person is quite capable of murder, given the right incentive, or the right lapse in judgement. Most "crimes of passion" would qualify.

      This is exactly right. In fact, soldiers routinely murder people. OK, maybe it isn't "murder" to target a smart bomb on an enemy, but it isn't like they have a chance - you surprise them, hit them with overwhelming force, and they are dead. You don't challenge them to a duel, or even make it a fair fight - you try to kill them without having a chance to kill you. Whether it is murder or not is up to the philosophers.

      There have been studies done on how soldiers react to killing other people, (killology, and I'm not kidding), and they found that the ability to kill is related to the physical distance from the target. If you are in a plane dropping a smart bomb, or firing artillery, it is "just a game" and few of the soldiers even give it a second thought, let alone feel guilty about it. However, the closer the range, the harder it becomes. Some people won't fire a rifle because they can see the other person and realize they are killing someone. Even worse is when you are close enough to see their face - even fewer will be able to do kill and, if they do kill the other person, most are qracked with guilt. At the closest range, (think knife combat), only 2% of the soldiers that had to do it were not wracked with guilt. Of those, they estimate that 2/3 were psychotic in some way.

      I direct you to the book: "On Killing" by Dave Grossman (Amazon link), where he covers a lot of topics on refusal to kill, guilt, remorse, psychological factors, etc. It is a pretty good read and has some interesting insights into the role killing has in our society. (Note: I didn't agree with all of his conclusions, but even the ones I didn't agree with I found interesting.)

    20. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Mad_Rain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that isn't to say there aren't violent psychopathic criminals. Most serial killers, and violent sex offenders who target adult women, would qualify.

      So are you saying violent sex offenders who target children aren't psychopaths? What about psychopathic people who target men? (sorry to nitpick, but as someone who works in that field, some comments like that catch my attention)

      In fact, I'm not even convinced they represent a signifigant fraction of violent criminals - the numbers I've seen vary wildly, which suggest to me that nobody knows how many of them exist with any certainty.

      That's because it takes time to measure, and gather evidence. This isn't easy to do without the money/staff/training/desire of state and federal prison systems, and even that is only identifying psychopaths who have been caught for whatever they have done. And psychopaths don't make it any easier to identify themselves by doing what they do well - lying.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    21. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by RsG · · Score: 1
      So are you saying violent sex offenders who target children aren't psychopaths? What about psychopathic people who target men? (sorry to nitpick, but as someone who works in that field, some comments like that catch my attention)
      It's alright to nitpick, since I am not entirely sure of the facts here. What I wrote was based on something I'd heard on a science show. From what I understood, when you look at sex offenders and psychopathy, thet have a tendancy towards A) violence and B) women of breeding age.

      In other words, your typical serial rapist or rapist/murderer is a very likely candidate for psychopathy. Nonviolent offenders, or offenders who's victim of choice is male and/or prepubescent, are less likely candidates. The important word here is "likely", as from what I remember this is only a statistical pattern, not an absolute rule; it's quite possible for an individual offender to break the pattern. For example, a psychopathic nonviolent offender may work his way up to violence over time, in which case in his nonviolent phase he would still be a psychopath (he'd just be one who hasn't escalated to violence yet).

      There are a couple points to remember here, the first being the fact that pedophilia is an unrelated disorder, so the number of people who are both pedo and psycho is small. The cross section between those two disorders may be almost unnoticable. All active child abusers are de facto sex offenders (some just haven't been caught in the act yet), but their incidence of psychopathy isn't neccesarily that high.

      Also remember that the majority of violent psychopathic criminals are male. Monster, the movie you linked, to focused on someone who was an exception to that rule. And most men are heterosexual, so it would follow that even if psychos have the same ratio of gay:straight, you'd still mostly have heterosexual males (since females are a minority among psychos, and gays a minority among men).
      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    22. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      In other words, your typical serial rapist or rapist/murderer is a very likely candidate for psychopathy. Nonviolent offenders, or offenders who's victim of choice is male and/or prepubescent, are less likely candidates.

      In my experience, I didn't find that to be true (I work as a psychologist in a prison, and I've worked with a sex-offender population before). I would say that psychopathy is evenly distributed between the two groups of violent and "nonviolent" sex offenders (Robert Hare estimated 20% of the prison population meets the definition of psychopathy, and 1% of the general population does). Both groups demonstrate superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, are manipulative, frequently lie, are impulsive and irresponsible, have little or no remorse, have poor control over their behavior, and do not take responsibility for their own behavior. The violent offenders often take that a step or two further by adding in some additional criminal behaviors, and are "thrill-seeking." When compared to a more general cross-section of prisoners, (thieves, drug dealers, insurance fraud), the sex offenders certainly show an elevation in psychopathic traits.

      There are a couple points to remember here, the first being the fact that pedophilia is an unrelated disorder, so the number of people who are both pedo and psycho is small. The cross section between those two disorders may be almost unnoticable.

      Again, I think Hare was right about 20% of these guys being psychopathic - when talking to pedophiles and cybersex offenders (like what Representative Foley has been accused of doing, or traders of child porn, etc.) they will minimize and attempt to justify their behavior . "I didn't force anyone" (but still hurt/manipulated their victims) and "I just downloaded pictures" (which perpetuates part of the market for more child pornography to be created), and descriptions of how unfairly they are/were/will be treated strongly pulls toward those aforementioned psychopathic traits - superficial charm, manipulative, lack of remorse, lack of responsibility. (On a side note, "I was drunk" or "I was a closeted gay man" or "I was abused as a child" do not excuse Rep. Foley's behavior.)

      Sex-offenders, whether violent or non-violent, seem about as likely to be psychopathic, and both of those groups are more likely to be psychopathic than other groups of prisoners.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    23. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by noahisaac · · Score: 1
      All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt, thats why they commit murders in the first place.
      disclaimer: I'm not a psychologist.

      I think the term you're looking for is sociopath, not psychopath. In fact, from personal experience, I've known more than a few people who could be described as "psychopaths", and all of them were able to feel guilt like most of the other members of our society.

      When I was a kid, I knew another kid who did not seem to have any sense of guilt. Later, when he was 18, he broke into a house with his brother and together they beat the owner to death with a baseball bat (and were later convicted of murder in a court). I guess he would be a sociopath like you describe above.
    24. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by l33t_f33t · · Score: 1

      You are partly correct, Generally speaking Psychopathy affects the empathic emotions, hence the lack of guilt. The empathic emotions are also the ones that form inter-human attachment, so they would not be built up to rage by this example to the extent a 'healthy' person would. However they still feel rage, anger, depression ect.

    25. Re:Do some research on psychology of psychopaths. by elucido · · Score: 1
  250. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    Says Silo to Roy:

    "What do you mean by when we'll pass to the serious matters? I only come to have my computer installed and learn about Linux, nothing more!"

  251. Oh man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess one could say that no matter the outcome, he's really fsck'd...

  252. Execution is *not* murder by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    so let me get this straight. You want to murder someone for commiting a murder? That makes you (or the state, rather) just as bad.

    Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ... Murder is an illegal killing, the preceding are legal. The State does have the right to kill, individuals do not except in self defense. Bad, or more accurately moral, only comes into play with respect to when the State decides to use such power. If everyone convicted of murder was executed, I'd lean heavily towards the immoral label. There are erroneous convictions and an execution can not be undone, it might be cheaper to warehouse the MF'er, the MF'er might suffer more by living, ... However, if it is an extreme case and the circumstances remove the doubt (caught in the act, DNA versus picked from a lineup, etc.) then I would lean towards the moral label.

    You know, even murderers can be rehabilitated. I've met a guy who killed his wife. He spend 8 years in prison and now he's out being a productive member of society. So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.

    That is a highly defective appraisal, "so long as he has a community of support." Rehabilitated is when someone won't murder, regardless of a community of support. I had a Psych professor who used to believe as you seem to. His opinion changed after spending years volunteering at a state prison. He learned that many criminals simply adapt to their environment. When in prison where there is a much greater likelihood of being caught and harsher punishment they behave, when returned to a society where they are likely to get away with it they revert. Predator -> Model Prisoner -> Predator, repeat. Actual rehabilitation is rare. The problem with a murderer is that the cost of finding out if they are truly rehabilitated can be quite high. Society may be better off with murderers being permanently removed, life with no parole.

    1. Re:Execution is *not* murder by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1
      Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ...

      Yes, those things are murder also. You've merely been conditioned to believe they are not.

      Murder is an illegal killing, the preceding are legal.

      No, they are not. Circumstance is used to determine if punishment may be waived. Killing is always illegal. Proceeding with prosecution is at the whim of the State. Your State makes available the definitions of all crimes, read up on them.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    2. Re:Execution is *not* murder by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ..."

      Yes, those things are murder also. You've merely been conditioned to believe they are not


      Wrong. Words have common meanings, definitions. We could not communicate otherwise. "Murder" is a word used to describe a specific type of killing, shown below. You seem to be confusing a subjective moral opinion with the accepted definition of a word. Merely believing that all forms of killing are immoral does not allow you to change the definition of a word.

      murder
      n.
      1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
      "Murder is an illegal killing, the preceding are legal."

      No, they are not. Circumstance is used to determine if punishment may be waived. Killing is always illegal. Proceeding with prosecution is at the whim of the State. Your State makes available the definitions of all crimes, read up on them.


      Actually I've had an administration of justice class that covered where the use of deadly force was legal. I believe state statutes authorize the use of deadly force when executing a death warrant, in self defense, during the suppression of a riot, ... Perhaps you are confused by tangential issues, for example where a victim is charged with the possession of a firearm in a jurisdiction where they are prohibited.

    3. Re:Execution is *not* murder by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      Given that I've worked for an attorney who sues police officers for the past four years I can assure you that in every instance of the use of deadly force there is an inquest and any officer involved is relieved of duty for the duration. Only when the inquest finds that the officer's actions were unavoidable is he allowed to return to duty. If it was an avoidable the officer is punished accordingly. This happens without fail. It is never outright legal.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    4. Re:Execution is *not* murder by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So, according to you, police officers shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force, right?

      After all, two messages up you said that self-defense = murder, and to most civilized people, murder = wrong.

      Sounds like you should get another job.

    5. Re:Execution is *not* murder by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Just humbly saying, that your position on murder is entirely cultural, although I guess it should scare you that ex dictatorships from Eastern Europe are viewing murder in a broader sense than the USA. For example we have something called reasonable use of self defense. You're sent to jail for murder if you for example shoot an armed robber (not that it happens here much as gun usage is extremely rare, but for the sake of an example) in their back, after you've luckily wrestled the gun away from him. The only case when you'd be aquitted is if he was about to shoot you right at the time.

      See, it's a cultural thing. Your bias, my bias, and everyone's bias about what you consider murder.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:Execution is *not* murder by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1

      You certain win the award for most conclutions jumped to. No, I don't think any of what you assume, I merely stated the fact that in our country killing is never "legal". I just think people shouldn't sugar coat it. If you are going to kill, say so, don't say "I defended my self" or some silly fluffy nonsense. A spade is a just shovel, call things what they are.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    7. Re:Execution is *not* murder by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Ok, now you're lying.

      >Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ...

      Yes, those things are murder also. You've merely been conditioned to believe they are not.


      Here, you absolutely state that self defense is murder. This clearly shows your statement: "I merely stated the fact that in our country killing is never "legal"." is a blatant lie. Did you really think people can't just click on "Parent" a few times to see what you said?

      As for "If you are going to kill, say so, don't say "I defended my self" or some silly fluffy nonsense.", this is just stupid. There's a world of difference between self-defense and premeditated murder. Luckily, even our not-always-competent lawmakers and judiciary recognize this simple fact, which is why people who kill in self-defense are usually not punished for it. Good thing no one elected you to Congress, or else we'd all be required to just allow criminals to attack us without being allowed to raise a finger in self-defense.

    8. Re:Execution is *not* murder by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 1
      As for "If you are going to kill, say so, don't say "I defended my self" or some silly fluffy nonsense.", this is just stupid. There's a world of difference between self-defense and premeditated murder.

      No, there is not. The end result of all of those is a corpse. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

      I fail to understand how it is you think I'm lying, but in case you failed to read it all the way through I'll quote the whole of my first statement for you.

      "Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ..."

      Yes, those things are murder also. You've merely been conditioned to believe they are not.

      "Murder is an illegal killing, the preceding are legal."

      No, they are not. Circumstance is used to determine if punishment may be waived. Killing is always illegal. Proceeding with prosecution is at the whim of the State. Your State makes available the definitions of all crimes, read up on them.

      Goodness, it seems that my first post on this subject was in response to someone suggesting there is such a thing as legal killing. Wow, you are correct, being able to read parent posts is really cool.

      What makes matters worse is that you are assuming I consider murder to be a bad thing. Which is a statement I never made. I'm not a person who thinks in absolutes. Murder in and of itself is not something I consider to be "bad". A given situation in which murder occurs may be a bad situation, but the act itself contains no "good" or "bad". The decision to commit the act might be shown to be a "bad" or "good" decision, but I don't confuse the ideas of "the act" with "the decision to commit the act". They are mutually exclusive.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    9. Re:Execution is *not* murder by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      Given that I've worked for an attorney who sues police officers for the past four years I can assure you that in every instance of the use of deadly force there is an inquest and any officer involved is relieved of duty for the duration.

      That is probably a departmental policy, and being pulled off the line is certainly not a prosecution. More importantly, sworn peace officers are not necessarily limited in their use of deadly force to self defense, a fleeing violent felon being one possible situation IIRC, and given such special State powers they are subject to an extra level of scrutiny that an ordinary citizen would not be. To take it even further consider a citizen at home. Local statutes state that a homeowner is presumed to be in a deadly force situation when a stranger forces entry into their home. A prosecutor has no discretion, the prosecuter *must* have evidence to the contrary, say entry wounds in the back, to prosecute the homeowner.

      Only when the inquest finds that the officer's actions were unavoidable is he allowed to return to duty. If it was an avoidable the officer is punished accordingly. This happens without fail. It is never outright legal.

      You are off on a tangent, "avoidable" indicates it was not self defense, rather part of the force a sworn peace officer is authorized to use to make an arrest or stop a present action. Things that do not apply to civilians. Also, being formally trained in arrest, control, and the use of force an officer is presumed to be at a lesser risk than an ordinary civilian. Again, this subthread is off-topic.

    10. Re:Execution is *not* murder by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What makes matters worse is that you are assuming I consider murder to be a bad thing.

      Ok, here's the root of the problem right here. Murder IS a bad thing. It's a standard English word, and it has a certain meaning that the English-speaking population has agreed upon for hundreds of years (I imagine the word itself goes back pretty far).

      Just because YOU want to redefine it to mean something else doesn't mean it does. And when you use it in a way that's not consistent with everyone else's understanding of the word, it generates confusion.

      I believe someone else already posted this, but apparently I need to post it again. Here's the Merriam-Webster definition of murder:

      Main Entry: 1murder
        Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
        Function: noun
        Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Anglo-French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
        1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
      2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy

      Obviously, definition 1 is the one we're using. Murder is a crime, it's unlawful, and involves malice. Self-defense does not meet these criteria, even though it may also result in a corpse. No, self-defense is certainly not illegal, since anything that is illegal usually results in prison time. You can be arrested for something that is not a crime (but might appear to be), but when it's determined that your actions were not criminal, you will be let go and not prosecuted.

      How'd you like it if I started posting random English words, and just expected you to know all my custom definitions for them?

    11. Re:Execution is *not* murder by neuroxmurf · · Score: 1
      With all due respect, if you're going to resort to definitional arguments you should at least have the decency to choose a decent, respectable dictionary. Dictionary.com is hardly such a one. The OED defines murder as:


      A. n.

              I. Simple uses.

              1. The action or an act of killing.


      While it does go on to provide other more-specific definitions, this one is first for a good reason.

  253. Violent criminal database. by elucido · · Score: 1

    If you are a murderer you SHOULD be in a database or registry for the rest of your life. We are talking murder here, it's a permanent crime.

  254. We don't know that by elucido · · Score: 1

    We don't know that 5% doesnt kill again, they might just get better at it. There is little evidence that a psychopath can change, sure they might not get caught next time, but still, they will think like a murderer.

    If the worst thing a person has done was murder or rape someone, they should have it hang over their head, especially if they feel no guilt, I mean why are we suddenly soft on crime? and murder? I mean really what crime could be worse than that?

  255. Hmm, better do a test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reiserfsck -dna

  256. You have to admit by loqi · · Score: 1

    Kids aside, the jokes sure are funny!

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  257. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Interesting to note the different temperment of slashdot articles 6 years ago. No jokes..


    In this article the wife even posted (at a +5 comment):

    Hi. This is Jason's wife. Jeff Carr told me that Jason had been slashdotted (a fact that would have him bursting with pride, if he understood what it meant right now) and I've been reading everybody's comments. I just wanted to thank *everyone* who has posted their good wishes for Jason's speedy recovery. And for everyone who has complimented me on my fortitude and humor, thanks also. ;-) The fact is, I'm stubborn and prideful and I'd rather laugh than cry.

    Clearly, the readers were more shocked in the article you linked, probably because there was more personal involvement, and the situation was less absurd. Also, in this case, Reiser may have killed his wife. It just doesn't feel naturall to say something like 'how awefull' when it's done by a smart guy we like. Still, the wife in your link explicitly thanked for the humorous comments.
  258. Need for name change by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

    I dont know if they need to change the FS's name if he is found guilty, but they would definitely need to change it if he has killed his wife with a RAZOR!

  259. Some people have empathy. by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes you can say that a lot of people would murder, but some people would NEVER murder because they have empathy. It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.

    Why do you believe it's normal to murder? Most people would never even consider murdering their wife, and of people who think about it, most people quickly feel guilty for even thinking about it. If a person planned it and went through with it, it's safe to say they werent feeling empathy or guilt.

    Tell me why do you defend a person who could just as easily do this to you?

    1. Re:Some people have empathy. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      How did you jump from killing under extreme conditions to just as easily killing you?

    2. Re:Some people have empathy. by elucido · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is, empathy is important because it keeps humans from killing non-stop for fun. Empathy means, when you kill someone else you also kill a part of yourself.

    3. Re:Some people have empathy. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Dude you're all over the place. You said "NEVER kill", and now you're saying killing for fun.

    4. Re:Some people have empathy. by elucido · · Score: 1

      If empathy did not exist, and someone enjoys killing, and murder were legal, well yes you can imagine that some people would kill for fun.

      If you want an example, take sport hunting, it's legal, and people do it for fun.

    5. Re:Some people have empathy. by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

      Yes you can say that a lot of people would murder, but some people would NEVER murder because they have empathy. It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.

      So if a person with empathy had a terminally ill spouse undergoing tremendous pain before they died, would they pull the plug on the life support system ?

      It would be an empathetic thing to do. In the US, it would also constitute murder.

    6. Re:Some people have empathy. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, murder is a pretty normal thing. I've seen estimates that the homicide rate for prehistoric societies is about fifty times that of the U.S. today. If that's even remotely true, it's hard to imagine that relatively normal people didn't often resort to murder.

      It's just plain crap to say that, just because a person committed murder, they must be incapable of empathy towards another human being. The victim may have done something that, in the killer's mind, ejected that person from the realm of sympathy. I'm thinking of things like murder, rape, child molestation, blackmail, etc. If somebody kills one of his children, a perfectly normal person might be willing to kill in revenge. Though it's not socially uplifting behavior, it's not evidence that the person never belonged in society in the first place.

      Your "and this was his wife" crack makes me wonder what sensory deprivation chamber you've spent most of your life in. I've seen some pretty awful, destructive marriages. In an ideal world, "his wife" would mean "the woman he loved and cared for more than any other person on the face of the Earth." In reality, it often means, "the woman he legally bound himself to after a drunken party in Vegas." Too often, a spouse is just someone that people take their frustrations out on. The only thing that you can be sure of is that a spouse is someone who can probably elicit stronger emotions than anybody else in the world.

      This is why, even if it turns out to be true, I wouldn't be afraid to meet Hans Reiser in a dark alley. You can go on believing that murderers are creatures wholly apart from the human condition. But if one day you find yourself staring down at your own bloody hands, horrified by what you've just done, I do hope society shows more understanding to you than you've exhibited here.

      And remember, kids: every time you say, "It's that simple," an angel gets its wings ripped off.

      [preemptive response: Where the hell did I say murderers should get off scott free?]

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:Some people have empathy. by TheGreek · · Score: 1
      So if a person with empathy had a terminally ill spouse undergoing tremendous pain before they died, would they pull the plug on the life support system ?

      It would be an empathetic thing to do. In the US, it would also constitute murder.
      Hey, now.

