Slashdot Mirror
Hans Reiser Guilty of First Degree Murder
Anonymous Meoward writes "Today Hans Reiser was found guilty of first degree murder in Oakland, California. Quoting Wired: 'In a murder case with no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence, the prosecution began the trial last November with a daunting task ahead... The turning point in the trial came when Reiser took the stand in his own defense March 3.' Whether he really did it or not, Hans basically just didn't know when to shut up."
No evidence? No body? No murder weapon? Who cares! The prosecutor used Power Point in his closing.. The defendant is "weird".
Oh well, maybe Hans will confess and reveal where he stashed the body now.
[/rimshot]
How we know is more important than what we know.
No body, no weapon, no witnesses, no testimony, and nothing but a lot of circumstantial evidence. Sure, no problem!
Sure, he probably did and and fed her through a wood chipper, but the prosecution should still have to build a better case than "he's nuts, look at him!"
Can he work on free software from jail? He won't commercially gain from the crime and he can contribute for the good of society as a whole (in fact, provide a benefit that the world can use).
The prosecutor was also able to exclude the testimony of a guy called Sturgeon, who admitted to killing at least eight people and was having an affair with Hans Reiser's wife. If his testimony were allowed, it'd be the battle of the two weirdos and Hans, being the guy in a murder case who hasn't admitted to murdering, probably would have came out on top.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
There's reason for appeal right there. Personality of a guy who writes file systems???
The Mothership
you should see the moron he has for counsel!
He didn't represent himself. He took the stand in his own defense.
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand.
]{
I say let him sit in prison until his wife reappears alive. Nobody abandons their kids and cuts off contact with all family like that.
Getting caught with books on murder, evading police surveillance, having a front seat removed from your car, soaked in 3 inches of water?
This guy is a real piece of work. Saying he's narcissistic is an understatement.
Acquit him, and he's another OJ Simpson, free of ever being charged again.
SHUT THE FUCK UP. Honestly, that is the advice you need. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP. Don't talk. Don't answer questions. If you must talk, please state the following: 1) "Am I under arrest?" If YES, then say, "I want a lawyer." If NO, get up and leave. If you co-operate and help them out and do them a favor, whatever--they will talk you into taking the blame. They'll have you convinced you did it even if you didn't. PLEASE, SHUT UP.
blarg.
My personal opinion is that Hans killed Nina in a fit of rage, then scrambled to cover up the evidence. I did not see any evidence whatsoever of premeditation. So I can not at all understand how this jury reached a verdict of First degree murder.
It's written in his journal!
A typical jury is a group of 12 people hand-picked by the lawyers to be the most easily emotionally manipulated people possible. You were expecting them to come to a conclusion based on logic?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Amazing how all these women pick guys like Hans Reiser over and over again. Money & success through men is still king even if it means a shortened life span.
RTFA, Reiser's defense attorney didn't want to put him on the stand, but Reiser insisted.
Just ask any reactionary conservative loudmouth.
Or the average Joe Two-Short-Ones who believes abovementioned wankstains.
this part of the article caught my eye:
"Defense attorney William DuBois cross-examined the witnesses about Nina's extramarital affair with Reiser's former best friend, Sean Sturgeon. (The jury was not allowed to hear testimony that Sturgeon has confessed to killing eight people unrelated to the case, in retaliation for child abuse.)"
With the explanations he apparently gave for some of the circumstantial evidence, I can see why he was found guilty. Seriously, sex leaving a 6 splotch of blood?! What kind of sex were they into? Jesus H. Christ man!
Seriously. WTF?
Derek Greene
Heh.
From the SFGate blog article: "After the verdict was read, the judge told deputies to remove Reiser from the courtroom. As he was led out, he asked, 'Can I talk to my attorney?'"
How about next time, Hans tries listening to his attorney?
There was some doubt. Then Hans' insisted on taking the stand. The jury may have considered perhaps Hans took the seat out to go racing or make room for a large purchase. But if that were the case he would have said so on the stand. The same goes for any other evidence. Because Reiser took the stand the jury couldn't conjour up possible explanations. If Reiser didn't present the doubt himself the jury couldn't consider it. Since it was obvious Reiser was lying (he even admitted to it) the jury couldn't believe what he had to say.
