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?"
Does anyone else feel very weird when reading this?
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?
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?
Four roommates. No microwave. You do the math.
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
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.
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
I'm not sure I'd categorize him as unstable, just brusque.
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... )
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.
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.
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do doctors who use information gleaned through Nazi human tolerance testing (i.e. most of them) support Nazis?
There are lives at stake here!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
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
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?
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Good god. Hans Reiser sounds insane.
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
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.
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
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/
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.
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'.
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
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)
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
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."
Exactly. Reiser hasn't yet faced trial, let alone been found guilty.
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?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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
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.
If we start buying CDs then the terrorists have already won.
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."
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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... )
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.
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
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
Execution is not murder, self defense is not murder, military combat is not murder,
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.
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.
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...
... oh, hold on, no they're not. Must be something wrong with your logic.
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
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?
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".
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
"... 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
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. :-)
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
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.
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:
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.
Ummm...last time _I_ checked, that no longer is the case in the USA.
BenCurry.net
The smart person keeps their mouth shut and asks for a lawyer.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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!
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.
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.
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.
yes, yes jokes are easy.
/. 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.
But I can tell you one thing, if I were Hans Reiser, possibly wrongfully arrested and I came back to
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.
MP3 Search Engine
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)
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?!'"
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
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:
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.)