      Discontinuing life support (artificial respiration, feeding tube, etc.) is legal.

      What's illegal is actively causing somebody else's death.
    8. Re:Some people have empathy. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It's that simple, if this story is true, Mr. Reiser had no empathy at all, and this was his wife.

      His estranged wife, who reportedly had an affair with his former friend and won custody of the children (which is almost a given in any seperation, unfortunately for men, but that's another matter). While we are more likely to empathise with people we are close to, those very same people are the ones who have the ability to hurt us or anger us more than anyone else simply because they are the people we trust, or trusted. How often do you hear about someone killing their friend's wife because she was unfaithful? Almost never, because that person just doesn't have the same emotional connection as our own spouse or S.O.

      I'm not trying to excuse murder by any means, rather to explain that the emotions involved can easily override empathy, especially when we're betrayed by the people we trust most. Neither am I saying his wife actually cheated on him, but if she did, along with taking his money and his children, he likely felt a great deal of animosity toward her, no matter how much he loved her. Hate is not the opposite of love -- apathy is.

  260. Life sentences. by elucido · · Score: 1

    This is why we have life sentences. Why should anyone be released from prison for murder? And if they are released, they should be watched. It's murder, it's not robbery, it's not drug dealing, it's the worst crime a human can commit, if you arent tough in this crime, why have any laws at all?

  261. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    They DO drop support eventually. And if the software vendor goes bankrupt, it may even be "out of the blue". But let us take a well known example:
    Microsoft's operating systems.
    Yes, they announce the end of support early. But it will come. AFAIK, Win98 is de-supported now.
    There is usually a replacement, but with strings attached:
    1) The upgrade is NOT free. You will have to pay for new licenses and often for new hardware, as the hardware requirements go up.
    2) It is not always fully compatible. For instance, the Windows NT/2000/XP series does not allow direct hardware access by applications. Now there were good reasons for this, but if you have an old application that accesses hardware directly you are still stranded.

    A somwhat unusual example of 1):
    The company I work for has recently started to support networking of their Windows-based devices. When reading files from a shared directory on the network, performance suffers. The problem is caused by a custom file open dialog where a few kBytes from each file are read.
    For Windows 2000 performance is (barely) acceptable, for Windows XP it is slower by a factor of 3. We have spent several days trying to fix that on the Windows side, without success. By now we also have a prototype of an optimized new software version that will perform acceptably under XP. Actually releasing it will take more work for validation and documentation.

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  262. What if he was a black or mexican gang member? by elucido · · Score: 1

    Would people here be trying to say that murder should be legalized then?

    You make a very good point, people seem to have seperate laws for celebrity criminals, we saw it with OJ.

  263. passion matters here more than intelligence by misanthrope101 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I was wondering why some guy smart enough and sane enough to develop a filesystem would go and murder his wife.
    Intelligence has little to do with passion, and passion drives our actions much more than we would like to think. I concede that most of the population who shot someone over a 6-pack of beer are probably from the less gifted end of the gene pool, but love, rejection, bitterness, etc., will dupe very smart people into doing very stupid things.

    And if you go to the more cold-blooded end of the murder spectrum, the killers actually get smarter, and outright sociopaths are often pretty bright. However, I base that on nothing more substantial than a hunch I get from what I've read, heard, and seen over the years, so don't bet any vital organs on it.

  264. The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    Any system dealing in life-and-death issues will have some degree of fatal mistakes. This goes for car and airplane design, health care, traffic policy, policing, etc.

    The central question in those areas is not achieving a 0 death ratio or ceasing their operation. Rather, they weigh the benefit acheived, both in terms of quality of life, productivity, lives saved, etc. against the costs, including deaths caused. In the case of capital punishment, the risk of erronous execution can be almost entirely avoided simply by staying clear of a life of crime.

    Hence, I find the whole "but innocents die because of executions!" line of argumentation unconvincing. Innocents die because of virtually all areas of human endeavour.

    1. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The difference between car accidents, faulty aircraft designs and the like - is that the responsible parties are NEVER looking to go out and kill people. Indeed, they are generally trying to come up with something that reduces the risk of killing someone.

      Capital punishment, on the other hand, is designed to kill people - not avoid it. The innocent man on death row is being deliberately put to death by society.

      The death penalty is not only morally repugnant and totally unnecessary, it is the mark of an uncivilized country.

    2. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by DrHyde · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but when a car maker accidentally kills people, they get punished for it. When a judge and jury accidentally kills someone they don't.

      I'd be all in favour of the death penalty if - and only if - when someone is later found to have been not guilty, the judge, jury and all the prosecuting lawyers responsible for his death are themselves killed.

    3. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Alioth · · Score: 1

      > The innocent man is not being deliberately put to death by society, but is rather mistakenly put to death by society.

      It doesn't matter if it's mistaken or not - it's still deliberate and still premeditated. It's not like a car accident where nobody is actually going out to kill another person (after all, it's an accident!) - it's a deliberate, premeditated act of killing, mistaken or not. Car accidents are not the sign of a barbaric society. A society that deliberately puts people to death is, on the other hand, morally reprehensible and repugnant, and cannot be considered civilized.

    4. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I find your morals and logic very similar to those that of the WWII Germans.

      Have you wondered why Ill. Gov. Thompson put a moratorium on capital punishment?. He had a similar argument as yourself until he was shown a number of cases just in the previous decade. These were cases where the prisoners were shown to be innocent AFTER they were killed. At that point, he changed his mind.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by _Swank · · Score: 1

      > shown to be innocent AFTER they were killed

      this is incorrect. first, it was governor ryan of illinois. but noone in the US has been exonerated after they were executed. many have been shown innocent before they were killed and obviously freed from death row. and this is why ryan commuted the sentences of all of the illinois death row inmates.
      http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.exe cutions.02/

      if you have a link to somewhere indicating that someone in the us has bene proven innocent after they were executed, please include it.

    6. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Exonerated and found innocent are 2 very different concepts. The reasons why they were not exonerated is because no prosecutor wants to re-open the case and be shown to be at fault. But these ppl were shown to be innocent. In fact, UC law school went out and showed that more than 6 of them were innocent. UC did not publish this. but Ryan was shown the evidence and it was enough to convince him that multiple innocent ppl were executed (even though a simple logic check will tell you that some number will always be).

      Yeah, it was ryan. Sorry.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by liliafan · · Score: 1

      You mean like 'whoops sorry I accidently sent you into an electric chair and pulled the switch, my mistake'

      There is no mistake, the person has intentionally been put to death.

      No man has the right to determine the fate of another, this includes a murderer and a state.

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    8. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by _Swank · · Score: 1

      unless you have a link, i'm generally skeptical of your claims as to what the UC law school found. one, because you claim it wasn't published (this makes little sense in a university setting - where darn near everything anywhere near important gets published and this would definitely be important). and two, it directly contradicts the cnn article as to why ryan made the decision he made.

      i'm not claiming that we haven't executed innocent people. but i haven't seen a lot of definitive proof showing we have. just inference (which is valid enough to me to be against the death penalty, but doesn't actually prove anything). if you look at this anti-death penalty site you'll find it contains no proven claims of innocence after someone has been executed - and you'd expect that if there were such a site would definitely have that information.
      http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6 &did=111#executed

      sure, some of these were before dna testing and sure, prosecutors don't want to reopen the case for a dead person so dna testing is about the only way to prove innocence without going through a trial making it nearly impossible without someone else confessing and being proven guilty. but it does make your claims very hard for me to believe (even if i agree with the end conclusion that the death penalty is bad).

    9. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by LKM · · Score: 1
      The innocent man is not being deliberately put to death by society, but is rather mistakenly put to death by society.

      So, if I wanted to kill somebody, but mistakenly kill you, can I make the same excuse?

      "Sorry, I didn't deliberately put him to death, rather I mistakenly put him to death. Can I go now?"

    10. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't matter if it's mistaken or not - it's still deliberate and still premeditated."

      Premeditated? Of course. Deliberate? Not really - if the facts of the case had been known, the innocent man would not have been executed. But perhaps you are taking issue with the very act of deliberate killing in general, and not only with the killing of innocents? If so, that's a different argument against the death penalty than "but it kills innocent people!".

    11. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "
      There is no mistake, the person has intentionally been put to death."

      Intentional in the same sense that the driver causing the accident intentionally turned the steering wheel the wrong way. (Or similar allegory) If the facts of the case would have been known, the innocent man would not have been killed, just as if the driver had made the right move, the accident would never have happened.

      "No man has the right to determine the fate of another, this includes a murderer and a state."

      Says who? I personally prefer that the state has a great deal of input into the fate of killers, as I prefer to see killers kept off the streets.

    12. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "So, if I wanted to kill somebody, but mistakenly kill you, can I make the same excuse?"

      Probably wouldn't fly in court, because of that whole "monopoly of violence" thing. The state prefers to keep those calls to itself - a position with widespread public support.

    13. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by liliafan · · Score: 1
      Says who? I personally prefer that the state has a great deal of input into the fate of killers, as I prefer to see killers kept off the streets.


      I prefer killers kept off the streets also, however, life without parole would be just as effective at keeping killers off the streets.

      If you are so death penalty, then I can't wait for the day you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and get wrongly convicted to death from a crime you didn't commit.

      As for:

      ntentional in the same sense that the driver causing the accident intentionally turned the steering wheel the wrong way. (Or similar allegory)


      You are shitting me right? If a driver intentionally turned the steering wheel the wrong way it is no longer an accident, it is intentionally causing a wreck and killing someone, hence murder and the person should be tried for murder and sentenced to life without the chance of parole, however, in the event that it is a 'car accident' there is no intention implied. Intention and accident are mutally exclusive.
      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    14. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "I prefer killers kept off the streets also, however, life without parole would be just as effective at keeping killers off the streets."

      This is a fair point, although properly used, the death penalty can provide an additional, (and for obvious reasons very strong) additional incentive not to kill.

      "If you are so death penalty, then I can't wait for the day you are in the wrong place at the wrong time and get wrongly convicted to death from a crime you didn't commit."

      "Hey, you're one of those pro-prison people, right?!? I can't wait to see you wrongly imprisoned for life! With lots of prison rape for good measure!" (As an aside, it would be unlikely to happen to me as my country does not apply capital punishment. Perhaps on a trip abroad though...)

      "You are shitting me right? If a driver intentionally turned the steering wheel the wrong way it is no longer an accident, it is intentionally causing a wreck and killing someone, hence murder and the person should be tried for murder and sentenced to life without the chance of parole, however, in the event that it is a 'car accident' there is no intention implied. Intention and accident are mutally exclusive."

      There is of course no intentionality in executing the wrong person either - it is an accident in the process of attempting to execute a guilty person. (In addition, it appears to be a rather marginal kind of error.)

      Of course, if you are arguing against state killing of criminals in general, then there is indeed no comparison to a car crash - but then we have left the whole "but they kill innocents" line of argument for other pastures.

    15. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by liliafan · · Score: 1
      This is a fair point, although properly used, the death penalty can provide an additional, (and for obvious reasons very strong) additional incentive not to kill.


      However in the US it obviously doesn't provide an incentive not to kill just take a look at the crime stats.

      "Hey, you're one of those pro-prison people, right?!? I can't wait to see you wrongly imprisoned for life! With lots of prison rape for good measure!" (As an aside, it would be unlikely to happen to me as my country does not apply capital punishment. Perhaps on a trip abroad though...)


      I am not overly pro-prison, I am anti death sentence, in the event you can at a later date be prove innocent at least you have a chance to live your life once you are released from prison, being executed is kinda hard to take back. For the record my country doesn't have capital punishment however the country I live in does. Seriously consider the consequencies with new DNA evidence lots of people can now be proved innocent, but if you executed that person well proving innocence posthumously doesn't help that innocent person much.

      Additionally as far as prison rape and victimisation in prison goes, most death row convicts spend years waiting to be executed and as such are subject to rape and other suffering whilst waiting to be executed, so lets reword your statement.

      Would you like to sit on deathrow for 20 years being raped and beaten waiting to be executed for a crime you didn't commit, or would you like to sit in prison for 20 years being raped and beaten for a crime you didn't commit, the only difference is that at the end you don't get executed.
      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    16. Re:The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "However in the US it obviously doesn't provide an incentive not to kill just take a look at the crime stats."

      Erm, did it ever strike you that the reason the level of US homocide is so high compared to Europe might have other reasons? (I.e. primarily ethnic gang crime. Roughly 50%+ of all US murders are committed by the roughly 1/10 of the population that is black. Latino gangs bump that figure up even further.)

      It is rather likely that the popularity of the death penalty in the US is correlated to the high murder rate, as people deem harsher measures to be needed than in, say, Europe?

      "I am not overly pro-prison, I am anti death sentence, in the event you can at a later date be prove innocent at least you have a chance to live your life once you are released from prison"

      True, a relatively marginal benefit of imprisonment compared to capital punishement. But that wasn't my point either.

  265. Even if both of them were psycho by elucido · · Score: 1

    Psychopaths have a right to life and happiness just like everyone else. Just because Reiser may have been a productive psychopath, it does not mean he had the right to kill his wife, even if she was a psychopath, she was human.

  266. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
    Are you unwilling to differentiate between

    1) Software that cannot, by definition, be maintained because of a restrictive license and locked-down, secret code.

    2) Software that can be supported in principle, but you don't have the time to support.

    Is there really no difference? Even if code isn't maintained, it can be reused, improved, looked at for ideas, etc. I know that in reality there isn't a vibrant, vigilant community of volunteers swarming over ever snippet of code, eating up bugs and vulnerabilities like so many little scrubbing bubbles. But years from now someone could pick it up and move forward with the project, as opposed to a commercial offering that just dies forever and forever. Look at truecrypt--the E4M project wasn't being actively developed, but after it sat around for a while someone came in and used the E4M base to make Truecrypt. It may have been the same people (I don't really know) but even so, in principle it could've been someone else.

    It's true that not everyone has the inclination and time to do everything. That doesn't change the fact that it's better to have the option than not.

  267. Shawshank Redemption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only imagine the court declaring him guilty, without proof. He'll end up in prison, say Shawshank, and in it he is the quiet guy, until one day the prison director says that they need to tar the roof of a new complex and he needs volunteers.
    Ofcourse, his good friend in prison scams the lottery, and they get the job.
     
    Once on the roof, busy tarring, this security guard tells to the other security guard that he has just acquired a lot of important data he needs to store somewhere. But that darned Microsoft makes him store the data only on NTFS, which he doesn't trust for one bit.

    This is Hans's time to step up, so he does: "Do you trust Linux ?" - he says.

    So the guard throws him over the roof-end, and says "I think this fellow is asking for an accident".

    Hans replies: "No wait, I can store your data on another file system, it's called ReiserFS - it runs under Linux. If you trust Linux, I can help you put your data on that filesystem".
    ...

    I can see it all before me...

  268. No body? by QX-Mat · · Score: 1

    IIRC, there's only been one crime punished where no body was found and no other evidence. Removing items from the house is fairly regular.

    I wish the SFC article was more about the charge than presuming guilt - its plain to see: "estranged" (nee ex-wife), references to a missing persons website and the quote from the divorce lawyer.

    Guilty until proven innocent is one of the corner stones to modern society, yet the media can take liberties with how they represent information. :(

    (nb: i dont care who did it. but I do want reiserfs included in the stock kernel)

  269. Shouldnt this be on CNN? FoxNews? by elucido · · Score: 1

    This is the sorta case which should get national attention, I mean this is the exact kinda case that would be on the news for months of years.

    Reiser was no ordinary internet user, and his wife did not seem ordinary either. I'm surprised to be reading it on Slashdot and not seeing it on CNN.

    1. Re:Shouldnt this be on CNN? FoxNews? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Reiser was no ordinary internet user, and his wife did not seem ordinary either. I'm surprised to be reading it on Slashdot and not seeing it on CNN.

      Mundanes don't really care. How many people aside from geeks know who Hans is? Joe Sixpack will pretty much respond with "Hans who? Who the fuck is this guy?"

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Shouldnt this be on CNN? FoxNews? by elucido · · Score: 1

      None of us knew who Scott Peterson or any of those other people were either.

    3. Re:Shouldnt this be on CNN? FoxNews? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Nina Reiser isn't blonde. She wasn't born in America. She (presumably) isn't pregnant.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  270. His situation in his own words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hans described his situation in some mails. His advanced filesystems are a great success technically, but his private life suffered a lot. He was divorced, his children taken away from him, he is in debt and Namesys is in a financial tailspin. Read it yourself:

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=1095355 06122706&w=2
    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=1104438 35707976&w=2

    1. Re:His situation in his own words by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Yes, from reading Hans' postings and some articles on the web it his "lovely" wife and her friends seem a lot more suspect all along.

      Questions are, will the juridical system ever take these suspect indicies into account? Also, everything that makes them look suspect comes from Hans Reiser, which, unless it can be proven, might not make his position better in a court of law.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  271. Crime, punishment, and execution by sowth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can you ever really be sure anyone is 100% guilty. Putting someone in prison or even just marking their record as guilty is not a fair thing for someone who is innocent. ...and I would say giving someone a life sentance is at least as bad as execution. Sure, they may get out of prison sometime, however what kind of life will they be able to lead?

    There are worse things than prison. Because I was over 25 and single, the local taliban essentially made it so I would have all sorts of problems, including being poisoned. I will have kidney failure and the damage from 2 strokes for the rest of my life. I have to be chained to a dialysis machine for 9 hrs/day, and because of the strokes, I can't be active (meaning doing things like walking) for more than 2 or so hrs/day. Much less if I carry something heavy, and now anything over 10 lbs is "heavy." I didn't even do anything wrong--just tried to live my life. So I didn't go to their church. Is that and the constant harrasment they gave me fair "punishment"? Is it not worse than prison or death?

    Now the US justice system is supposed to make things fair, or at least reasonable. It is designed to let people go if there is any excuse to do so, because holding or punishing someone when they are innocent is a crime in itself. So I think the question should be: If someone has gone through all the stringent requirements for being declared guilty, should they not be punished for their apparent crime? At least so long as the punishment is resonable for said crime and it is a real crime?

    1. Re:Crime, punishment, and execution by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Because I was over 25 and single, the local taliban

      Are you seriously comparing the US justice system to the Afghani Taliban, one of the most pointlessly cruel regimes in modern history? The Taliban are primitive, savage, idiots who don't even really understand the basics of sha'ria, and you're comparing them to a sophisticated modern legal system like that of the USA? (and I consider myself a Taliban SUPPORTER!)

      Or are you talking about some US vigilante group, or nutcase right-wing church, or some other nonsense? If you're talking about the Afghani Taliban, you got off easy. Nowadays they burn people alive.

    2. Re:Crime, punishment, and execution by sowth · · Score: 1

      I am talking about a right wing nutcase church/cult who took over an entire state's government (In fact, they established it). Maybe they didn't burn me alive, but they poisoned be, which among other things, led to me having kidney failure and two strokes. Now I get to be chained to a machine 9 hrs/day and and only be active for two or so. Your life is pretty much over when you have to be laying down for at least 20 hours out of the day. These people have killed before. (at least one famous massacre 100 years ago, and I did hear there are quite a high number of "suicides" and "hunting accidents") though now they are playing the criminal game where they use legal technicalities and such.

      The feds don't seem to care. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is giving them the thumbs up on the sick things they do. Certainly there, freedom of religion is out the window. They may have to play with legal technicalities (no stoning people out in the open streets), but they are playing the taliban game.

    3. Re:Crime, punishment, and execution by rtechie · · Score: 1

      I am talking about a right wing nutcase church/cult who took over an entire state's government

      Why aren't you naming them? It this the Mormon church? The only well-publicized poisoning incident I'm aware of involved Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, a Hindu guru.

      Your life is pretty much over when you have to be laying down for at least 20 hours out of the day.

      Tell it to my father dying of prostate cancer. He still manages to enjoy puttering around, using the internet, and spending time with his family, especially playing with his grandchildren. I can't speak for him, but I doubt he's be willing to give up one minute of it, despite the pain I know he's going through.

  272. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jason Haas wasn't a developer IIRC. Rather, he was somebody who did a lot of the work involved in running LinuxPPC, Inc., the parent company of the LinuxPPC distribution. Development of PowerPC Linux didn't slow down a bit. The accident probably played a role in the eventual demise of that particular distribution -- I don't remember it staying around too much longer.

  273. M$ CONSPIRACY!!! by ico2 · · Score: 1

    No body? No evidence? M$ conspiracy theory anyone?

  274. What if Linus kills his wife? by Oxide · · Score: 1

    Seriously,

    What happens if Linus kills his wife and goes to prison? What happens to Linux then?