You do realize they found her body wrapped in the same tarp and same duct tape Scott owned?
I live in North Oakland and knew Hans Reiser from the Berkeley OCF.
I met Nina Reiser at a pre-school picnic.
Nina seemed like a typical harried mom - devoted to her kids and quite kind (she got a cup of juice for my daughter).
Hans, on the other hand, went out of his way to be mean, petty, arrogant, and small minded. He acted as if he owned the Open Computer Facility, and that everyone should kow-tow to him. Once he booted an undergrad off the system because she had posted a Usenet message that he disagreed with.
I attended the trial for several days. I was impressed with how carefully the jurors followed the witnesses, even though the testimony was boring.
Hans shot himself in the foot by testifying. Maybe he shot both feet. He used the passive voice when describing critical events, as if he were an outside observer. He varied from extremely explicit (remembering license plates) to utterly vague (not remembering where he slept).
Even though I wanted him to get out of this squeeze, I quite agree with the jurors on this one: there may not be a body, but Hans committed murder.
IANAL, so could someone explain to me how it makes any sense that he was found guilty of first degree murder when no one can even prove that Nina is dead? Maybe a lesser charge such as manslaughter, but I think that the fact that the prosecution cannot definitely say that she is dead should be enough for reasonable doubt.
How many people ever used ReiserFS? By all reports (from the few people I've ever known who actually used it) it was a pretty risky move. When ReiserFS screwed your filesystem (as happened to these guys at some point), there weren't really any good tools to try and fix it... and if you emailed Reiser or a mailing list, he'd be a total ass because you DARE mention that his filesystem screwed your data. So yeah, I guess if writing a filesystem that nobody uses and being a dick count as being a good programmer and an important member of the community, you're right.
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
In all likelihood, Reiser's lawyer did not want to put Reiser on the stand. However, it is generally accepted "[i]n a criminal case, [a] lawyer shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer...whether the client will testify." It is assumed that the right of a client to testify in criminal cases is a constitutional right. See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, para. 16. Even if the client's testimony can only hurt the defense, the lawyer must allow the client to testify if the client so insists. To do otherwise would be unethical and impair the client's rights.
For an interesting review of historical views on 'N' (and Blackstone's criteria in general), see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm.
This video accurately transcribes what happened in court: http://youtube.com/watch?v=EISdUkG8Bbw
Were they talking of reiserfs, or where he hid the body?
Tacky.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the courtroom sketches accompanying the article a bit more cartoonish than is usual for courtroom sketches? They border on caricatures, especially the children playing in the video.
The guy is a socially maladjusted geek. He thinks and acts differently from people around him. People consider him rude and arrogant and don't understand him.
None of that should be reason for conviction "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is reasonable doubt in this case whether the woman is even dead, let alone whether he killed her. This is a miscarriage of justice.
So there you go. His behavior in the court room resulted in a guilty verdict. Why I'm surprised this took precedence over the facts of the case I don't know. Perhaps there's more to it than this, but the Judge's comments are clear.
OK. Thats a fucked-up social circle.
*conspiracy filter on*
Lawyers. There's so much more money to be made from appeals. For both sides. They know this. It's all a have.
Enjoy!
The Mothership
I surprised to see so many here defending a man who quite clearly killed or was involved in killing his wife. Just because he invented a file system few people use, the Slashdot Crowd worships him to the point of blindness to the obvious. Is it amazing that he was able to pull it off while leaving such little actual evidence? Sure. But that "getting away with murder" doesn't justify it. It's pretty sad to see so many supporting this sociopath.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Reiser's case isn't a capital one. In California IIRC, first-degree murder is only a capital offense when specific aggravated circumstances are present, none of which really apply to this case (ie, killing a cop, felony murder, torture, etc).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Actually he's a shitty programmer and a megalomaniac. Anybody who had to endure his prolonged self-aggrandizement at the expense of the readers of the linux-kernel mailing list know that he was long on self-esteem and short on delivery. All that ever came out of his years of talking about how awesom he is were four versions of an unreliable filesystem with bad performance.