    1. Re:What if Linus kills his wife? by Aussie · · Score: 1

      What happens if Linus kills his wife and goes to prison?

      From Wikipedia: Linus is married to Tove Torvalds (née Monni). She is a six-time Finnish national Karate champion.

      Linus would die.

  275. Since you asked by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is the general consensus in the psychological community that a conscience is something to be trained.

    Don't let the gravity of the accusations prevent you from running the classic experiment with this. Ask a 5 or a 6 year old child to kill his brother/sister/pet/... (Be prepared for the situation that he might actually try to do it). You will obviously need to stop the interaction between the "killer" and his "victim" shortly after. Then ask the kid what happened. Why it did/did not do what you asked. You will be very surprised by the answers.

    Child soldiers are a very clear illustration of what can happen if a child's conscience is badly trained. These children are trained to kill at an age of 5 or 6 (12 at the most) and they kill. They don't stop, they don't pause. They don't think they've done anything wrong.

    Lots of people think this is related to the motivations of terrorists, where violent religious conviction takes precedence over rationality.

    1. Re:Since you asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could check out the book _On Killing_ by Lt. Col. John Grossman (retired), the person who developed the U.S. Army conditioning program from basic training. He overcame soldiers' innate instincts to shoot over enemies' heads by turning up the shoot-to-kill fraction of troops from ~20% to ~90%. He has a lot to write about the psychology of killing.

      He made two interesting points here:

      There is a psychological difference between people who have killed once and people who have killed twice. Those who have killed once are usually feeling very guilty, other than the 3% of population who are sociopathic. From the army's point of view, it was in their interest to get a soldier to kill a second time quickly following the first -- after this second killing the soldiers felt less hesitation to shoot to kill.

      People who do kill with premeditation go through a variety of behaviors first to distance themselves from the victim.

      It's an interesting book from an expert on killing!

    2. Re:Since you asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Don't let the gravity of the accusations prevent you from running the classic experiment with this. Ask a 5 or a 6 year old child to kill his brother/sister/pet/... (Be prepared for the situation that he might actually try to do it).
      Hmm.. really? Wow. I guess you could ask him to kill his mother... ^^
  276. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by sowth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's funny, because I was thinking of Godwining this thread with Nazi research. Would someone really turn down a treatment if they learned the doctor came up with it using Nazi reasearch? I doubt it. Likewise, I don't see why someone would throw away a filesystem because of an incident completely unrelated to its development.

  277. CuntFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can rename it to CuntFS after his wife.

    C'mon, you know she must have been a huge cunt if he murdered her. Cunty cunt cunty

  278. OJSimpsonFS Jorunalling by maroberts · · Score: 1

    Journaling support was not present in v1.0 of OJSimpsonFS, and the FS was selective about which events were journalled. v 2.0 was also flawed as it reported false events.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  279. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by TrentC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but perhaps someone who led an exemplarily life - volunteer work, good parenting, clean record - until the age of 40 shouldn't spend the rest of his/her life in prison for a single murder.

    This has got to be the stupidest goddamn argument I have ever heard.

    So how many people should this paragon of virtue be allowed to murder before we lock them up for life? And are you saying you're willing to allow your hypothetical murderer get off with a slap on the wrist, as long as he or she is really this great guy?

    And how do we decide who gets the benefit of being let off easy for murder? Does being able to write a great filesystem rank higher than, say, being a pediatrician? How about a minister?

    If Hans Reiser did in fact kill his wife, then I don't care how great Reiser4 is, or how great Reiser5 might have been. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sorry if the reality of that situation inconveniences your overprivileged ass, but you'll get over it eventually.

  280. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Lorkki · · Score: 1

    I've heard of this great, simple test for finding out whether you are truly irreplaceable. It goes like this:

    1. Take an empty glass (doesn't need to be clean).
    2. Fill it with water.
    3. Insert any one of your fingers in the glass so that it is at least partly submerged in the water.
    4. Take the finger out of the glass.

    If you now see a visible dent in the water, congratulations!

  281. chmod +x hans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Subject says it all
    Slashdot should be left to rot in prison

  282. ReiserFS by magnus_1986 · · Score: 1

    Yeah see, I told you it wasn't as evil that it kills small children! Err No wait, it does?

    --
    My last sig was ridiculed
  283. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by swarsron · · Score: 1

    With your logic i could show that the space shuttle is unmaintainable. I don't have the skills to maintain it, don't have the time or money.

    See some problem with that? Just because you can't do it doesn't mean others can't do it.

  284. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by moonbender · · Score: 1

    As such people took the mundane approach to it, which was to mourn his passing.

    Dude, Jason Haas didn't die. Apart from that, I agree completely.

    --
    Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  285. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by daveinthesky · · Score: 1


    Now if only he had designed a language!

    Programming Language Inventor or Serial Killer?

  286. George Bush - the charge - murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Osama Bin Laden has been missing for quite a long time now. If a person disappearing is all that is necessary to charge someone with murder (its not IMHO, but then, there is nothing just about the justice system)...

    I think George Bush should be charged with the murder, as he's the obvious first suspect having made comments on public record to effect of wanting to catch him DEAD or alive. I believe, saying something like that against an individual, irregardless of who you are, constitutes a terroristic threat (a criminal offense) under our current justice system, and makes him suspect number 1.

    Even if we can't find the body I think there's plenty of historical evidence that can be used to backup that the United States government is fundamentally a criminal organization engaged in clandestine and subversive activities driven by unbridaled power, corruption, and lies. CIA BLACKSITES, secret prisons, slander games, FALSE FLAG operations, POLITICAL SPIN, airstrikes upon civilian targets for assassination purposes, world policing, PAX AMERICANA domination, FEMA PRISON CAMPS, inhuman use of DEPLETED URANIUM in combat, and the stockpiling of ungodly amounts of weapons of mass destruction 1,000,000 times more than all the other countries on earth combined (nuclear, chemical, and biological). PHOSOPHORUS and NAPALM, AGENT ORANGE, CLUSTER BOMBS, BOUNCING BETTIES, and on an on. If my nextdoor neighbor was doing or stockpiling even a tiny fraction of the things the US government is doing behind the scenes, I'd think he was a total psycho. For real? Wouldn't you, if your next door neighbor for the last 50 years just to be macho strong experimented with chemical and biological weapons, and stockpiled them in his back yard, and was building nuclear bombs, and torturing people in his basement. You'd think he was certifiable insane. Which is what our government is. Those old farts are certifiably insane. This next election, boot every single incumbent out. Every one of them.

    As an aside, all this screaming about North Korea right now is TOTAL BS. I'm not down with anybody having nukes, but the US has absolutely no right to point fingers at all at anybody. Its a case of the pot accusing the kettle of being black.

    I live in Augusta, GA. Right down the road from me is Savannah River Site ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site ) where they refine tritium in ungodly amounts to put into weapons to melt and cook people and vaporize them Hiroshima style. Its all business as usually. If any body is planning to kill huge amounts of people its the US government, and no court (there' own or otherwise) is going to be able to stop them.

    Don't take my word for it, let Ben of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream testify for me:

    http://www.truemajority.com/bensbbs/

    Down the road in the other direction is an assissin training camp ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_America s ). I live right next to a military base ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Gordon ). There are at least 50 count them 50 prisons in my state alone, all hidden at the ends of roads out in the middle of nowhere of public sight in pine forests. My state, Georgia, was founded as a penal colony and from there its civil rights abuses have spiraled downwards ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_prison , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk , and on and on and on ).

  287. pot kettle black, buddy by loqi · · Score: 1

    My kids are exactly the same age and it causes me physical distress thinking what the Reiser children are going through right now.

    Right, so that explains why you can't take a fucking joke. You're the one that needs to grow up and learn there's a difference between words and actions. No one's telling jokes to the guy's kids, get over yourself.

    --
    If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  288. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Local Taliban?

  289. The Body by the+cleaner · · Score: 2, Funny
    Police made the arrest based on circumstantial evidence and have not found Nina Reiser's body...

    Search the code. I was always joking you could hide a corpse in the ReiserFS code, but jeez...

    --
    Could be worse. Could be raining.
  290. Wives today... sheesh by PrayingWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FTA: "Nina Reiser filed for divorce three months later, citing irreconcilable differences and saying their children "hardly know their father" because he was out of the country on business for most of the year, according to court records."
    That's no reason to file for divorce - that's reason to stay even closer together.

    ReiserFS - because wives should stay at home!

  291. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot... by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

    Also note that the linuxppc project seems to have died out as he retired from the project about a years after. There are apparently alternatives that work. So maybe it'll all work out one way or another, no matter what happens to the developer. Dammit, we're all dispensable, people!

    --
    molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
  292. In short, this sucks by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    First, it is that beatiful and young woman is (propably) dead.
    Second, two childrens left behind, with no real parents looking after them now. This is serious fuckup, I know how it is to live without any attention and care and love.
    Third, it is stupid and sad situation for Reiser - if he is NOT guilty, then it is terrible to lost someone close (even if you are divorsing), or if he IS guilty, I don't believe any second that he planned to do this - everything is too obvious in this situation - and he did it out of passion and anger (as such happens when divorse comes - like reason of it, or outcome of it).
    And yeah, Fourth - Reiser maybe have been hyping his file system, but it wasn't so bad either, it has some interesting and good characteristics, so let's see real impact on ReiserFS yet, but any improvements definetly will be delayed for some time.

    So, this is definetly sad.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  293. Russian Girls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same as usual. A beatiful russian girls who wants to live in the USA, marries to a young american nerd to obtain a residence permit. Soon after that starts cheaping on him... move along, nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Russian Girls... by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that thought struck me too.

      But the question is not whether she is/was a bad person, the question is if (that made) Reiser killed her. (and of course the question of how this will affect the future of Reiser4)

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  294. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by bwalling · · Score: 1
    Compared to a closed source project that relies so heavily on a single person, the open source project is a much safer bet.

    There is only one factor - the number of people or organizations that have significant incentive to continue the work. In the case of closed source software, this is likely a financial incentive of the organization that sells the software. They will continue in order to make money. Money is a strong motivator. In the case of open source, you have to hope that enough other people make significant use of that package that there is either a person (or persons) knowledgeable, capable, and willing to continue it or that there are organizations like RedHat or Novell that see enough fincancial incentive to pay someone to take up the work. While it is idealistic to say that open source is better here, it is not likely realistic. Money makes the world go around and software that was bringing money to someone stands a pretty good chance of continuance.
  295. Taught not trained by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes you can teach morality, to strengthen conscience, however conscience is something based on natural intuition that people are born with, or not. Some of us are born with the ability to be good at having a conscience just as some of us are born to be good at math, or born to be good at reading or not.

    So you can teach someone without a conscience to behave, and to develop a rational conscience, it's just far more difficult to teach a person who lacks the innate ability. It's like anything else really, some people have the conscience talent and some don't. Child soldiers, you are acting as if every child would equally be a good child soldier. Most child soldiers, are damaged
    and feel a lot of remorse, just later. Children generally can be trained into killing machines not because they lack remorse, or conscience, but because their conscience is not complex enough or firm enough to avoid being molded by religion.

    Adults on the other hand, they know right from wrong based on experience, because they know what is rational and or irrational and it matches up with their conscience. Ethics are rational, but you don't really understand this as a kid even if you have the natural ability, you wont really know what you are doing at 5. So I agree, that we must spend more time training children in ethics, and do a better job teaching reasoning ability.

    Censorship does not work, as censoring words, or violence, it does not really influence conscience at all, however it can keep your kid from being violent if they lack a conscience. At the same time when you make something forbidden you risk making it "cool" to be violent too. This is actually true, it's a big debate now in the psychology world as to how to teach conscience, and the tests have been done on prisoners with moderate success. Prisoners can be taught right from wrong, but their concept of right and wrong is narrow and based on the influence it has on themself, not the influence it has on anyone else, as they are the center of their world and you are the guest, you have to explain how it's in their best interest to act ethical and stop being a criminal. Most people CAN learn to not be a criminal because they fear going to jail. Most criminals want to stay out of jail and enjoy their lives,

    problem is, it's so simple to just take whatever you want simply because you can, and it's so simple to just do whatever you want simply because you can, that you have to actually explain to people why it's RATIONAL to limit their freedoms. Easier said than done.

    1. Re:Taught not trained by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. Kids do NOT know right from wrong. It's not builtin, it's not part of the character. Unfortunately the nicest child, the gentlest 3-year-old can be indoctrinated to be a ruthless killer (without losing his character by the way, someone like this will remain gentle in other situations).

      You ONLY know right from wrong through experience. There is no "innate" "in-born" or ... conscience.

      And that's completely true what you say about teaching right and wrong. But it's even more true of a child. A 2 year old does not know (as in really does not know) that an outside world exist. A 2 year old litterally thinks that he can grab something with his mother's hand as if it was his own. That the whole world is completely at his command. He's also incapable of comprehending that something exists outside of his direct perception. If he cannot see a person (or an object) it doesn't exist (so for example ... it makes no sense to go looking for it, cleaning up a room can be done by leaving that room, etc ...). A child does not know that killing is wrong, for starters it is not capable of understanding what it means to kill, or to die for that matter. It does not know that other persons exists, so how would it learn that it's wrong to harm them ?

      Remember that humans are, and always have been, hunters. It is "in-born" to every human to be capable to kill other species. It is also "in-born" to every human to battle other humans for geographical area, just as it is in-born to thousands of other species. "If necessary" you too will kill (by this I mean that there are defineately ways to make you kill someone, for example, if you thought greater good would come of it, say in a hostage situation, or in self-defense). It's just your definition of "if necessary" that's different. That's something you were taught.

    2. Re:Taught not trained by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Informative
      Remember that humans are, and always have been, hunters. It is "in-born" to every human to be capable to kill other species. It is also "in-born" to every human to battle other humans for geographical area, just as it is in-born to thousands of other species. "If necessary" you too will kill (by this I mean that there are defineately ways to make you kill someone, for example, if you thought greater good would come of it, say in a hostage situation, or in self-defense). It's just your definition of "if necessary" that's different. That's something you were taught


      Humans are also social animals. We will kill for food or defense, and fighting for territory falls into both categories. But rational, stable people don't kill their own kind. Unfortunately, determining "their own kind" IS taught. A child brought up in a racist household might be a normal, stable person, but he's brought up to think of other races as "them" instead of "us". Ditto for religion, nationality, or any other dividing characteristics.
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    3. Re:Taught not trained by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      He's also incapable of comprehending that something exists outside of his direct perception. If he cannot see a person (or an object) it doesn't exist


      I heard this quote before.

      So I decided to go and test it.

      My GF had a 2.5yr old nephew. I asked him to go get something from another room. If what people said was true, he wouldn't know WTF I was talking about.

      He went and got it.

      I also was told that "If you hide something behind your back, out of sight, the baby won't know what happened to it."

      Bull, he walked around behind me and got the toy out of my hand.

      I wonder if the people who write these things actually HAVE kids. Or if they do have kids, if the kids are all mentally retarded...
    4. Re:Taught not trained by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Notice that in all of these examples of child killers in this topic someone has "trained" the child to become a killer. A child will innately have difficulty with such an action. Of course, this discussion is really moot since children are not yet fully developed human beings. Depending on what age we discuss, children have difficulty recognizing other people as having a unique perspective, or even as conscious beings at all. It is like trying to prove that humans are innately greedy by pointing out that infants just eat and poop. Infants are pure, therefore, that must be humans true nature.

      The best way to get a child to commit murder is to make them do it in a way that they cannot perceive their own action, like strap a bomb them. But a child will have difficulty wrestling another human being to the ground and mortally stabbing them with a knife. And even if they do it successfully, it is unlikely that they won't immediately break down and cry, unless the have had some training on how to be calice. The conscience is easily suppressed by anger, so it isn't until the release that we can hear our conscience again. It really kicks in after that point.

    5. Re:Taught not trained by 49152 · · Score: 1

      You probably tried this to late, children develops very fast and he probably "got it" regarding this some time during the last year. If you tried this one year ago he would probably have failed.

      For something interesting you could test your nephews ability for symbolic thinking. If only 2.5 year he should perform very badly.

    6. Re:Taught not trained by enigma48 · · Score: 1

      The last time I read this in a child developmental text, a child tends to learn object permanence (disappearing from view != no longer existing) at 6 months. A 2-3 year old is interacting with the world pretty significantly and they would have learned this long ago.

      "The only 'intuitive' interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned." (Attributed to Bruce Ediger)

    7. Re:Taught not trained by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      Yah, that is about what I would say. But I have heard others claim that children can be fooled with the "hide it behind your back" trick up until 3 years old...

      I personally think that those people just did all their clinical studies on very "slow" children...

      Lovely quote about interfaces though. :) I'll have to remember that one.

    8. Re:Taught not trained by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Neural networks without training wither away and die (or to put it otherwise, their output becomes strictly monotone). So kids "without training" or "purely innate" would probably do the same, after a certain amount of time without input, there would be no knowledge left in the person, the mind would go blank. They'll never learn to walk, or even crawl. They'll scarcely learn to move. So yes they will have trouble killing someone. But not from an ethical point of view. They will never have anything in their mind resembling your concept of ethics.

      There is no "true" nature of humans. Except perhaps for the primary drives (which are motives for many murders).

      A child will not have trouble killing someone. Unfortunately this is shown with adopted child soldiers. They do not have ethics, but they do posses (some) tactical ability. So they wait until their victims (adoptive parents) sleep, take a knife from the kitchen, and plunge it into one of them. Generally this fails, but there can be no real doubt on their intentions. In this scenario they were never forced to do this in any way. They still did it.

    9. Re:Taught not trained by Intron · · Score: 1

      Object permanence is learned fairly early; before speech. One experiment you can try with a child of 2.5 is to show them a glass of water in a tall cup. Then pour the water into a short wide cup. Even though they see you pour the water, they think there was more water in the tall cup then the short one.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    10. Re:Taught not trained by Com2Kid · · Score: 1

      My visual spatial skills are so poor, I will likely think that there is more water in the tall cup than in the short cup.

      (No, seriously, my v/s skills are horrid...)

    11. Re:Taught not trained by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      As can be seen in many dictatorships, like, say Iran, people DO kill their own kind. WE don't kill our own kind, and many social groups also do not do that. But it's not a given. You are TAUGHT this. It's not "innate morals".

      That's why teaching those values to your children is so important. If you don't do it someone else probably will, but, if nobody does it, the child will become a killer. Killing is defineately more "natural" than a strict policy of not killing, as evidenced everywhere in the "natural" world.

    12. Re:Taught not trained by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      The last time I read this in a child developmental text, a child tends to learn object permanence (disappearing from view != no longer existing) at 6 months. A 2-3 year old is interacting with the world pretty significantly and they would have learned this long ago.

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. By the time my daughter was 2, she was well on her way to understanding complex family relationships (gramma Janelle is mommy's mother, etc), and making abstract connections to the people she knew (like knowing she was near where I worked, even though she couldn't see the building, or me for that matter).

      "The only 'intuitive' interface is the nipple. After that it's all learned." (Attributed to Bruce Ediger)

      One of the most telling signs that IT is dominated by men is the fact that this statement still holds any credence.

      The nipple is a learned interface as well, by both mother and child. Anyone who knows anything about breastfeeding could tell you this, but clearly there aren't many of those people around here...

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    13. Re:Taught not trained by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Neural networks without training wither away and die

      Human Brain != Neural Networks.

      I also think your view of human conscience is a little too pessimistic. While I tend to believe people are born as a tabula rasa, it is possible for someone on their own to figure out right and wrong, and not just do something because they have been indoctrinated or told to do so. In fact, most of my childhood was a rebellion against many things my school and society told me were "right". Things like "majority rules determines right and wrong." We'd all vote to determine "truth", which sat very badly with me. In retrospect, I was quite right.

  296. Re:Prove that by RsG · · Score: 3, Informative
    I never said all psychopaths are criminals. I never said all psychopaths are violent. Read precisely what I said, psychopaths do not feel guilt, remorse, or empathy, and there are a lot of people who don't feel guilt, remorse or empathy, enuogh that I'd say it's normal. I'd guess around 20% of the population, this is a guess and it could be wrong, but it's enough people that there are people in your family, friends, people at work (like your boss), and ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends who were/are psycho. It's as common as any other trait, like fat people, everyone knows a few, or like short people, or tall people, etc.
    The figure I got off a google search in all of about 5 minutes was 3% of men and 1% of women. Note that those were the high estimates, not the low ones. 20%? You're dreaming, or else you have a seriously negative view of humanity.

    Moreover, you're asking me to prove things while you are, by your own admission, presenting your wild aproximate guesses as fact. You prove it.

    The average people almost always commit suicide immediately after they commit violent acts.
    Would this be another one of your wild guesses?

    There is a high suicide rate in prison, and for people awaiting trial. And there are plenty of murder-suicides. But that's a hell of a long way from "average people almost always kill themselves after commiting violent acts". And moreover, most of the murder suicides aren't exactly average either.

    Regardless of whether someone has commited a crime, most suicides are born of depression. This means that murderers who off themselve either planned suicide and decided in advance to take someone else with them (as in murder suicide, like the Columbine massacre), or else commited the crime, were driven to depression by guilt, and later killed themselves, which is not "immediately commiting suicide" as you phrased it. The impetus for self-preservation is stronger than guilt.

    A killer who does not also take their own life is not a de facto psychopath, which is what you seem to be claiming.
    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  297. ... reminds of this nice game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  298. The death penalty and mistaken execution by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    "The difference between car accidents, faulty aircraft designs and the like - is that the responsible parties are NEVER looking to go out and kill people. Indeed, they are generally trying to come up with something that reduces the risk of killing someone.

    Capital punishment, on the other hand, is designed to kill people - not avoid it. The innocent man on death row is being deliberately put to death by society."

    Couple of points:

    - The innocent man is not being deliberately put to death by society, but is rather mistakenly put to death by society.

    - " Indeed, they are generally trying to come up with something that reduces the risk of killing someone."

    Sometimes. Sometimes they are trying to shave time off travel at the cost of a slight increase in deaths per year. (Or some similar scenario) In any case, most areas of social endeavour has some acceptable level of deaths caused. To apply a zero-tolerance standard to capital punishment is thus inconsistent, and most likely driven by other motivations. (Revulsion at deliberate killing, etc.)

  299. yer sig ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous" - David Bradley, inventor of Ctrl-Alt-Delete system restart

  300. It wasn't like he did anything wrong... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    C'mon, the guy killed his wife for chrissake. In some countries, they give you coupons for doing that.

    She probably told him he types too loudly on the keyboard or something. "Hans, that noise is keeping me awake. Will you turn off the computer and come to bed?"

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:It wasn't like he did anything wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was more like not having visitation rights, getting squeezed for all your worth, AND finding out your wife was sleeping with a financial agent.

    2. Re:It wasn't like he did anything wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a divorced father who has been dragged through court 3 times, pays 40% of pre-tax income in child support, and have only 8.5 weeks a year with my two children who live 1800 miles away... I COMPLETELY understand the desire to do the bump-de-bump on de ex.

      But even if he did kill her, I could see circumstances where it would be justice for him to walk free.

    3. Re:It wasn't like he did anything wrong... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      If you read one of the articles posted in this thread, he didn't just kill his wife, he killed his ex wife with his children in the house and had obviously been planning her murder for a while. That is, if the evidence is to be trusted. I don't really see the testimony of the children as being applicable in a court of law since it's so easy to ask them leading questions. I find it interesting that the man was collecting criminology books. I'd say that the missing car seat and the monkey wrench and plastic bags in his car are pretty damning evidence, not to mention the bloodstains.

      --
      SRSLY.
  301. 'normal' value systems? by pointbeing · · Score: 1
    I wonder if you'd change your tune if it was your wife or mother or daughter that was killed.
    I'd like to think I had the moral courage to stand by my convictions even in this situation. There's no way to know for sure, though.

    And no, people with normal value systems do not believe that it makes the state or them "just as bad".
    After you've finished defining 'normal value systems' for our studio audience I'd like to hear exactly how you know what these people do or do not believe.

    This oughtta be good ;-)

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
  302. What his attorney will say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that Hans wrote bad fs code some years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

  303. Troll by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    This comment was spectacularly stupid. The only possible response is: "Bill Gates was caught speeding once. People who use Windows are a traffic hazard."

    1. Re:Troll by buckysphere · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're wrong. What is most spectacularly stupid is that you don't know what ";-)" means, you fucking mental midget. That is a wink, fucktard. If it wasn't obvious to you that it was a joke....well, I don't know how to help you and it proves that you are beyond help. Back away from the bong, dipshit, and try to laugh once in a while.

  304. Where is the poll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hans' wife is dead
    o Hans is guilty
    o He probably had his reasons
    o He got help from OJ Simpsons
    o hmm I forgot the last option

    1. Re:Where is the poll? by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      o CowboyNeal did it

  305. Wife missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Reiser just dropped her inode by accident as it sometimes does. Did the police try to use the "rebuild tree" commandline param?

    -- Patrys

  306. insightfull? just like a patent by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    How about a +10 BLOODY OBVIOUS!!!!

    And how many japanese died after nagasaki?

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  307. Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    What, so Mr.Reiser (alledgedly) killed his wife "for fun" now, is it?

    You're beginnning to sound like a total wally now.

    There are plenty of killers out there - in the armed forces, in the police services, executioners etc - it's not as uncommon as you seem to think. Legal killers wouldn't necessary class themselves as psychopaths lacking empathy, but that doesn't make what they do morally right in my opinion.

    1. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by elucido · · Score: 1


      I never said Mr.Reiser for sure killed his wife, and I never said for fun, did you read what I wrote? Quote me.

      I said that if there were no laws, and we legalized murder, people would kill for fun. The reason people don't is because people think they won't get away with it, and it has nothing to do with Mr.Reiser.

    2. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by VENONA · · Score: 1

      We aren't born with morals. See the child soldier discussion above. Morals are instilled by society, for better or for worse. In some societies, cutting off a hand for stealing is moral behavior, for instance.

      In every society that I'm aware of, it's not immoral for a member of the military to kill in the line of duty. It's not only the expected norm, but failing to do so can carry serious penalties.

      What about law enforcement personnel? Should the cop who kills one to save several be labeled immoral?

      Or how about someone who's neither law enforcement nor military, but who's forced into a situation of having to kill to protect loved ones, or even complete strangers? Is this person immoral?

      I agree with you about an executioner, because I don't believe in the death penalty. But IMO that's an completely different issue. For one thing, I see it as having failed as a deterrence, so it's vengeance, not defense of the greater good.

      Most societies try fairly hard to instill a belief that it's wrong to kill. They do a good enough job that military and police personnel are often wracked by (IMO needless) guilt. I'm thinking they did a pretty good job with you, as well. This is generally a Good Thing, with respect to how 99% of the population leads 99% of their lives.

      But 99% of 99% is *not* 100%. That small remainder represents a group of people doing fundamentally hard things on fundamentally bad days. You might want to cut them some slack.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    3. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by elucido · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between murder and killing. Anyone can kill, but not anyone can murder.

    4. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by elucido · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between killing and murder. Anyone can kill and killing can be ethical in some situations, but murder is a totally different thing, as it's planned, and murdering your wife should be unthinkable for most people, and if thinkable, undoable.

      Also It's not society that taught me it's wrong to kill. I never liked klling. It does not feel good to kill wild animals, society says it's okay, but its not like everyone can enjoy hunting for sport.

    5. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by VENONA · · Score: 1

      There is indeed a huge difference between killing and murder. Murdering your wife should indeed be unthinkable for most people. I'll go farther, and call it 'for anyone'. Although I'm not clear about how to arrange that 'undoable' bit, as a practical consideration...

      But I would still argue that it is indeed society that has taught you not to kill. I could be wrong (it's not as if that doesn't happen all the time) but if you'd been born into one of the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies, knowing no other way of life, I'm pretty sure that putting meat on the table, as a daily survival thing, would take precedence. And in today's society, you're a killer by proxy if you eat meat. I don't mean to insult--no way am I a vegetarian or vegan. Bring me the barbeque, or the shellfish. So I'm a killer by proxy.

      I personally can't hunt. I'll probably never again be able to squeeze a trigger, other than target shooting, which is a very far cry from the real thing. Assuming we don't do some improbable collapse of civilization thing, anyway. I do fish, but even that is pretty much catch and release. But I'm in the possibly odd postion of not being able to shoot an animal for sport, but absolutely still able to shoot a human if the circumstances demanded it. There would still be a huge psychological penalty to pay afterwords, in my case, at least. But I absolutely would do it.

      Overall, I sympathize with your viewpoint, and would be the first to agree that a reluctance to kill is definitely a Good Thing. As a species, we are way too good at it. The ultimate irony would be that doing something that ensured the survival of a species at one point, in the form of developing a hunting ability, would be their ultimate downfall, in the form of developing nuclear or biological warfare (chemical warfare is vastly overrated as a viable military tool) technologies. But history is rife with examples of species that got too good at something, and set the stage for their own downfall.

      There's an episode of Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ that had a major impact on me. The title was something like _Who Speaks for Mankind_, or something close to that. It's probably at your local library, and is definitely recommended viewing. If you thought that killing things was a Bad Idea *before* seeing it...

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    6. Re:Yeah, some killers have empathy to. by elucido · · Score: 1


      But I would still argue that it is indeed society that has taught you not to kill. I could be wrong (it's not as if that doesn't happen all the time) but if you'd been born into one of the few remaining hunter-gatherer societies, knowing no other way of life, I'm pretty sure that putting meat on the table, as a daily survival thing, would take precedence. And in today's society, you're a killer by proxy if you eat meat. I don't mean to insult--no way am I a vegetarian or vegan. Bring me the barbeque, or the shellfish. So I'm a killer by proxy.


      I'd prefer to hunt fish, I don't see how hunter gathering is efficient as it's the survival strategy of last resort, after your ocean runs dry and your crop runs short, then you have to hunt and gather. Generally, fishermen, they use a net and catch hundreds or thousands of fish at a time. This provides enough food to last for months if propery stored, dried, etc.

      Then you have the other way, which is hunting mammals, and this is just not for everyone. I don't think society can teach or take away the killer instinct, I think everyone would hunt mammals if thats all there were to eat, but even if thats the case it's not the same as murder. A hunter who has to eat, hunts because it's the only way they know how to survive. A murderer on the other hand, does not need any rational reason to do it, they just feel like it, thats the difference.


      Overall, I sympathize with your viewpoint, and would be the first to agree that a reluctance to kill is definitely a Good Thing. As a species, we are way too good at it. The ultimate irony would be that doing something that ensured the survival of a species at one point, in the form of developing a hunting ability, would be their ultimate downfall, in the form of developing nuclear or biological warfare (chemical warfare is vastly overrated as a viable military tool) technologies. But history is rife with examples of species that got too good at something, and set the stage for their own downfall.


      Hunting is not the most efficient survival strategy, it certainly works, it's damn simple, it's just not efficient. Eventually you run out of things to hunt, it also takes a lot more time and energy than growing stuff or even fishing. So yes we have to kill to survive, but theres a difference again in what we choose to kill. If you kill fish, you can get your daily supply of protien and fats, along with nutritious calories, without having to kill a mammal. Fish are less conscious than mammals, at least most fish, and fish when you remove them from water die in a natural way, it's not the same as when you hunt a deer with a gun.

      Also, I just have problems with the idea of eating mammals, It's not like fish where we don't know if they feel pain, we KNOW mammals feel pain, so it's just not the same. Society never really says killing is bad or wrong, society would let me fish or hunt. The question is, do I need to fish or hunt to survive?

      For me it's a calculation of finding efficient sources of calories. Efficient means the least amount of energy spent by me, quick, so I can scoop up hundreds of them at a time, and as painfree as possible. The idea is that I should not have to enjoy the act, it's not like everyone can enjoy hunting, it's more that, I need the calories, and I need to stay healthy. It's that simple. When you are starving and theres no food, no matter what society taught you, you'll become a fisherman if you are a fisherman, you'll become a farmer if you are a farmer, you'll become a hunter if you are a hunter, whatever natural of eating you are designed for is what you'll revert to. Some people are designed to eat a lot of fish, some people eat only meat, some people are vegetarians, some people are vegans, some people will eat anything, in general I think a lot of people eat what they can't hunt because theres supermarkets, so more people are eating mammal now than ever, but this does not mean that it's natural for this many people to eat mammal all the time, in nature it might h

  308. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    >being reviewed by enough people
    Let's hope no-one missed:
    #include
    #include
    #include

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  309. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

    Erm,I said Reiserfs. Reiserfs is already part of the kernel. Reiser4 isn't, yet.

  310. Sorry to butt in... by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    Explain how warehousing a worthless lump of living flesh is good for anything?

    That's the point. Prison ought to be about punishment and rehabilitation. However, if the State sees the offender as "a worthless lump of living flesh" then there's not likely to be any effort to rehabilitate, is there now?

    As for Capital punishment always being wrong - it has to be. You can split hairs over legal definitions of murder, homicide, manslaughter etc but the bottom line is, if the action of killing a human being is morally wrong, how is it morally right for you (or the State in your name) to kill the killer?

    And don't try telling me that there is no moral basis to homicide law.

    1. Re:Sorry to butt in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called justtification. You don't punish someone who kills in self-defense either, because it's justified. It amazes me that so many want to see killers rehabilitated and given a second chance, while the victim will never have one.

  311. The reason by andre_nho · · Score: 4, Funny

    He caught his wife using ext3.

  312. Microsoft is already smearing Linux by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

    Whoever modded the last post "troll" didn't read the subject line. The comment was probably meant in jest, but raises an important issue: whether or not we believe it is morally sound to use a murderer's code is not as important as the effect it has on the popularity of Linux under the fire of smear campaigners.

    It's the classic word-of-mouth rumor spread: "Linux's file system was programmed by a murderer", to "some part of Linux was programmed by a murderer", to "parts of Linux were programmed by a murderer", and finally: "don't use Linux, I heard it was programmed by a murderer."

    Even if Reiser is not convicted, it may be wise for the project to be distanced from him, or not used. Not for technical or moral reasons, but political ones. Yes, it's a pain in the ass, but his code could damage Linux's fragile reputation even as it improves its already superior filesystem.

  313. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Tim+C · · Score: 1

    I doubt you have the wit to keep a civil tongue in your head.

    Hey, this is easy *and* fun!

  314. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

    Nobody does? Really? IBM? Novell? Noone? I somehow doubt that...

    --
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

    - Charles Darwin
  315. Re:You ain't seen flighty yet... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    If I could mod you up I sooooo would. But yes, you are evil! :D

  316. A job for... by octopus72 · · Score: 1

    ...inspector Columbo?

  317. Well, at least now... by Brane2 · · Score: 1

    he will have the time to work on the code cosmetics and make it accepted by the kernel crowd...

    That being said, I really hope that:

    - he didn't marry that russian chick because she hunted for financial wellfare.

    - if he didn't kill her, that she is fine.

    - If he did kill her, and she deserved that, that they never prove anything...

    After all republican "legal" manuevers and s*itload of corpses that resulted from them, I really couldn't care less for one more dead body...

  318. Bollocks by hummassa · · Score: 1
    Most people would never even consider murdering their wife, and of people who think about it, most people quickly feel guilty for even thinking about it.
    You're not married, are you? :-)
    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Bollocks by elucido · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying, thoughts, everyone has weird thoughts. I'm saying most people don't go and get equipment and actually plan out all the details to seriously do it. Or maybe I'm wrong? How many people actually planned on killing their wife?

      Still, it's not right.

  319. Average Bus Factor Number? by skeptictank · · Score: 1
    I am guessing that the average Bus Number for software applications is 3.5.

    Anyone else have another estimate?

    1. Re:Average Bus Factor Number? by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      For everything I have worked on, it has been less than or equal to 2.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    2. Re:Average Bus Factor Number? by jerdenn · · Score: 1

      For everything I have worked on, it has been less than or equal to 2.

      Agreed. I'm currently a software dev manager, and that's one of the questions I continue to ask myself:

      Who are the essential people on my team?

      Interestingly enough, as a manager, my name is never on that list, though it was when I was a developer. What is noteworthy, is that this number is always very, very low, regardless of the size of the project.

  320. Re:Prove that by elucido · · Score: 1


    Once again, I said the prison population, not the general population. It's impossible to measure the general population unless you can test every single person in the general population and even then it's not going to be the same as the prison environment where you can test and then see people in action.

    But who knows, I could be wrong about this you know. If you have so much faith in humanity, and if you believe only 4-5% of the population are psychopaths, then the world should be filled with compassion and empathy, and unity should be just around the corner. I don't really have much faith in that. I'm sure it's over 4-5%, but it might be less than 20%, even if it's 15%, it's high enough that we all know people like this.

    I read the 20% number in a book by Robert Hare, you should be able to find his site online somewhere. In general, the number is for the prison population. However if 20% of prisoners think like this, well you know that a lot of people outside of prison think like this, certainly more than 5% in my opinion, but maybe less than 20%. I'm sure you know some people who think just like the profile says, and no not everyone is psychopath who thinks like this, psychopath is specific for the lack of empathy. Sociopath however is also lack of empathy, but a sociopath is more likely to be a businessman blended into society and not a criminal. Then you have a range of disorders which can produce symptoms which cause psycho behavior but which are not technically because yeah, under enough pressure or stress anyone an act like a psychopath, this has been proven.

    You put people in a situation that is just right, and they'll lose empathy, even if just for a short while, they'll still feel guilt, but empathy can be paused.

  321. Description of the murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fed up with her growth only resizing he set out to send her tail packing, cutting her brake lines and sending her next drive careening into a B+ tree. The police found the vehicle covered in leaf nodes.

  322. Not quite true. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    The MansonFS was quietly renamed to NTFS and has many loyal cult followers the world over.

    Most followers know it is wrong and swear at it while at the same time defending it. This at the same time while the top guy continues to commit crimes all over. Sadly, he is found guilty and able to skip it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  323. Appropriate punishment for computer nerds by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

    Make him stay outside in the sun and force him to work for EA.

    --
    "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
  324. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, your argument isn't much better:

    "He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law."

    Wow, that's a great argument, dude.

    It's only slightly better than mine:

    "Go suck cock, because that's what you should do."

  325. Donate money to Han's defence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if Hans Reiser is guilty or not. I hope and assume that he's innocent. One thing is certain though, Slashdot crowd should not jump to any conclusions, let the due legal process run its course.

    I'm surprise though that I've not seen even a single comment suggesting to help Hans with his legal defense. Surely, for all the good he's done over the years contributing to FOSS, there'll be more than a few people willing to donate some money to help him in this difficult time.

    Perhaps guys from Namesys could organize some fund raising?

  326. Re:Prove that by RsG · · Score: 1
    I'd guess around 20% of the population, this is a guess and it could be wrong, but it's enough people that there are people in your family, friends, people at work (like your boss), and ex-girlfriends/ex-boyfriends who were/are psycho.
    That's from the GP. This is from the parent:

    Once again, I said the prison population, not the general population.
    Both quotes are by you, Elucido. See the problem with this?

    If you'd meant the prison population was 20% psychopathic, then you wouldn't be suggesting exes, bosses and the like as potential psychos in the first quote, unless you meant to imply that my boss is an ex-con. If you meant to say 20% of the people in prison are psychopathic, then say that, and don't give confusing examples.

    And I didn't say that the number of psychopaths in the general population was 4-5%. The high number I found in under five minutes was 1% of females and 3% of males (which would mean 2% total). Now, is this figure accurate? I have no clue. But I utterly refuse to believe that 20% is even remotely possible in the general population.

    It does sound possible for the prison population however, so I will cede that point for the sake of arguement. However, that also means that a whopping 80% of the people in prison are not psychopaths. In other words, 4/5 convicts would presumably feel guilt or remorse. In a thread that started on the subject of rehabilitation, I'd say that's important.

    It's impossible to measure the general population unless you can test every single person in the general population
    That is incorrect. You can never know with total certainty, but random sampling can give you a close enough margin of error that you know to within a percent or two. This isn't exacly a revelation; we've been using statistics to estimate how many of X there are in the general population for a very long time. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be in order to be good enough.

    However if 20% of prisoners think like this, well you know that a lot of people outside of prison think like this, certainly more than 5% in my opinion, but maybe less than 20%.
    Depends on what assumptions you're working from. For example, I've seen the arguement made that ex-cons have a higher rate of sociopathy than people entering the prison population. That could imply that a penal environment breeds sociopathic/psychopathic tendancies. A person subjected to 10-20 years of prison life isn't going to be as mentally healthy as he was when he went in. Additionally, the rate of addiction and substance abuse rises in prison - that could be a contributing factor.

    One could also argue that using the prison population as a barometer for the mental health of the general population is unwise.
    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  327. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    First off, nearly all OSS projects that get popular rarely have one person working on it. Even Reiserfs has a number of coders working on it.

    Lets assume that it is one person. If so, then it is either un-popular or it is a small project. If it is un-popular, and you need it, then you can do it or pay somebody because you have the source code. If it is small, but popular, it will be picked up.