SINE ACTIONE AGIS, sad...
Carlos Niebla
No body != no evidence of murder (except in Texas).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
Im pretty sure I was bitten by the hash colliding bug. One afternoon, /usr/ collided with something and had complete jibberish in the ls.
I never submitted anything cause it was tainted with nvidia blobs at the time.
Anyone who has had kids and isn't a sociopath knows that guy was guilty.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
I don't know whether or not Hans is guilty.
I do think that convicting somebody based on circumstantial evidence is almost always a bad idea. In fact, it's such a bad idea, it usually doesn't happen... and when it does, the judge often steps in and overturns the conviction.
In this case, you have a guy who did some things that are pretty damn hard to explain away. The day after his wife goes missing he removes the passenger seat from his car and hoses the entire thing down? Seriously?
Should that be enough to convict him? I don't know. What I do know is that I find it very strange that so many of you are willing to ignore things like that and declare your outrage about his conviction.
Now that he has been found guilty, perhaps you should explain why you think he is innocent?
Mod parent up. I recently was called for jury duty and was directly asked the question "Do you agree with the statement that is it better to have five guilty men go free then put one innocent man in jail?" by the defense attorney. I think my response was something like "of course," and I remember being shocked that a significant number of potential jurors did not agree. Afterwards, though, I realized that the question really breaks down to "what's an acceptable false positive rate?" 1 in 10? 1 in 100? It made me realize the situation is not as clear cut as I originally thought. Sure, I can barely imagine the horror of being an innocent man in prison, but the fact is that you do need to accept some error rate to live in a lawful society.
The slashdot moderation system needs an overhaul. Just because someone puts forward an opinion other than the prevailing viewpoint - doesnt mean that the post is automatically flamebait.
And no, even though it will be marked as such, this is NOT offtopic - as I'm trying to raise the visibility of the parent due to poor moderation/tacit censorship of a comment linked to this story.
One must also remember that the US, as with the UK, use the adversarial court system. This attempts to establish guilt. Other countries use the inquisitorial system, which attempts to ascertain the truth of the matter. Both systems produce questionable results and have giant catalogues of miscarriages of justice to their names, which leads me to conclude that you either want a blend of the two or neither, but purely one or the other is inadequate. However, that's not the system used anywhere, as far as I know.
Do I think Hans Reiser is guilty or innocent? I don't think I know enough to say, for the above reason. I don't think the system exists yet to establish that with any certainty. I think he's guilty of stupidity - you don't ask a SQL database engineer to do assembly code programming, he knows that, so he should have been quite capable of inferring that you don't ask a software engineer to do lawyering. Beyond that, I don't know.
Sadly, his stupidity isn't grounds for appeal. He can't claim that he misrepresented himself. That doesn't work. We shall probably never know what really happened or why - again, the US system doesn't really try to establish such things. We shall also never really know to what extent Hans Reisers' autism affected the trial. In the legal system as it exists, criminal insanity (not knowing right from wrong) is only sometimes recogized, other forms of insanity or mental abnormality are neither recognized nor considered mitigating factors in a person's actions or a person's evidence. I don't like that either, but again we have the system we have.
This case proves only one thing to me, and that is that we'd almost be better off with no system at all. Not quite, but almost.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The defense attorney was fresh out of tranquilizer darts. Besides, Hans' mouth had journalled the transaction.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
If he's innocent I'm sorry for the man.
If he's guilty I pity him and his sociopathy.
Either way, though, I'm glad that the geek version of the OJ Simpson Trial is finally behind us.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
*sigh* BOTH lawyers have to approve of the jury members, not just one side. What you suggest is that the prosecution picked twelve easily swayed jurors while the defense ate a peanut-butter sandwich, which is a funny thought but really wrong.
I've been reading through several of the coverage pages and wow...