    Contrast this with any closed source project where the company goes out of business (you are screwed) or a key developer leaves (you will not know it for some time, but future development goes way off course). There is no favorable situation to this save paying large amounts of money to move to a competitor's product (assuming that there is one there).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  328. Innocent until proved guilty by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry for interrupting here....

    It has not been proved that he did anything.
    When a wife goes missing, they always suspect the husband first.

    I have no idea about the facts of the case, but the way the police work is scientifically incorrect. They come up with a theory and build a case to support it. It is an adversarial system in which the proof of "real" guilt is secondary to winning the case. The CSI nonsense of evidence indicating the killer is fiction. Real police have no idea about scientific method or clear thinking.

    I know a lot of police, and the more police I know, the more I dislike police.

    so, unless and until I hear some real evidence against the guy, I think the police are wrong.

    1. Re:Innocent until proved guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      until I hear some real evidence against the guy, I think the police are wrong.

      This just in from the police:

      They've added mlwmohawk to the investigation since he/she/it seems to think that they have to be the one for the evidence to be provided to to prove guilt or innocence.

      Get over yourself. Even in highly publicised cases such as the OJ Simpson case there is very little chance that you'll ever have access to "real evidence" without being directly involved. They don't have to prove crap to you and IMHO, I think you are the one who is wrong here and that a standard forensics lab probably has about 100 times the understanding of science than what you have.

      Notice, I didn't say what you think you have. You're probably one of those slashdotters who thinks they are just a minor step beneath the likes of Einstein. I just love how the armchair scientists and engineers of slashdot think they can poke holes in the works of teams of learned men and women with hundreds of years of experience behind them (collectively) by using high school math and science. You guys are a real hoot... bitches.

  329. Better be careful... by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...when using the OJSImpsonFS, or you might get fstab'ed to death!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  330. Not necessarily. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment: I see all these comments about "Think of the Kids!!!", and I can clearly see the personal tragedy of any outcome of this situation for them, however, they're just two people (kids or otherwise). If millions of people are relying on a software for gainful employment or other serious reasons (which, let's face it, a FS can be very important to lots and lots of businesses and therefore people), then don't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Even if the needs of the few are dire and sickening? I care more about the development of lots of different software over any lone individual. Maybe that's part of what makes me a nerd, but ultimately I see the value of certain softwares for all people and society in general, and that this is ultimately more important than any one or few people, per se.

    That's one of the things I love so much about FOSS in general. This is code that can be read/used/updated/copied/borrowed/etc. for eternity, and a contribution to all people outside of one's self, even after the self no longer exists.

    Kids loose their parents in tragic circumstances every day all over the planet. These two's loss may correspond with a bigger loss for a bigger volume of people. That said though, I doubt it. I just don't think ReiserFS is remotely that important.

    Now if it was the lead Firefox or Gimp developer.....

    rhY

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  331. As Joseph put it... by orzetto · · Score: 1
    One death is tragedy, one million statistics.
    -Joseph Stalin

    As cynical as you want it to be, but he nailed this one.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  332. Re:SUSE dev proposes ext3 as default fs over reise by 14CharUsername · · Score: 2, Funny
    ReiserFS v3 is a dead end. Hans has been pushing reiser4 for years now and declared Reiser3 in maintenance mode. Any changes that aren't bug fixes are met with violent resistance.

    Funny how things can take on a whole new meaning.

  333. Not getting laid -- good or bad? ;-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (who knows if he even did it) - too true. Being sexually frustrated can lead to a murder.

    So, since Slashdotters never get laid and thus are permanently sexually frustrated, does this mean that there are more murderers here than average?

    Or does it mean that, since Slashdotters never find a spouse, that they don't suffer the frustrations of marriage and so are less likely to be murderers?

    Damn, I don't know, I'm so frustrated!!! (But not sexually. :P)

    1. Re:Not getting laid -- good or bad? ;-) by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Or does it mean that, since Slashdotters never find a spouse, that they don't suffer the frustrations of marriage and so are less likely to be murderers?

      That depends. Does deleting hentai pics count as murdering your lover ?-)

      --

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

  334. Re:That really sucks -- Only in some States by rjune · · Score: 1

    In Wisconsin, once an individual serves his or her prison time and completes probation, they regain their right to vote.

  335. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because nobody on here would dare make a joke about Linux crashing :P

  336. YRO?! by thegnu · · Score: 1

    *BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM!*
    "See you on the web, bitch!"

    But really.

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  337. can't find body? a tip to the cops. by thegnu · · Score: 3, Funny

    Try:
    reiserfsck --rebuild-tree -S -l /root/recovery.log /dev/path/to/wife

    http://antrix.net/journal/techtalk/reiserfs_data_r ecovery_howto.comments

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  338. You know the world is fucked up when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. somebody die's and all you care about is a Linux file system?

    Dudes, you are totally fucked up and need to put things back in perspective.

    1. Re:You know the world is fucked up when... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      somebody die's and all you care about is a Linux file system?

            People die all the time. Did you know this woman or are you just pretending to care?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  339. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to keep in mind that jail is meant to be a deterrent. It is really not meant to reform anyone, aside from the fact that people are supposed to reform themselves so they don't go BACK to jail. Offering a 'get out of jail free' card lessens that deterrent.

  340. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ReiserFS sucks. Version 3 is fairly stable but you will get file corruption and lose data during crashes. And as for version 4 well, it's incredibly unstable like version 3 was for the longest time. I wouldn't touch that with a million foot pole.

    I can't see any advantages at this point. XFS has surpassed it in every way. I just wish XFS had the bad block marking capability of ext2/3. Very often when drives fail the drive itself fails to mark the blocks as bad and keeps them available rather than using the extra blocks to replace them. I know it's not suppose to work like that but it does and XFS's choice to rely only on the drive was stupid.

  341. Another recursive geek acronym? by thegnu · · Score: 1

    Even if Reiser is not convicted, it may be wise for the project to be distanced from him, or not used.

    REISERFS, Even, Is Stopping Evoking Reiser For Sponsorship?
    Reiser Eventually Is Somewhat Endangering REISERFS's Final Safety?
    Reiser Ejected Is Somehow Emboldening REISER?

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  342. Oh, man by thegnu · · Score: 1

    Reiser Ejected Is Somehow Emboldening REISER?
    I just realized that this is way better:

    REISER Emboldened Is Somehow Ejecting Reiser

    --
    Please stop stalking me, bro.
  343. You're right! by LKM · · Score: 1
    You can't know that.

    That applies to any human being. You never know what people are going to do. So let's just kill us all and let God sort us out. Savest solution for everyone involved.

  344. The Black Helicopter Version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one was sufferig from helicopter syndrome one might suspect that Mr. Reiser could be the victim of a set up by forces that do not wish to see ReiserFS4 implemented as it will put some other file systems by some player/s to shame, or more plausibly entirely obiltterate them.... But that would be if one suffered the syndrome....

    Twok - twok - twok twok.... what's that sound?

  345. You're absurdly wrong by LKM · · Score: 1
    All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt

    This is so wrong, it's absurd that anyone could actually believe something like this. You do quite simply not know what you are talking about. There are people with mental issues who don't feel guilt. These are a tiny minority of all killers, and a tiny minority of all people with mental issues (psychopaths, as you call them).

    In fact, a lot of people who murder or rape eventually try to kill themselves to stop the guilt, and to stop themselves from killing or raping again.

    1. Re:You're absurdly wrong by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      All psychopaths, lack the capability to feel guilt
      This is so wrong, it's absurd that anyone could actually believe something like this. You do quite simply not know what you are talking about. There are people with mental issues who don't feel guilt.

      psychopath
      n.
      A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

      Let me tell you a little secret that will help you not make an ass of yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  346. inane argument by LKM · · Score: 1
    If you have so much faith in humanity, and if you believe only 4-5% of the population are psychopaths, then the world should be filled with compassion and empathy, and unity should be just around the corner.

    You know, I see a lot of inane arguments on slashdot, but most at least appear to be somewhat logical. Have you actually thought about what you wrote before you wrote it? Do you seriously not see the problem with your argument?

    1. Re:inane argument by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      No, he doesn't As far as he is conerned enlightened self interest = psychopathy.

    2. Re:inane argument by elucido · · Score: 1

      That's not the case, I'm saying humans don't act in their self interest, if we did, wouldnt the world reflect that?

  347. Re:In some states, felons can't vote by skidv · · Score: 1

    In some states, part of the punishment for committing a felony offense is the revocation of civic right to vote. That's part of the punishment. Perhaps your co-worker is rehabilitated, but their punishment continues.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A978 5-2004Aug17.html

    http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0226-05.htm

  348. The question makes the post relevant by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

    I don't use Linux so my immediate reaction was "what's a murder investigation doing on /.?" Reading further, I realized the suspect is involved in a Linux project, the relevance of the post became clear.

    So perhaps nubnub, the poster wasn't being declasse as you presume. Perhaps he was just making the post's relevance obvious to a larger segment to /.'s audience.

  349. Don't turn one waste into two. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Letting someone do something s/he loves while in prison, will sort of defeat the purpose of prison, i.e. make them wish they hadn't committed a crime.

    That's assuming you think that's the purpose of prison.

    Personally I'm more of the school of thought where prison is where you put people that are just too dangerous to be allowed out and running around. Might as well let them do something useful while they're there.

    Even if Reiser did kill his wife, it's a bit ridiculous to compound that loss to society by then not letting him do what he's apparently very good at (designing file systems) just because we don't want him to "enjoy it." Who cares whether he enjoys it or not, the point it that society gets more from him this way than if we just locked him up and threw away the key.

    Obviously, this assumes he's guilty, which I have no reason to think one way or the other about.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Don't turn one waste into two. by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      Hypothetically, assume they do convict Reiser and they let him continue his work in prison. What do you think the chances are that he would continue to work on it? That he would still be as effective at it? That he would enjoy benefitting the society that imprisoned him? That he would attempt to use the ReiserFS project for retribution?

      It's wishful thinking to entertain the possibility that they would give him a computer in the first place, but it's a pipe dream to think that he would continue development as if nothing had happened.

  350. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by dodobh · · Score: 1

    That it /is/ going to damage reiserfs is beyond any doubt, no matter whether he's proven innocent, not proven guilty, or proven guilty. The name is tainted, and a business executive will not likely touch anything related to that person, no matter whether it gets taken over and run by other people or not.

    You mean, like it hurt Microsoft?

    --
    I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  351. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by SirTalon42 · · Score: 1

    Actually the story DID make Slashdot when his wife first disappeared.

  352. before you rush to judgement... by msouth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would be interested to know how many of the people commenting have been personally acquainted with a murder suspect. I was, once. Air Force guy, he was deployed, his wife fooled around on him. She ended up shot one night. He had taken the kids to a party that night, but I don't think he had any witnesses to account for how he was spending his time at the time of the murder.

    Luckily, he had good enough luck/lawyer/whatever that he remained free. I was at a cafe near the base one time and I heard a couple of deputies/cops discussing the case. Their take? They knew it was him, they just couldn't get enough evidence together to convict.

    Fast forward a year later, they found the guy that really did it.

    Moral of the story--if she's sleeping around, her husband is likely not the only person she's pissed off. Oh, and cop "instinct" is why we need very picky, painstakingly applied laws about collection and use of evidence.

    --
    Liberty uber alles.
    1. Re:before you rush to judgement... by tableplay · · Score: 1

      A former coworker of mine (who seemed like a great guy) was accused of murdering his wife and the company we worked for fired him before he was brought to trial (they practice the edict "presumed guilty until proven innocent" I guess). Similar to your story, the detectives thought for sure he did it (based on their comments when they interviewed me and several other coworkers). But in the end he was found innocent. Of course he is now jobless (and financially wrecked from the attorney's fees),his reputation is in ruins, and his wife is dead. But hey, jumping to conclusions sells newspapers.

  353. Point Missed by virg_mattes · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Fortunately, I don't believe in a second life.

    You missed the spirit of his comment, pun intended. His comment is that the angry person's life is the second one wasted, after the loss of the first (the victim, assuming the victim and the angry person aren't the same, which would be the case in a murder).

    Virg

  354. rename the fs by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rename the file system to "Kimble".

  355. Important info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  356. Lots of Federal crimes are capital. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    You don't need to drag out treason, there are lots of other Federal capital crimes. As I recall, if you traffic in a large enough quantity of drugs, it can earn you the needle, among many other things. (Here is a list, if you're interested; be aware it's an anti-death-penalty site.) Some examples: Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime; Murder of a Federal judge or law enforcement official; Trafficking in large quantities of drugs; Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs.

    Not sure how many people are executed by the Federal government every year, but I bet there are a few.

    So even if you're in a "no death penalty" state like West Virginia or Maine, you could still do something that would get you executed, by virtue of it being a Federal crime.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Lots of Federal crimes are capital. by penix1 · · Score: 1

      According to that map the federal government only executed 3 people. Granted, that map stops at Jan 2006 so if the feds did any from then until now....Still, it has been actively banned in WV just like it has in other states. If the feds want to execute someone from here they are going to have to extradite them to another state that does do it.

      B.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  357. talk for yourself by LKM · · Score: 1
    lso, how many of us might have thought about committing violence against someone at some point, but didn't, because we don't want to be in prison or on death row?

    Dude! Talk for yourself!

    Seriously, I hope you're not somebody I'll ever meet in real life.

  358. Not a problem you can fix with Moratoria by paranode · · Score: 1

    In the issue of a wrongful execution what you are looking at is a wrongful conviction. This is not an issue you can fix by getting rid of the death penalty. Whether a man is killed by lethal injection or dies rotting in his cell, the justice system has ultimately failed him in that case.

    1. Re:Not a problem you can fix with Moratoria by liliafan · · Score: 1

      You are correct that wrongful conviction is the ultimate problem here, however, putting someone in jail for the rest of their life as opposed to killing them, means the innocent person at least has the opportunity to gain some kind of meaningful life and have amends made in the event they their innocence is proved.

      --
      GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
  359. It's simple statistics by LKM · · Score: 1
    but i haven't seen a lot of definitive proof showing we have.

    I think it comes down to simple statistics. If you execute n people, and the chance of an innocent person being found guilty is m where m>0 (and surely, nobody can argue that m==0), and the chance of an innocent convicted people found not guilty before being executed being o, then it follows that (m*n - (m*n*o)) innocent people are executed.

    Unless you're living in a perfect world, there's no way you'll end up with no innocent people being executed.

    1. Re:It's simple statistics by _Swank · · Score: 1

      as i said, that's inference. and if you actually read my post i acknowledge that while that reasoning is acceptable enough for me to be against the death penalty it is NOT proof that we have executed an innocent person which is what the parent poster claims exists (without providing reference).

  360. You make me sick, too :-P by LKM · · Score: 1
    THEY were the one who suffered, not the rest of society

    I think there's a very basic fact you're missing: Punishment is not revenge.

    We don't punish people because we want to revenge their victims. We punish people in order to create a society where behave in a non-violent way.

    The time a crime happens, punishment has already failed for the person who commited the crime. Punishment is not about that person (or about that person's victim). It's about every other person: It's to show that every other person gets punished when they behave in that specific way.

    It's to try and make sure that it won't happen again.

    1. Re:You make me sick, too :-P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Punishment is both revenge (retaliation) and deterrent. In fact, we find that punishment as a deterrent is rarely effective, so it's more revenge than anything.

    2. Re:You make me sick, too :-P by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      >Punishment is not revenge.

      Yes it is partly, certainly in the minds of the victim(s).

    3. Re:You make me sick, too :-P by LKM · · Score: 1

      Frankly, I don't know about how that works in the US, but over here, if somebody is - for example - mentally ill, he or she generally won't go to prison, but will be forced to get treatment. Does that sound like revenge to you? "Yeah, you killed my children, so now we'll heal you, ha! Take that!"

      There may be people who view punishment as revenge. In most western states, it's most definitely not the intent.

    4. Re:You make me sick, too :-P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mixing two different issues here. If you're mentally ill, then you (probably) didn't possess mens rea and you shouldn't be punished -- you should be treated. Punishment and revenge are for those who had criminal intent.

    5. Re:You make me sick, too :-P by drapeau06 · · Score: 1

      It may feel like revenge to a victim, it may feel like revenge to a convict, but society is justified in using the legal system to mete punishments for communal ends (e.g., general deterrence, denunciation), not by the retributive desires of victims.

  361. Killer app by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Linux is still in need of one.

    Hans is Innocent until Proven Guilty, OK? The husband is always a prime suspect, but that doesn't mean he did anything. His ex may be galavanting in Vegas for all we know.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  362. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    "Nobody is suggesting letting convicted murderers go free, but perhaps someone who led an exemplarily life - volunteer work, good parenting, clean record - until the age of 40 shouldn't spend the rest of his/her life in prison for a single murder."

    I hope you're not suggesting he was any of those things. After all, how do you know? His criminal behavior to this point may simply be undocumented. In any case, he should be sentenced like anyone else if he's guilty of a crime---after all, the same case could be made for many first-time murderers.

    "Certainly a person who still have a high potential to contribute shouldn't be denied this opportunity even in jail."

    Why not? Even given the assumption of "high potential" that is what jail is for after all.

    "Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?"

    It's certainly happened before. The difference is that programming is Reiser's profession.

  363. A better File System by mike3k · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to see ZFS become the standard file system if work is discontinued on Reiser4. ZFS is probably the best file system available, with virtual storage pools, snapshots, variable block sizes, and lightweight filesystem creation. Check out this ZFS demo.

  364. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by raddan · · Score: 1

    Do you think that proprietary software development is different? There are large projects and small ones, just like in OSS, and many times, there's a lead programmer who is indispensible. I'm sure there are a number of hackers out there whose absence would break a company.

    Besides, it's not like my fileserver is going to spontaneously combust if the guy who wrote Samba bit the dust. If anything, the argument is stronger for OSS. If the lead programmer disappears and a company goes out of business, what happens to the code? In OSS, if it is important enough, somebody else will pick it up. If it is important enough from a business perspective, you hire someone to maintain it.

  365. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up.

  366. grow up by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1

    Grow up. Thousands of people depend on ReiserFS, and it's perfectly normal to ask what will happen with it. Or does your business not ever think about what to do should an extremely important employee get hit by the proverbial bus?

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know where he was off to with the $8k, maybe the farmers market? That's a lot of cases of YAMLs and Thai Peppers. I mean $1k pocket change works if you've got a hot underage girl and a cool Belvedere martini smile. I still think they should have given him the old Logan 5 run for his money.

      Only thing sad is that this guy is probably never going to get to program ever again. Sounds like the kids are better off. I hope you dumbasses are all joking about "can he still program in prision" and even if you are that is just about as cold as an East Bay dunk.

      Why couldn't he get this chick out of the house and away from his kids first? I thought it was pre-mediated? They don't but the part in about kids make poor witnesses and are easily manipulated against the defense and it's better to pop them too in these books they have him buying? Bloody, bloody, bloody mary. What's with the model shots of his wife, but no photos available of this guy where he even a shave recently (oh of course not). Why don't we start calling him by his full name, including the middle?

  367. Just as a side note about their upcoming divorce.. by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Reisers were married in 1999 and frequently traveled to Russia, where she was born. They separated in May 2004.

    Just long enough to get her green card

    Nina Reiser filed for divorce three months later, citing irreconcilable differences and saying their children "hardly know their father" because he was out of the country on business for most of the year, according to court records.

    "Verbal statements made in court" BECOMES "Court Transcript" BECOMES "Court Records". There is not anything here saying whether or not it was proven or not.

    Nina Reiser was granted a temporary restraining order against her husband in December 2004 after she reported that he had pushed her and was abusive to her. A year later, she agreed not to seek a permanent order.

    Temporary Restraining Orders are easy to get, and hard to keep. In a divorce, one of the favorite tactics (of both sides) is to file for a TRO. Usually these get thrown out of court some months later. Judges typically grant TROs because nobody wants to be the judge who denied a TRO against an abusive spouse. But most of the time, TROs are just stupid games that people play.

    Hans Reiser was accused earlier this year of failing to pay medical and child-care expenses as ordered by a judge, records show. He pleaded not guilty Aug. 25 to a civil contempt charge and was scheduled for trial in October.

    Again, it is very easy to "accuse" somebody. One of the games spouses play is to not send bills to the other spouse, and then file a civil suit against them for "failure to pay". This is usually yet another game in custody and visitation battles.

    Not that I am defending this guy, but the "evidence" in the article that he was a "bad man", just isn't any evidence at all.

  368. Reiser is smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This guy wrote a filesystem. If he did whack his wife, they will never catch him.

    From TFA:
    Du Bois later said Reiser would not talk to police because he was upset about the search of his home and didn't trust investigators.

    A lot of times, the stuff that gets people in the chair is contraditary/inconsistant statements, Reiser hasn't given the Police any statement.

    Hopefuly He will be aquitted so that he can continue the good work he is doing.
  369. Re:That really sucks (chariots of fire) by gosand · · Score: 1
    Got it wrong once with Jesus...

    Hmm, was it wrong? I believe that, according to your religious beliefs, it was right. I mean, Jesus himself could have stopped it, but didn't because it was God's plan for him to die. If it was wrong that Jesus died, then God would have been wrong. We can't have that now, can we?

    Imagine all the televangelists who would be in the poor house if things had been different, and Jesus had lived a normal life. You can't quite sell the message "Remember, Jesus died for your sins - in a chariot accident."

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  370. ReiserFS... by joaommp · · Score: 0

    It's to kill for!!!

  371. Re:Donate money to Han's defence? by joaommp · · Score: 1

    Namesys it's Hans own job which he runs(used to?) from his own home.

  372. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Modern software is complex enough that simply having the source code for a component does not necessarily mean a person (even a skilled coder) can maintain that component.

    Such ideas made more sense 15 years ago, but not today.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
  373. Re:especially since that's the only reason it's he by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    AFAIK treating wounds with maggots was ignored for quite some time because the initial discovery that maggots help wounds heal was made by the Nazis.

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  374. So why would you ever talk to this interrogator? by emil · · Score: 1

    You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to allow your attorney to examine your "interpretation" and present it as best as (s)he can to a jury. What point is there in helping build a charge against yourself?

  375. Cigarettes for Slackware? by kkovach · · Score: 1

    How many cigarettes does a Slack 11 CD cost in the "big house" anyway?

    --
    The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
  376. hmm.. maybe her boyfriend killed her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think that Rieser is smart enough to know that no matter how pissed off he gets at his ex, the best thing he could do is relocate to Greenland , Canada, or go back this his homeland. So, that being said, what if his ex had a physo boyfriend, he
    would more than likely think the cops would pick the ex husband as a prime usupect. I bet the boyfriend did it.

  377. OT... by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

    ...perhaps it's the subject matter, but I read your username as "bong copyeditor"...

    --
    I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
  378. The Reiser filesystem: the end of your data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Reiser is found guilty, will Novell or IBM pick up the pieces and finish up Reiser 4 for inclusion in the kernel or is this the end of the Reiser filesystem project?

    I couldn't care less. I found the Reiser filesystem to be flakey and made me wonder why the hell it was being sustained by users when there were so many better and more reliable filesystems out there.

    But hey, I'll be labelled a troll for not towing the party line.

  379. W^X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now it's time for him to switch to OpenBSD. If you want to execute him W^X will protect him.

  380. What if Hans Reiser is innocent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #1 What if the murder never took place? Are you sure anyone died? Says who? A web page?
    #2 What if the real killer is found? What if Hans Reiser wakes up one morning, still mourning his wife's death, opens the computer, checks the usual forums on which he usually posts useful and insightful information, and sees this thread?
    How would you feel?

  381. I've forgiven the man who took my eye by spun · · Score: 1

    I was mugged in Seattle and lost my left eye. I have forgiven the mugger. I can't say for sure that if someone I loved was killed I would find it as easy to forgive, but I would find a way. Not for their sake, but for mine.

    Could you forgive a hurricane or an earthquake if it killed a loved one? Would you even need to? Why are the actions of a human treated differently, because the human had a choice? How do you know they had a choice, and how do you know the hurricane didn't? Seeing as how one of the defining traits of consciousness is that it is private, you have about as much real knowledge of the choices of another as you do about the "choices" of a hurricane or earthquake.

    Moral Judgement is part of a mental parasite that infects almost all humans. "Judge not lest ye be judged" means everytime you judge someone else, you make the Judge part of the parasite inside you stronger, and there is no place you can hide from it. It is not our place to judge the rightness of things, but it is our place to discern the difference between things. Judgement is not "wrong" (that is judgement!) It is just inefficient and counterproductive to the functioning of the individual and society.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  382. Wow, talk about elitist by sheldon · · Score: 1
    And no, people with normal value systems do not believe that it makes the state or them "just as bad".


    I would love to hear your explanation of "normal value systems".

  383. Very believable by Sloppy · · Score: 1
    a woman is (presumed) dead. Asking how this will affect anything so ephemeral as a piece of software is absurd.

    The software isn't as subjectively ephemeral as the woman. I didn't even know Hans Reiser had a wife, and she has played no role whatsoever in most Slashdotters' lives(*). She's a news story (this one story, in fact) that that's all.

    How many other people were murdered in September? None of them got news stories here. The only reason Hans' wife is relevant on Slashdot, is because she was the wife of ReiserFS' developer. Looking at this situation in terms of the software, makes sense.

    If we're going to grieve over the death of a stranger, then every day, all day long, Slashdot would be a series of death announcements, with maybe room for a technical story 1% of the time. And some troll would probably post in the technical story, "look at all the people who died today. You insensitive bastards are talking about tech stuff?!"

    The same kind of bullshit happens whenever people make jokes about death. You should see some of the reactions I have witnessed to 9/11 jokes, Columbine jokes, Amish massacre jokes, space shuttle Challenger/Columbia jokes, etc. Get over it. Life goes on for the rest of us, and there's plenty of things to think about, talk about, and joke about instead of solemnly brooding over horror and sadness. I'm taking my cat -- who I have known for almost 18 years (we're pretty damn close) -- to be euthanized this afternoon. You bet your ass I have already cracked some jokes about it. It doesn't mean I'm psycho; it just means I intend to keep on living in spite of the loss.

    (*) Or if she did play a role in Slashdotters' lives, it was very indirect and vague -- i.e. influencing Hans' personality which perhaps manifested itself in the software.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Very believable by lee7guy · · Score: 1

      Sorry to hear about your cat. :-(

      --
      Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
  384. Re:You ain't seen flighty yet... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Not unless we fsck the planet. Think of the downtime while we wait! Screw that, I'd rather just restore from backup.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  385. Um, What? by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    > Eg, finding the suspect's fingerprints on the murder weapon is circumstantial evidence, but usually very damning circumstantial evidence.

    A fingerprint on the murder weapon is corroborating evidence, not circumstantial. It directly connects the suspect to the weapon, and would only be considered circumstantial in the case where the suspect had reason (other than murder) to touch it, like finding a fingerprint on the suspect's own kitchen knife. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that points to the prosecution's case but doesn't directly corroborate it (like a receipt for a gasoline purchase in an arson case, or fibers in a car that match an article of clothing the suspect owns).

    Virg

  386. he's one of us by rjolly · · Score: 1

    In case nobody recalls, he's a member of slashdot and an early one at that (6963) : http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser . I think it calls for a little more reserve than has been displayed so far.

    1. Re:he's one of us by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I think it calls for a little more reserve than has been displayed so far.

      I don't think that's going to be a problem. By the time he gets back to using slashdot (innocent or guilty) I'm fairly sure this conversation will have been archived and no longer open for additional content.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:he's one of us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, Slashdot will dupe the story just for him.

  387. More startling revelations from CVS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -void delete_nagging_wife(int* inode, fs* mountpoint) {

    +void delete_detached_inode(int* inode, fs* mountpoint) {

  388. Re:Jason Haas and linux powerpc-slashdot tempermen by Tycho · · Score: 1

    While not the same as being accused of murder or becoming severely injured, when Cassondra Foesch, one of the primary developers of PearPC, went to work for Microsoft, work on PearPC slowed down considerably. Microsoft no longer allowed her to continue to work on PearPC. Before she changed genders, Cassondra Foesch was known as Daniel Foesch. I am (and so is the English language) really bad at explaining this situation without being offensive. I may have "outed" her current status on Slashdot, but she did "out" herself last week on the PearPC devel list. Hopefully, I managed to write this post this without offending her.

    --
    Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  389. Not anymore by Tony · · Score: 1

    That may have been true before, but in today's US society, accusation is often taken as proof. For instance, in Ohio, there is now a law that expands the database of sexual criminals-- now, you are listed in the database as soon as you are accused. Even if you are proven innocent, your name remains in the database.

    We are quickly moving to a society in which accusation is all that is required.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  390. That's Funny... by Einstein_101 · · Score: 1
    He probably would, of course. When a tragic event like that happens to a family, most of them would lose objectivity and be filled with regret, remorse, and hatred. That's why we need sane, objective people who have the capacity to see things clearly making these kinds of decisions, instead of bitter, reactionary victims.


    I don't recall seeing anyone screaming that during the O.J. Simpson case
  391. In further news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did AC's laptop just happen to burn up, or was he trying to kill his wife with a laptop bomb?

  392. Re:That really sucks (chariots of fire) by megaditto · · Score: 1

    You assume Jesus had to die to save us. Had He not been executed, who's to say He would not establish Heaven on Earth or something.

    You also assume He had to go easy on us during His execution, chosing to cleanse our sins (as opposed to, say sending the entire humanity to Hades).

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  393. I knew one. He was convicted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of creepy. Seemed like a regular guy but he took his wife camping and drowned her. I actually did landscaping work for him once.

    1. Re:I knew one. He was convicted. by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Then there is the "Juice"
      (O.J. Simpson)

  394. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    How would such a thing be decided? What if there were two competing entities that wanted control of the kernel? Could there be a fork, where you have Alan producing his kernel and some other person (or company) accepting contributions and releasing their own?

  395. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good one

  396. Death Yoga? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    From the CBS5 article:

    In addition, Reiser alleged that Sturgeon wrote into a contract that Reiser must participate in "Death Yoga," which he said has the purpose of "slowing down one's heart to the point of death."

    If ol' Hans was a rational and intelligent fellow he would have seen this as a sign not to do business with Mr. Sturgeon in the first place.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  397. her "disappearance" by ripcrd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone else find it strange that she dropped off the kids and THEN disapears? The kids are little. I doubt that Hans would or could leave little kids alone long enough to follow her, kill her and dispose of the body. Even if he grabbed her at the door, the kids would see it. You can't have witnesses to something like this and expect to stay out of jail. And for him to do something like this requires planning (premeditation). From my experience as a divorced dad, dropp-offs are too unpredictable. Even a few minutes different in planned drop-off time, which happens frequently, can throw off a plan. He'd have to get rid of a body, murder weapon, CAR, remove evidence from his house of altercation and al kinds of stuff.

    Hell, Scott Peterson had his wife alone in the house, no kids, no relatives around, no one knew of his affair at the time and he had a holiday weekend and no work to go to. He was also way to dumb to get away with it.

    Just theorizing here, but suppose she is into something else (bondage, drugs, cheating, what ever), it is more likely that someone from that world committed the act of violence against her. She just got caught in the downward spiral of that lifestyle. I'd be looking at Hans' old business partner to start with and questioning Hans' kids for confirmation of getting dropped off, etc.

    --
    --Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
    1. Re:her "disappearance" by mlyle · · Score: 1

      From my experience as a divorced dad, dropp-offs are too unpredictable. Even a few minutes different in planned drop-off time, which happens frequently, can throw off a plan. He'd have to get rid of a body, murder weapon, CAR, remove evidence from his house of altercation and al kinds of stuff.

      So how'd you do it, then?

    2. Re:her "disappearance" by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find it strange that she dropped off the kids and THEN disapears? The kids are little. I doubt that Hans would or could leave little kids alone long enough to follow her, kill her and dispose of the body. Even if he grabbed her at the door, the kids would see it. You can't have witnesses to something like this and expect to stay out of jail. And for him to do something like this requires planning (premeditation). From my experience as a divorced dad, dropp-offs are too unpredictable. Even a few minutes different in planned drop-off time, which happens frequently, can throw off a plan. He'd have to get rid of a body, murder weapon, CAR, remove evidence from his house of altercation and al kinds of stuff.

            His mother lived with him. He would have had to leave the kids and his mother at home after they were dropped off and go to the grocery store parking lot and wait on his wife to come out from shopping.

            There is no indication that the children can vouch that he stayed home with them after they were dropped off, otherwise he would have an alibi. It's a given that an alibi from his mother cannot be counted upon, given her participation in seeking custody of the children.

        rd

  398. It was different with Jesus by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    Got it wrong once with Jesus...

    Anyone willing to take another chance at the death penalty?


    Well now you're just comparing apples and oranges.

    In Jesus' case, the world's only superpower had an army occupying the Middle East, was so unpopular among the natives that it felt the need to crack down hard on any sign of rebellion, and thus ended up regularly torturing and murdering suspected insurgents. Sometimes it based those suspicions on nothing more than the accusations of grudge-bearing local leaders, and it justified that torture and death by pointing out the enemies' apocalyptic religious fanaticism. Obviously in such a situation Rome was going to make a few mistakes in whom they killed, but Americans are good students of history and would never let their own country be so reckless!

  399. Has to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Without condemning Hans)

    I knew that ReiserFS was unstable, but Reiser himself?

    and

    Mere allegations are enough reason to just purge ReiserFS code from the kernel tree!

  400. Jokes... by PongStroid · · Score: 1

    That's about right - I can't take a joke on this topic for exactly the reasons I gave. (And how you interpret this to mean I can't generally take a "fucking joke" - I've no idea...) If this apparently funny story wasn't actually happening around me, and I didn't take part in the search event at the park last weekend, I likely wouldn't have responded at all.

    1. Re:Jokes... by loqi · · Score: 1

      Okay. But you did respond, and smugly told the GP that he'd understand when he "grew up". Taking out your personal frustrations on others through an avenue like condescension is a clear sign of immaturity. I'm sorry that you've suffered because of what's happened, and I'm even more sorry for the guy's kids. But it's not immature to make jokes about serious topics. If you think otherwise, you might want to consider going in for an ass-stick-ectomy. Lighten up, you'll live longer that way.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
    2. Re:Jokes... by PongStroid · · Score: 1

      You'll come to understand that snickering with a bunch of geeks about death - around people who are materially impacted by it - puts you in negative karma territory. And don't think for a second that a Slashdot public forum isolates you from those who are impacted. As Google indexes these conversations they will be *easily* found by the children as they learn to use the internet... think about it.

      As to maturity... seriously? "Fucking joke", "ass-stick-ectomy"...? Need I say more?

    3. Re:Jokes... by loqi · · Score: 1

      You'll come to understand that snickering with a bunch of geeks about death

      It's funny that the only people I observe using condescending language like that are the ones with narrow and judgmental mindsets. Maybe you'll come to understand that much of the apparent baggage you've picked up with age has little to do with maturity. Maybe some day your sense of humor will evolve to encompass more aspects of the world you live in. Maybe some day you'll be able to separate your personal issues from your interactions with others.

      As Google indexes these conversations they will be *easily* found by the children as they learn to use the internet... think about it.

      Think of the children! So, let me get this straight. You should never joke about anything that negatively impacts someone on the internet, because they could scour the internet about the incident and find your joke?

      As to maturity... seriously? "Fucking joke", "ass-stick-ectomy"...? Need I say more?

      Oops, I forgot that nasty f-bombs are the tools of juvenile minds. I'll surely try harder to restrict my vocabulary and neologisms to appease those who've just experienced something troubling and feel like taking it out on others. Cue your reply informing me that sarcasm, the term "f-bombs", and accusing people of lacking character are also signs of immaturity.

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  401. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by HiThere · · Score: 1

    OK, Reisser4. In that case I've definitely never used it and it's not currently a part of the kernel. That removes a couple of places where I was vague. The rest stands.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  402. A little perspective is in order by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

    So far no body has been found, so we don't even know if a crime has occurred, nevermind who did it. It seems premature to bring out the pitchforks and torches.

  403. Re:Just as a side note about their upcoming divorc by ArghBlarg · · Score: 1

    That's interesting... maybe she's not dead, maybe she just disappeared now that she has her residency. Mr. Reiser could be the victim of a Russian bride scam.

    --
    ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
  404. Worst PR Stunt Ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all I got.

  405. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    Did anyone check his journal?

  406. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by phiwum · · Score: 1


    When an OSS maintainer gives up, you can still maintain the software precisely because you have the source so that there are ways of maintaining the software.

    Actually no.

    I can not maintain the code.


    He didn't say that you could maintain the code. He said there are ways of maintaining the software. This includes input from better qualified and better motivated programmers. And so you and I may rely on the work of others on reiserfs, just as we have been doing up until now.

    But with a closed source filesystem, we'd have a lot more worries.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  407. Russian mail bride? by scavenger87 · · Score: 1

    The considerable age difference, the ethnicity and attractiveness of the victim and marriage problems hints that she was a russian mail bride. You can shop for a doctor there too.

    1. Re:Russian mail bride? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      If that's the case, can't you just put a "DEFECTIVE" sticker on her and send her back for a replacement?

      "This one is DOA..."

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
  408. Re:Prove that by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
    But who knows, I could be wrong about this you know. If you have so much faith in humanity, and if you believe only 4-5% of the population are psychopaths, then the world should be filled with compassion and empathy, and unity should be just around the corner. I don't really have much faith in that. I'm sure it's over 4-5%, but it might be less than 20%, even if it's 15%, it's high enough that we all know people like this.

    This is bullshit. You're arguing that if a=b that c=d. But what you are forgetting is that humans, like wolves, are pack animals. We're wired to accept hierarchies and to go with the flow.

    The powers that be have not forgotten this, and they maintain their position atop the heap by keeping us fighting each other so that we're too busy to unite and rise up against their asses.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  409. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    But years from now someone could pick it up and move forward with the project, as opposed to a commercial offering that just dies forever and forever.

    Exactly. One of the great losses after the dotcom bust was that there was all this fabulous proprietary code that got locked up. Companies were bought for pennies on the dollar, including rights to all code the busted company had. In many cases, the new owners were not knowledgeable enough to place a value on the code, so the short-sighted, greedy bastards just held onto the code rather than selling it off at a potential loss from a price they weren't competent to establish.

    A major example was the voice recognition code from L&H. Fortunately, someone did manage to acquire their code eventually and continued to develop it.

  410. Agreed; have them do something useful. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a good idea to me.

    I know of a supermax prison where the inmates do car washing and detailing (it's a good deal, too -- $3 for a hand wash and $11 for an interior detail; only you have to clean every single weaponizable object out of your car first). Not sure where the money goes, whether the prison takes all of it or whether they split it with the inmates or what. I see no reason why the prison shouldn't just take it all, unless they're trying to teach some sort of a lesson about economics. (Although I think most criminals get the "money is good" aspect.) After a certain amount of time in prison I think most people would work for free just to relieve the boredom.

    At any rate, I'm all about getting the maximum amount of work we can get from incarcerated people. Since apparently we have a labor shortage in this country -- as evidenced by the outsourcing we do, and the arguments for allowing immigration -- there's no reason why we ought not have criminals do those jobs that Americans aren't doing already.

    And if a particular prisoner is good at something marketable, and allowing them to do it doesn't present a risk to society (i.e., he can do it from within the prison without communicating with anyone), all the better. Society is still protected from the criminal element, and gets some useful work done.

    Better than just having them sit around and pump iron all day and think of new and amusing ways to sodomize each other, which seems to be the current situation.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  411. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    When an OSS maintainer gives up, you can still maintain the software precisely because you have the source so that there are ways of maintaining the software.

    Actually no.

    I can not maintain the code.

    Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I can't afford to pay someone who can. So no - I can NOT maintain the code if it is intimately tied to a single developer. To suggest that I can is as farcical as suggesting that OSS is more secure because many eyes are critiquing the code - when in actual practice very few eyes are involved in most of the code on sourceforge etc.

    The "you" in the orginal post was obviously metaphorical. You personally might not be able to maintain the code, but someone else will be, or can afford to hire someone to maintain the code. None of that would be possible if the code was closed, is what the point of the original poster was.

  412. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Look at the post I was replying to - we are talking about Linus Torvalds, not Hans Reiser and about allowing him access to a computer if commits murder rather than just letting him go free. No, I don't believe jailed poets should be denied pen and paper and similar allowances should be made for other talented individuals. Otherwise we are punishing ourselves more than the criminal. As for first time murderers without a criminal background, well they already get more lenient sentences so I am not suggesting anything new. Except that if you did an extraordinary service to humanity, you should be given even more leniency. If you stopped a million murders by preventing a war, shouldn't people who were trying to start it go to electric chair before you are executed or put away for life for accidentally killing someone in a bar fight?

  413. MOD PARENT UP!!! by jafac · · Score: 1

    Holy crap - this is one seriously fucked up story. . .
    Had I not already responded to other posts in this thread, I would have modded you up.

    Synopsys:
    Reiser alleges that Sean Sturgeon drugged his wife, seduced her, practiced BDSM on her, then loaned a bunch of money to namesys, which SHE then spent, and then Sturgeon attempted to extort the company from him, via legal threats, and threats of violence.

    If what Reiser alleges is true, holy fuck.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      If what he alleges is true, yes, but it seems far more likely that the poor man has completely lost it. You know, the story he told is not nearly as common as the story of the insane man who murdered his wife. I can see one reason for why he's a suspect.

  414. Case solved by Jusii · · Score: 1

    Case solved, move along http://www.namesys.com/support.html

    $25 gets you an answer to a question about anything.

  415. Fucking hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish I had mod points. That's the funniest thing I've seen on /. in a while.

  416. felon by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't use any software written by a felon.

    (That noise is not me giggling insanely waiting for someone to bite. Really)

  417. "Normal" is not "natural." by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    I don't think you're right at all.

    You're assuming that children are "naturally" good, and require training to kill. I see no evidence for this. If it seems like children are naturally one way or the other, it's because we consider it normal to train them that way. I.e., we train children that hurting other people is wrong and bad, and that they should consider the feelings of others -- this seems "normal" to us. Children don't automatically realize that "other people have feelings, too," and you'd realize this if you spent some time around pre-schoolers.

    If one kid wants a toy that some other kid has, and he hasn't been taught to think about others' feelings, he'll just walk up and take the toy from the other kid. But if someone does that to them, they'll get upset. That the other kid doesn't like it when they take the toy away from them, is not obvious. This is why you spend a lot of time trying to get kids to think about situations from somebody else's perspective. E.g.: "Tommy, would you like it if Joey punched you in the face? No? Well, then you shouldn't punch Joey in the face, because he doesn't like it either." That type of reasoning is pretty high-level. Unless you point out to them that they've done something wrong, a child won't feel bad about stealing another kid's toy or shoving them, they'll just go about their business and not think twice about it.

    Without social conditioning, I don't think children would necessarily even realize that other people have feelings. More likely, they'd just determine a cause and effect which would discourage them from hurting people bigger than them, like animals do. My cat knows not to bite the dog, because if it does, the dog will really maul the shit out of it -- the cat doesn't (at least, I doubt it does) have any moral impulses about whether hurting the dog is a good thing or not, it just knows not to do it. In the absence of high-level social conditioning, I think that's what human children would probably operate according to if left totally to their own devices. (And you can see a little of this in the rare cases of children raised by animals, particularly social ones like wolves.)

    So I think you're engaging in a whole lot of normalization. I think it's a mistake to think of any type of high-level social behavior as "natural." What seems 'natural' to us is a result of the social conditions that we think of as normal. Our "true nature," if you relied on our hardware alone, and tossed out all the programming we receive as we're growing up from our social structures, is probably not anything like what I think you're imagining it to be. In all honesty, it would probably be a lot closer to a pack of wolves with some very advanced language abilities, than any recognizable human society.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  418. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by lukateake · · Score: 1
    Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?

    Absolutely, especially if his crime was writing bad poetry. [bah-dum-bum]

  419. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >Would you deny pen and paper to a jailed poet?

    In all seriousness, one acquaintance of mine that was in prison for a while, was allowed to have only 2 pieces of paper at any given time, which had to be mailed to him, and any more paper would be confiscated. He had to ask for a pen and was only allowed to write while supervised, and had to give the pen back. Anything he wrote was inspected. Letters were subject to approval and censorship, and he did not get to do the envelope part (but did have to supply the stamps, which were also strictly limited.)

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  420. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by fishbowl · · Score: 1


    >You have to keep in mind that jail is meant to be a deterrent. It is really not meant to reform anyone

    Opinions vary on that, even among those responsible for the justice system. Some believe that prison should simply be a place where you are relentlessly punished, the more cruel, the better, since it is the only thing that can be extracted from a criminal during the time he is incarcerated. Others believe that prison should have a "correctional" effect. To varying degrees, both theories are implemented.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  421. Re:Donate money to Han's defence? by joaommp · · Score: 1

    I ain't got anything against Hans, but why should anyone donate for his defense?

    Is he unable to aford it?

    Hans has a job and has been awarded a lot of money in support for the development of reiserfs.

    Has he asked for anyone's help? If he needs anything I'm sure theres plenty of people to help, but just because the guy is an open source developer, you're sterotyping him as a guy without his own resources?

    Why don't people also make donations when it comes to defending homeless people that often are used as escape goats for street murderers and drug dealers? Are they any less then Hans?

  422. I love originality by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    "I find your morals and logic very similar to those that of the WWII Germans."

    Such an original line of argument! Did you find it on the internets?

    As for my actual point, it was not contingent on zero executions of innocents, rather it pointed out that it is strange to accept the (likely far more) numerous deaths caused by other areas of human activity (Thrill rides kill!) while keeping an absolutist stance on deaths of innocents caused by execution.

    This is especially so as those innocently convicted and executed are highly likely to be pond scum, while many other forms of tragedy strike far more randomly in the population.

    1. Re:I love originality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think people that go on thrill rides are pond scum, but it's not clear to me that someone wrongly convicted of murder is necessarily an ass.

    2. Re:I love originality by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "but it's not clear to me that someone wrongly convicted of murder is necessarily an ass."

      Not necessarily. But probably.

  423. FUD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you guys drop the ridiculous obsession with "fud", which I doubt half of you understand to begin with? It makes you look silly, and you use it when it isn't even applicable. If there was an article about Bill Gates' dog crapping on a sidewalk, you guys would tag it "fud".

    STOP IT!!!!

    1. Re:FUD? by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

      I would tag it PUD

    2. Re:FUD? by ExFCER · · Score: 1

      hahahaha

      Do you know him?

  424. Han's Wife Is Not Missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Han's wife isn't really dead if he turned journalling on before he performed the deletion.

  425. Your coworker should seek a pardon by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Some states routinely grant partial or full pardons on non-violent offenses that happened more than a decade or two ago, IF you've been clean ever since and you can get several letters showing you are a person of good moral character.

    Once he does that, he should be able to vote again.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  426. Too bad ... by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

    ... mail order brides come with no warranties stated or implied, Hans.

    --
    'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  427. Re:WTF? by sowth · · Score: 1

    Religious extremists who take control of the local government and pass laws to attempt elimination of all who don't belong to their religion or those who don't follow their religion.

    For example, one of their clerics declared that everyone over 25 and single was a "menace to society." So they set about plans to try and eliminate all housing which housed people who where over 25. First the nearby religious university changed their rules for off campus[1] housing. It required all people living in said housing would have to be a student. Nearly all other housing was considered "family" and most of them wouldn't rent to single people. This made housing very scarce if you weren't married and not a student.

    Then a few years later, the city council decided to pass some "parking laws", which essentially eliminated quite a bit more housing for non-student singles. It meant you couldn't have any roommates. And you needed a really good job to afford your own apartment around there. (The employers paid almost nothing for jobs.) The real parking problems were mostly caused by the university not having enough lots. There were a few "off campus housing" complexes which did have parking problems, but as far as I could see, they were never touched. This was the point I became homeless.

    [1] - Off campus housing has nothing to do with the university. It is just the places their students happen to live. The students were required to live only in housing which followed the university's rules. Since the majority of single people in the area were going to this university, nearly all single housing in the area were bound by these rules, and even if you didn't go to that school, you were required to sign a contract and follow those rules to live in those complexes.

  428. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by JCCyC · · Score: 1

    Well, some people believe making them criminals suffer is more important than the good of society. I call that personality disorder Punishism.

  429. To murder is legal, to kill is unlawful. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder, ..."

    Yes, those things are murder also. You've merely been conditioned to believe they are not

    Wrong. Words have common meanings, definitions. We could not communicate otherwise. "Murder" is a word used to describe a specific type of killing, shown below. You seem to be confusing a subjective moral opinion with the accepted definition of a word. Merely believing that all forms of killing are immoral does not allow you to change the definition of a word.

    murder
    n.
    1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder [reference.com]
    "Murder is an illegal killing, the preceding are legal."

    No, they are not. Circumstance is used to determine if punishment may be waived. Killing is always illegal. Proceeding with prosecution is at the whim of the State. Your State makes available the definitions of all crimes, read up on them.

    Actually I've had an administration of justice class that covered where the use of deadly force was legal. I believe state statutes authorize the use of deadly force when executing a death warrant, in self defense, during the suppression of a riot, ... Perhaps you are confused by tangential issues, for example where a victim is charged with the possession of a firearm in a jurisdiction where they are prohibited.


    Hold on there, 'spectre.

    What you say is murder is not murder to me. Murder is psychological; a prospective murder begins in the mind, then applied. I believe "murder" is the wrong word, because I have found some entemology that distracts to the word "martyr" and we all know why and how a "martyr" can change the political and morale landscape of a foreign invasion. Foremost, a "Statute" is not law; it applies to aliens; statutes govern corporatations, by admiralty venue. All law begins at the Bench, by Oath and Bond for a Trust; it is said "Trust in God." Also of note, all statutes are Roman; they are historically derived from the fact that Rome sent armies to harass and tresspass on neighbors, where the conquered neighbors would then be adopted under the parentage of a Roman state. Factually, Statutes were the religios icons incorporated by the Roman state. The word has slowly changed, but at one time "Statute" was literally a iconoclast of worship to whomever adhered to the image: totem-poles, trinkettes, charms, et al are alien to the law preeminent to the conquest and plunder of those failed images; they are recognized as assets, corporations insecure, waiting to be financed by whatever party willing to depose and inherit a controlling security interest.

    By adopting statutes and reference to them in our daily manners, is evidence that Rome is verry-much an influence. How would one know the difference of a law from a statute if they lived and were taught by employees of a corporation regulated by statute, and never once have had the issue of a peculiar or court of competant jurisdiction to take exception between politic and body-politic and body-corporate

    By most standards of law, the word we are looking for is "kill" as defined in their law, to know if our law is common to a neighboring patron of the exchequeur at the locale. In most law, it is impossible to be killed: everyone arbitrarily, unqualifiedly sends eachother to Heaven or Hell. I hear USPS can send someone to Hell at far cheaper rates than FedEx or UPS.

    Chears.

    PS:

    TITLE XXXIV-A
    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

    CHAPTER 382-A
    UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

    ARTICLE 9
    SECURED TRANSACTIONS

    Part 3
    Perfection and Priority

    Subpart 1. Law Governing Perfection and Priority

    Section 382-A:9-307

    382-A:9-307 Location of Debtor. -
    (h) Location of United States. The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
  430. I met him on numerous ocassions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't believe this... I've met him at a number of trade shows, and even corresponded with him when he was living in Moscow. I just cannot believe he could do such a thing. But then I suppose a lot of people say that when they learn an acquaintence had allegedly done such a dispicable act.

  431. Sad to say by Rasputin · · Score: 1

    things are MUCH worse than that in the US:

    "Some US prisons terrorize inmates with dogs-report"

    "BOSTON, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Dogs are allowed to terrify and even bite unruly prisoners who refuse to leave their cells in five U.S. states, a human rights group said on Tuesday, comparing the policy to abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison."

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N10550917 .htm

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
  432. What can I say? by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

    I hope everything turns well for him. Reiserfs is a great product.

  433. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Wow, where did it take place - are things so bad in US? Were there any special circumstances that indicated he could use writing for harmful purposes? I would contact Amnesty International. Completely depriving someone of mental outlets can be considered a form of torture. How did all these dudes manage to write books in jail then?

  434. easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pshya, all he has to say is "Ooh, I murder!" without being asked and he's home free!

  435. Re:Prove that by bogado · · Score: 1

    I don't know if I am feeding a troll here, but...

    You affirm that "and there are a lot of people who don't feel guilt, remorse or empathy, enough that I'd say it's normal", and I ask how do you know? Many people uses tricks, self-deception, to separate themselves from the people they harm or treat badly. People would say that in fact is helping that under payed employee because otherwise he would be jobless. Others would argue that those poor people actually deserve to be poor and hungry because they do not work as hard as they do, not noticing that probably they work as hard or harder. And finally some simply convince them selves that that person who he just killed is "the enemy" or maybe they "deserve to die" or simply "they are less human because of their color, origin or believes in some other super powered divinity that I don't really like".

    Self deception is a powerful toy and many people use them to do horrible things and sleep at night, but that don't make them psycho. Psychopaths, know that what they made are wrong and yet they do not feel any guilty, they don't need to create a self-deception.

    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  436. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, this is all part of the project roadmap. In prison, he will definitely be able to continue research on Tail Packing. I'm sure the results will be in his journal.

    In any case, if convicted, no one can blame him for what he did. His wife was FAT32. Trust me, no one would want to mount *that*.

  437. I will devote the rest of my life - by wsanders · · Score: 1

    - to finding your search topic!

    New OJFS Motto: "Used to be fast"

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  438. Moderate that down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have never heard of "fithmo" about anything before that post, other than his account in Slashdot, so I Digg'd around for it.

    You call for the man to be suspect just because of this URL showing a bunch of opinions to his trial and error of character and workmanship. Regardless of him owing no specific debt, you are among them that try to derive satisfaction by taunting him to be an arrogant "douche." I mean, you talk about how his form to apply a tecnique or skill is actually homework, while the alleged "homework" to his ill-favor in said Technical School is verry unpleasing and unsatisfying to him in lite of proving one's knowledge by discussion.

    I'm honestly trying to flaim "fithmo", and have acknowledgment from Moderators and meta-mod to emphasize the verry candid nature of that useless correspondance of "fithmo" to someone he has either (1) lied of not-knowing for less than 15-minutes just to procure the heated debate of Hans Reiser through Google or (2) knows technically in leu of a competitor with vile necessity to indirectly correlate unrelated events for ill critique.

    I'm saying if you have sympathy or money to donate, then let you be a Linux Distributor to question whether Hans Reiser attaining $170K + USian dollars to blame on ReiserFS is to technical merrit in comparison to non-debted filesystems, and whether his creditors could claim ReiserFS as their bankruptcy holdings and surety for the debtor and thereby cause Linux to be impeded with said disabilities to package.

    And watch, I bet I get bad karma for just trying to point out that it seems (to the untrained eye) that he might have bad karma.

    A typical liar trying to play-off false-moderation with the drama of sarcasm. The glory is all mine!

    FUCK YOU!
  439. Profit by james_orr · · Score: 1

    In fact, one could argue that the best "white collar" criminal would be a clinical psychopath in a position of corporate power - they'd make a great CEO in the short term.

    Ever see a show "Profit"? It was a short-lived series from about 10 years ago that was about exactly that. It starred Adrian Pasdar (now the older flying brother in Heroes).

    It would probably have faired better on HBO or Showtime, a bit too controversial for network TV. It is available on DVD.

  440. If Reiser is found guilty, will Novell... by forrest8ca · · Score: 1

    According to Novell it looked like they were going to ditch ReiserFS before this came out anyways ... http://linux.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/suse-102-dit ching-reiserfs-as-it-default-fs/

  441. Tabloid & Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a difference here ?

  442. Those are Unix systems...I know this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MansonFS, OswaldFS and the great-but-forgotten object-based, journalling OJSimpsonFS.


    Let's see...

    MansonFS crashes in on the system and home directory after the husband leaves for work, disembowling the database just before scrawling on the wall 'killall -TERM pigs'.

    OswaldFS tries to perform two impossible writes in real-time, while processing on the highest-order of poor-latency behind a file-tree littered with read-errors and cache-missing.

    OJSimpsonFS slashes nearby processes just to write solely on the platter, quickly flushing the cache after each session to prevent any dependance on redundancy that could cause latency and real-time writes to bog-down the flushing of the read, then just to piss everyone off it gets dirty by eating a drippy red-Tobasco'd double-decker Taco for every write, and is irresponsive to any inquest by the local system-adminsitrators while mounting remote volumes through Snearker Net.

    I give up. I'm not a Unix guy. Please, shoot m3.
  443. Re:Donate money to Han's defence? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Donate money to Han's defence?

    Why would Han Solo need money for a defense? Last I heard, the Rebel Alliance won the war against the Galactic Empire, and Han was a free man. Has he committed some crime now under the New Republic?

  444. Nonsense by k98sven · · Score: 1

    The article says no such thing. It says the police have "secret" (i.e. undisclosed) information about Reiser.

    It does not say that it had anything at all to do with the custody of his children. In fact, what I can tell from the article, the issue of permanent custody has not been decided yet, which would be in-line with the fact that the divorce proceedings apparently aren't finished yet either.

    What it says, is that the police testified against Reiser in the (presumably temporary) custody proceedings. It also says he'd been previously bound by a restraining order. Presumably the Police had at some point been involved in whatever incidents had lead up to that restraining order being issued. It's hardly a stretch of the imagination to think that same testimony would be brought up when it came to deciding on temporary custody.

    You cannot gain or lose custody of your children on the basis of any kind of "secret" information. Custody can only be granted by a court in a proper hearing, where both sides are represented, due process, etc. Whatever "secret" information the police have about him now, it would not be secret if it had been brought up in a custody hearing.

    The "secret" information here cannot have anything to do with the custody. It must be related to why he was arrested. And they are not required to disclose those reasons until either the preliminary hearing or the trial, should there be one.

  445. Re:bizarre by snuf23 · · Score: 1

    Reiser said Sturgeon "worked with my wife Nina Reiser and eventually drugged her with ecstasy and seduced her."

    Reiser alleged, "He then engaged in Bondage, Domination, Sadism and Masochism techniques and continued to redrug her repeatedly over time."


    In addition, Reiser alleged that Sturgeon wrote into a contract that Reiser must participate in "Death Yoga," which he said has the purpose of "slowing down one's heart to the point of death."

    Ok, this case is just plain whacky.

    --
    Sometimes my arms bend back.
  446. Re:Just as a side note about their upcoming divorc by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Just from reading this article, it seems like Mr. Sturgeon should be suspect #1. If Hans was really murderous, it seems like he should have gone after Sturgeon instead of his wife.

  447. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by DrCode · · Score: 1

    Proprietary software can often be just as dependent on a single person. The big difference is that companies like to hide this; so that person gets no credit or publicity, lest a competitor tries to hire him away. In addition, many executives convince themselves that the lead engineer isn't that important, and that the product's success comes mainly from good management and marketing.

    When the top people leave a company, few outsiders know what's going on. But a few years later, users will wonder why the product's quality has gone down.

  448. Deferred penalties by Pearson · · Score: 1

    I think the fact that, even if you are caught, and are convicted (it's easy to believe either of those won't happen), you still won't die for at least 20 years, neutralizes the effect. The death penalty has about as much deterrent value as the surgeon general's warnings on cigarette boxes, or the preacher warning you you'll rot in hell. "Don't do it, you might die in 20 years!" has almost no impact.

    If, however, you wired someone up to an electric chair circuit and they knew that the second they killed someone they would die, that would be a deterrent. It still wouldn't stop 100% of murders, but it would have a pretty significant effect.

    IMHO, the real benefit of the death penalty is in stopping repeat offenders. The other potential benefit is that the tax payers don't have to support the murderer for the rest of their life (paying for sex changes, and viagra, on top of everything else), but the fact that the system drags the trials out for 20 years pretty much negates that benefit.

    --
    I...I'm attacking the darkness!
  449. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    Of course. That's why you mentioned "convicted murderer".

    ". Except that if you did an extraordinary service to humanity, you should be given even more leniency."

    Why? Is that your get out of jail free card? Do we have "platinum citizenship"?

    "Otherwise we are punishing ourselves more than the criminal. "

    Sentencing is about justice, not about service to society. It is not considered what society gives up when someone commits a crime. Poets can write poetry because they require minimal resources that can be provided. A computer, test equipment and an internet connection is another matter. Who says Reiser or Linus either one contributes enough to society to be give special consideration?

  450. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >Wow, where did it take place

    A state pen in Texas, where mostly only drug possession convicts go.

    >Were there any special circumstances that indicated he could use writing for harmful purposes?

    Oh heavens no. The rules are applied to everyone. And anyone that writes to them is supposed to know that they can only send a limited amount of stamps and paper (rules are very specific), you cannot send them money, and your mail will be intercepted, read, and not necessarily delivered. Exceptions are made for court documents and correspondence with attorneys, but that's about all.

    >I would contact Amnesty International.

    You think AI has any capability to reform the Texas penal system? Yeah, I'll get right on that.

    >How did all these dudes manage to write books in jail then?

    They don't. Not in certain state prisons in Texas anyway. Make sure you get Federal time, I guess.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  451. Racism's not dead in the South by a long shot. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Wide spread institutionalized racism in the South is long dead. Why must you continue to judge us by something that hasn't existed for over 20 years?

    The key word in your statement being true is "institutionalized," though people here are arguing that laws stripping felons of voting rights continue on as an institutional legacy of racism. Heck, it's not even that unofficial, if you look back to the 2000 election in Florida. Note one eye-popping stat there -- 31% of black males cannot vote because of this law, and black voters voted 93% for Al Gore. Imagine what 31% more black male voters would've done in a state decided by a few hundred votes.

    Also, living in Georgia and hearing the stirrings of continued discontent of white Southerners over the flag issue, the anger over immigration, and the current rhetoric over voter ID, I can tell you that racism is still widespread if not as up-front and brazen as it used to be. I've seen mass racism first hand in high school, and it's left its marks on me ever since then.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  452. Representative Fox? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.

    I know I get all my facts from politicians instead of eggheads! Boy, howdy, that's where the truth is!

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  453. Tomato, tomato by DietCoke · · Score: 1

    "In fact, what I can tell from the article, the issue of permanent custody has not been decided yet, which would be in-line with the fact that the divorce proceedings apparently aren't finished yet either."

    I'd say that's a relatively moot point.

  454. Re:That really sucks (chariots of fire) by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    Hmm, was it wrong? I believe that, according to your religious beliefs, it was right. I mean, Jesus himself could have stopped it, but didn't because it was God's plan for him to die. If it was wrong that Jesus died, then God would have been wrong. We can't have that now, can we?

    Actually, that all depends on how you approach theodicy, the question of the problem of evil. Is it possible to be evil and follow God's will at the same time? If so, then the murder of Jesus was an evil act. If not, then it wasn't.

    The question comes down to whether or not evil serves a purpose in creation and how much of that purpose is directed by God and how much is in spite of God. Personally, I believe that it is possible for events to be foretold by God and to happen at the urgings of evil without God approving of the evil itself. (e.g. Promoting suffering to attempt to fulfill prophecy and bring about the End Times is not a virtuous act.)

    Of course, you and I both know that the original poster wasn't using "wrong" in the sense of "evil" so much as "incorrect," which is what he is hinting that modern day executions can sometimes be. Think of all the people executed and then exonerated after their deaths by DNA evidence.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  455. Re:Prove that by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

    According to Dr. Hare about 20% of the prison population meets his definition of psychopathic. Further down the page, it says that 1% of the general population is psychopathic.

    --
    "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
  456. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by rtechie · · Score: 1

    So how many people should this paragon of virtue be allowed to murder before we lock them up for life? And are you saying you're willing to allow your hypothetical murderer get off with a slap on the wrist, as long as he or she is really this great guy?

    Absolutely. And FYI, this is EXACTLY how it works in the USA today. You better believe that if you are an "upstanding" citizen that will factor into your sentencing. As well it should.

    Let's use the example of the emergency room doctor that murders his wife because she is sleeping with another man. And let's say that he's an exceptionally good doctor who as saved thousands of lives. Now is it REALLY better for society to have this guy locked up in prison getting ass raped rather than restricting his behavior with a combination of electronic monitoring and restitution (doctors make a lot of money)?

    And I'd go farther. Most doctors are basically saints, working extremely long hours under difficult conditions, doing insanely taxing work. It's also emotionally taxing in a way most people find difficult to imagine. So yeah, *I* would be inclined to give the doctor above a pass on that murder.

    And I don't think that ANYONE should get a "life" sentence. Should we have geriatric wards in the prisons filled with drooling vegetables (like we do now)? I'm sorry, but a dottering old man simply isn't much of a threat. I think everyone should get automatic parole at 65. If they somehow manage to keep commiting crimes/parole violations then we can stick them back into jail.

  457. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 1

    So by your logic, people with prior criminal record shouldn't get stiffer sentences than first time offenders? If you support existing practice, why should "positive record" not be considered in addition to criminal record? What's your problem with someone having a computer in jail if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties?

  458. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually no. I can not maintain the code. Even if I had the skills, I don't have the time. And I ....

    Give it a rest -- you obviously don't understand the difference between the general and the particular uses of the word "you". If you (particular) can't maintain the code, someone more capable will rise up to shoulder the burden for you (again, particular).

    Are you (general) in agreement with me on this?

  459. her blood found in his car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Splatters of Nina Reiser's blood were found in the house and car of the missing woman's estranged husband, Hans Reiser, law enforcement sources said Wednesday.

    The sources also said that Hans Reiser removed the passenger seat of his 1988 Honda hatchback and that he attempted to hide the vehicle from authorities. This is the same car that his wife's blood was found in, sources said. Police are still looking for the missing seat."

    http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/ci_44 76687

  460. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by oohshiny · · Score: 1

    In the case of closed source software, this is likely a financial incentive of the organization that sells the software. They will continue in order to make money. Money is a strong motivator.

    You would think so. Unfortunately, real life works differently. When key developers disappear or companies change ownership, a lot of software products become unavailable because the cost of continuing to develop them is not justified by the revenue. And in many cases, companies even have a financial incentive for discontinuing a product, namely after acquiring a competitor. And when people pick up products like this, they are often small consulting houses that deliberately charge exorbitant prices to milk the remaning customers for all they are worth before discontinuing the product. And, finally, even when products nominally continue, they are often wildly incompatible (and often as a part of a company's business strategy).

    While it is idealistic to say that open source is better here, it is not likely realistic. Money makes the world go around and software that was bringing money to someone stands a pretty good chance of continuance.

    I've been in this business for more than a quarter of a century, and I have seen lots of companies come and go. Saying that open source software reduces the risk of leaving me stranded with an orphan product isn't "idealistic", it's reality based on lots of experience. Lousy experience with orphan software products is one of the reasons I'm so active in open source.

  461. YOU PEOPLE DISGUST ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't even support one of your own!

    I'm 100% behind Reiser, this is so much pig slander bull****

    The guys wife drives off and is missing for ten days, and all of a sudden he's a murderer? I don't think so. Wrong. It takes nothing to point a car in any direction and just drive away.

    The geek community needs to get its collective balls together and present a unified front against the pigs and the lawyers and their little justice system racket. Make no mistake about it, my friends, that's what it is, an economic racket that pays and obsene amount of salaries. Because guess what, they are going to come after you, one individual at a time. Who's going to stand up for you then?

    Big question: how many people have the cops, state governments, and the US governement murdered? On the streets, in war actions, in electric chairs. Hello? They don't have a single moral fiber left to stand on to accuse *anybody* of *anything*. At all. Nada. Nothing. No police department anywhere has any right to accuse anybody of anything. Can you ever remember giving any consent whatsoever to be ruled and governed by this olgiarchy. This is no democracracy, its not even a republic, its not a democratic republic, its rule by the rich. It was founded that way and it continues to be that way to this day.

  462. Ping and BRL-CAD by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    "Sadly, Mike Muuss was killed in an automobile accident on November 20, 2000. His work lives on in testament to his intellect and indomitable spirit."

  463. Re: Cuz I'm an Asshole by chickenandporn · · Score: 1

    I'd like to raise my hand here.

    I'm an Asshole.

    There, I've said it. Step one of 12 is done. Step 2 is where I call all the people I've pissed off, and apologize. Hell, I'll never make it past that step.

    Seriously. I filed my taxes late. Late for the extension. That's still 4 days away, but I haven't sent it back yet to my accountant. With the bad cheque I'll write him.

    I read all of my email, and when I smell bullshit, I ask questions. I think I just caused the next Jihad in Accounting. Rise Up, beancounters!

    When the cookies are free, I take two. I step on ants. I eat dog meat. If I had a car, I'd double-park. I'd double-parallel-park. In the fire lane. With a "media/press" pass in the window and twin "I love Chairman Mao" and "Free Tibet" bumper stickers. And a bobble-head of GW Bush.

    Damn, now (with that 5-letter T-word) slashdot will be "protected" from Beijing by the Great Firewall of China. I've nailed all the slashdot readers in China. I'm an Asshole.

  464. you're the ass, buddy by LKM · · Score: 1
    A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.

    Here, I'll help you with that:

    or1 /r; unstressed r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awr; unstressed er] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
    -conjunction
    1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
    2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands.
    3. (used in correlation): either ... or; or ... or; whether ... or.
    4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication.
    5. otherwise; or else: Be here on time, or we'll leave without you.
    6. Logic. the connective used in disjunction.

    Why don't you use your own damn link, you stupid ass?

    1. Re:you're the ass, buddy by laxpeter · · Score: 1

      Except the "without empathy or remorse" part applies to the entire list of modifiers to behavior, not just the amoral part. It's "manifested in (aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral) behavior without empathy or remorse"

    2. Re:you're the ass, buddy by LKM · · Score: 1

      That's your interpretation. Two other definitions from the link provided by grandgrandparent:

      A person with an antisocial personality disorder, especially one manifested in perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior.

      A mentally ill or unstable individual; especially : one having an antisocial personality

      Going back to the original point of the discussion. I said "There are people with mental issues who don't feel guilt. These are a tiny minority of all killers, and a tiny minority of all people with mental issues (psychopaths, as you call them)."

      The link provided by grandgrandparent does not in fact disprove that.

  465. Re:Just as a side note about their upcoming divorc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean "just long enough to get her Citizenship". Huge difference.

    A "Green Card" is a permit that allows non-US citizens to live and work in the United States. If you apply for one by way of marriage, it doesn't take five years. I don't know the time it takes today but back when I neede to know this, it was about 6 months. Depended heavily on where you would be moving to in the US, as some INS offices were heavily overworked. It might all be different now.

    A green card is also different from citizenship in that it is void if you leave the US for more than a year. According to international law, no nation may revoke citizenhip once it's granted, if that would render the person stateless, i.e. they aren't also citizens of a different country.

    IANAL, TINLA, yada yada.

    After you've lived lawfully in the country for five years, you may apply for citizenship. Maybe that's what she did?

  466. Can't use Linux, here's what you can do about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go find a cliff or a bridge somewhere, then take your entire fucktarded family.
    Have all of them jump off to their deaths, after that jump to yours as you're obviously too stupid to even exist let alone use a computer.

  467. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    "So by your logic, people with prior criminal record shouldn't get stiffer sentences than first time offenders?"

    Where did I say that?

    "why should "positive record" not be considered in addition to criminal record?"

    No such thing as a positive record.

    "What's your problem with someone having a computer in jail if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties?"

    Because jail is punishment. What's the problem with an inmate staying at the Hyatt Regency if the costs are fully paid for by outside parties? By your logic, anyone who could afford to live outside jail would have no need going at all (and they could keep their job too). Think how much money that would save!

  468. Things getting still weirder... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1
    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/15 735159.htm According to "law enforcement sources"
    ...Reiser removed the passenger seat of his 1988 Honda hatchback and that he attempted to hide the vehicle from authorities. This is the same car that his wife's blood was found in, sources said. Police are still looking for the missing seat. Investigators have also recovered books on how police investigate homicides, which were obtained by Hans Reiser a few days after his wife's Sept. 3 disappearance, the sources said.
    No word from Reisers lawyer yet since he hasn't had time to review the findings.
  469. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    That's a very positive way to look at it.

    I like bus factor better though. It's decidedly graphic, and matches the effect on the project. Also, a moderate percentage of people who were not mis-treated as employees would likely help transition the team given a huge payout. Nobody that's hit by a bus will be "hanging around" to do that. ;-)

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  470. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What part of "equal in the eyes of the law" don't you get? It to protect us from thinking like yours that Justice is blind.

  471. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by ArtStone · · Score: 1

    Can you cite any examples of a production quality closed source filesystem embedded in a commercial operating system spontaneously failing after the operating system's support is dropped or the manufacturer goes out of business?

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  472. California and circumstantial evidence... by hrrY · · Score: 1

    Can you spell Scott Peterson?
    In CA circumstantial evidence == death row and awe-inspiring beatings everyday till your execution.
    Hail Satan!

  473. Re:This brings up an interesting line of questioni by phiwum · · Score: 1

    Can you cite any examples of a production quality closed source filesystem embedded in a commercial operating system spontaneously failing after the operating system's support is dropped or the manufacturer goes out of business?

    No. Can you name any production quality open source filesystems that have similarly failed?

    If not, I'll stick by my claim. Open source projects seem less worrisome when something bad happens to the principal developers. The code is there, and if the project is useful to enough folk, we can expect development to continue.

    --
    Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
  474. I dont know how to say it... by vz3phyre · · Score: 1

    I think may be he really frustrated bcoz his wife have affair with his friend...In addition, not making money for living from opensource, problem in development, and lastly your wife and good friend try to hit you down ... what would you do? but of course i do not agree. Killing is not the problem solver but maybe it happen when we are so angry and cannot hold it anymore longer (that why we must always try to stay cool ;D ) For reiserFS, maybe we should give him time to continue his project (if there is) :(

  475. How many have ever done more than a minute??? by Dever · · Score: 1
    We've figured out just fine what our prisons are for in the US, NOTHING.

    There is not even doublespeak as to the intent of rehabilitation, just because CA's governor (mine) changed the name to include it, it makes no practical difference whatsoever.

    If you ask officials what the point is, they will say it is DETERRENCE, not anything else. The only problem with that, is that giving somebody 3 hot meals and a cot for months or years does absolutely *nothing* to deter them from doing it again in the vast majority of cases. maybe for a casual first law breaker, but not for a a criminal who's found a way of life usually through circumstance and or plain poverty. I do not care to argue the reasons for criminality definitions in any case.

    Furthermore, i dare everyone who seeks to make judgements on what jails/prisons are like and or for, efficacious or not,

    to let us know where and how much time you've spent behind bars, so that we may know how much salt to take with the numerous unfounded assertions i'm sure will pop up in this thread.

    only a year, personally. All I left with was various criminal knowledge and know-how that i had not until then possessed, and a ridiculous amount of 'job' offers that would undoubtedly have lead to alot of fast cash, and a sure high risk for going back, but to prison that time.

    In closing, Fuck All You armchair jockeys.

    /d

    --
    - I'd prefer not to.
    1. Re:How many have ever done more than a minute??? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      sure high risk for going back, but to prison that time.

      So you're huffing and strutting and posturing about, like you're an expert on the subject, and it sounds like all you've been in is jail. Huh.

    2. Re:How many have ever done more than a minute??? by Dever · · Score: 1
      i was just calling out the armchair jockeys. i never rep'd state time, read that shit again .

      is there some large percentage of uids from folsom up here that i don't know about? majority of parolees? no, i didn't fucking think so. there's no sizeable population of probationers here either, which doesn't even equate to doing time like the former.


      any other intent in your message, no, i don't give a fuck.

      /d

      --
      - I'd prefer not to.
  476. That's the question by Rix · · Score: 1

    Since authors are allowed to continue their profession, why not programmers? I wasn't suggesting the government provide him a laptop, but if he wants to buy one, I don't see a legitimate reason not to allow it in.

    1. Re:That's the question by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Who says authors are allowed to continue their profession? Inmates are frequently afforded very modest things such as books, pens and paper. An author may be able to make do with that while a programmer will not. Just because an inmate is a programmer doesn't mean he's entitled to more than anyone else.

  477. WTF! by one_red_eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A woman may be dead and all you can worry about is whether the project will continue?!

  478. Re:Prove that by elucido · · Score: 1


    Yeah that's what I was trying to say, but how did he measure the general population? That seems like a difficult task, sure it's something I can believe, but 1%? We have 300 million people, thats like, less than 500,000, I think it's likely more than 1%, but less than 20%, but really, how can we really know?

    In prison you can watch how people act and see that there are psychopaths there. Outside of prison, you have to rely on small samples, so we know it's rare, but it's not so rare that we don't all know someone who is one. 1% based on how it was collected is not as accurate as the 20% we know for sure because we collected it in prison.

    What say you? How exactly would you measure the general population?

  479. Moore law be damned. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Two words: Adolf Hitler.

    Moron.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  480. The state does not have the right to kill. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The state applies the laws that society deems acceptable.

    In most civilized countries in the world the state does not have the right to execute people.

    In the US it does, but it is not absolute and it can be retrived at any time by the lawmakers.

    You make it sound like if it is a natural absolute which clearly it isn't.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  481. Police in the UK don't carry guns. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    And they almost never have to kill anybody. It is such an strange occurence that it would be national news.

    YOu guys in the US love your guns, fair enough, but the kind of society your are creating is conditioning you to believe everything can be solved by sheer force and submission of your opossites.

    No wonder the Iraq fiasco.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Police in the UK don't carry guns. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot if you actually believe this. The police in the UK do indeed carry guns; it's just that the regular "beat cops" (as we'd call them in the US) don't. Do you really think that would work when some serious criminals with guns did something? That's why they call in armed cops when this happens. This second-level force is probably akin to our SWAT teams, and is heavily armed with machine guns and the like. What do you think happens to criminals when this heavily armed UK police force goes against them? That's right: violence and death.

      I'm not British, but I'd also imagine that even the regular cops in the UK might carry some non-lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, which is highly effective in subduing violent people at short range. Our cops here use this as well, in addition to Tasers, so that they don't have to shoot anyone who isn't armed and dangerous. I carry a can of pepper spray myself just in case I need to defend myself (strangely enough, this isn't allowed in most European countries).

  482. Disaster recovery. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You may not like it, but during crisis situations one has to discuss how to recover from disaster.

    For the particular project that MR Reiser has been heading so succesfuly, it is very legitimate to discuss what needs to be done to keep things going.

    Given the openess and visibility of the project this kind of discussions will happen in open forums like this.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  483. We do love you. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  484. What a load of tosh. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    You really are stretching it.

    The leagal and political contexts in which FOSS works are clearly described in a series of documents.

    What you are saying is written nowhere and I am sure, even if Mr Reiser was found guilty and jailed, if he could continue contributing from prision I am sure the community would continue benefitting from his input.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  485. In which derided planet do you live? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    This matter will not paint in the radar of even junior IT managers. The only people that will know something about this are Linux geeks, and not even all of them for sure.

    Most managers worry themselves aobut issues at much higer level, niceties like files systems will interest them when pertinent, but I am sure they will only care about the relevant technical aspects and not much else.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  486. I am not wondering. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I will wait that the investigations are concluded and judgment is passed before delving in the whys.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:I am not wondering. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      I will wait that the investigations are concluded and judgment is passed

      Wondering why someone would kill his wife does not imply knowing that he did.

  487. You stretch logic so far..... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    .... that it gets completely distoreted.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  488. Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hans Reiser purchased two books "Homicide'' by David Simon and "Masterpieces of Murder" by Jonathan Goodman on Sept. 8 from Barnes & Noble in Berkeley.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/br eaking_news/15741175.htm

  489. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Your or your acquaintance should still write a letter to Amnesty. They may not be able to do much right away, but if enough people complain, they will downgrade US in their report. If Congress changes hands this election, new leadership may be eager to flog the president's home state and make some token changes.

  490. Re:So why would you ever talk to this interrogator by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

    You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to allow your attorney to examine your "interpretation" and present it as best as (s)he can to a jury. What point is there in helping build a charge against yourself?

          The point of helping to find his missing wife, or not.

      rd

  491. Weirdly ironic nickname for this topic: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    I wonder if I'm the only one who noticed that the character you're nickname is taken from, Kokkor Hekkus, was called "The Killing Machine".

  492. ReiserFS murders your data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally believe it now?

  493. Re:C'mon, Slashdot by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    >If Congress changes hands this election...

    Congress will change hands dramatically this election, and that will illustrate for even more people just how the two dominant parties are merely two faces of the same beast.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  494. Re:Just as a side note about their upcoming divorc by 808140 · · Score: 1

    According to International law...

    What International Law? There is no "International Law", just as there is no international government to enforce it. Furthermore, while I cannot speak for other countries, you most certainly can have your US citizenship revoked if you do any number of things the US government forbids you from doing (there are certain countries you aren't allowed to travel to, and I believe serving in the armed forces of another country without obtaining prior permission is grounds for losing your citizenship). There's a little paragraph in your passport that even outlines how you can lose it, IIRC.

  495. Bright future for reiserfs... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1
    So long as he has a community of support, he won't commit another.
    On the other hand, if our guy is guilty and dares to commit other crimes, we can always rename the FS to HellReiserFS, and see its popularity soar among teenagers...
    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  496. Will this happen to all real opensource coders? by mv3430 · · Score: 1

    I mean when contributing a lot from yourself into opensource (or any other task as well) are we breaking up families? Is this the cost of the open source stuff? If you think about Linus for example, I bet that he had some discussions with his wife about how he manages the time between his family and his work. I didn't contribute much to community, but still I had to go through this kind of exprerience when coding "intresting stuff". I have 3 small kids. Think about it; are you stealing precious time from your very own children when doing this? What is the price of open source? What is the price of art? :)