You'd think that given all of the evidence was so circumstantial, that he'd just keep his mouth shut or say as little as possible, but instead, he just keeps digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.
Advice for hyperactive folks who lack social skills who are accused of a crime not committed:
1) take a chill pill. no, really, chill. now is NOT the time to expound on the intricacies of your one and only view of the world.
2) you've got a lawyer. Use the lawyer as a filter. If you don't like the lawyer, get another one. If you don't know how, find someone who can help you manage stuff. this is another example of where you really shouldn't try to learn how to do it yourself, just because you can.
3) you don't "argue" with judges. You argue with other lawyers. Arguing with a judge is... well, it's just not wise.
I would have said that the lawyer was incompetent, but it sounds like the lawyer got fed up with his client arguing with him. Who's the lawyer and who's the guy being accused of 1st degree murder? Right. Either listen to the lawyer or get one you can work with.
He had a good case where the defense stood on fairly firm ground. Then, he opened his mouth and tried to explain things according to his world view, to the point where he could easily be painted as someone who was just not reliable.
There's alot to take away from this case. And unfortunately, one of those things is that "just being you", or "just being an unsociable geek" is not a valid defense.
Hopefully, he can appeal and perhaps prove his innocence there.
Winged Power Photography
Confessed to killing 8 people, and she'd broken up with him before she disappeared.
I believe that tosses shit right back into the reasonable doubt category.
"oj is guilty" according to whites is to "oj is guilty" according to blacks
as
"reiser is guilty" according to average joes is to "reiser is guilty" according to _____
hint: rhymes with "gerds" or "neeks"
that was a joke, but seriously, this case reveals sociology going on here. if reiser didn't program a file system, not only would no one here care, but most everyone protesting his conviction here would probably agree with it
what does writing a file system have to do with first degree murder? absolutely nothing
except according to all the douchebags here protesting this murderer's innocence here on slashdot
prejudice according to clique. tribalism. its a powerful motivator. just look at all the comments here grandstanding on this murderer's innocence. as if they would know better than a jury
you don't
you present two sides of a case to a jury of your peers. they decide. there is no better of arbiter of justice. don't like the verdict. why do you think you know better?
you don't
deal with it. move on. the guy is murdering asshole. according to a jury. good enough for me. why isn't good enough for you?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ba dum dum. Thank you. I'm here all week. Have the lobster!
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
If "shutting up" would prove a potential murderer not guilty, something is seriously wrong with how things are handled.
It's not so much that it would have proven him not guilty, as it would have allowed for the "reasonable doubt" which the jury must find the evidence to be beyond before rendering a guilty verdict for murder.
Our judicial system, at least theoretically, isn't as much concerned with ensuring that the guilty are convicted as ensuring that the innocent go free. That's the whole reason for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. That's also the reason for eliminating evidence based on how it was acquired, in order to protect the rights of the everyone. Imagine if illegally obtained evidence was admissible. Cops would be kicking down doors at random hoping to find evidence of a crime. Or planting evidence at will. Your rights, the rights of the innocent, would be destroyed.
There was a bunch of circumstantial evidence -- as much as I've seen plenty of other convictions based on -- but the jury may not have found against him. But when he testified, he added another piece of evidence for the jury to consider: Hans Reiser's explanation for all of the circumstantial evidence is completely unbelievable. Throw lying on top of everything else, and the jury no longer had reasonable doubt.
So yes, him keeping his silly trap shut would have possibly allowed him to go free. If you assume the guilty verdict is correct, then it seems that but for his own stupidity, a murderer would have walked free. Yet the alternative -- to force defendants to testify -- is even worse, when you think of the impact it would have on the innocent.
The enemies of Democracy are
For those who haven't been following it, Henry Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle has a detailed blog of the entire trial. It is a really bizarre tale (the stuff of soap operas and mini-series). In my opinion, despite the lack of witness, body, or weapon, the circumstantial evidence is fairly compelling when taken as a whole. The defense did actually try to emphasize Hans' weirdness as a characteristic misleading some to assume guilt, but the behavior does not add up, even for an uber-geek.
Well, that's not going to be quoted out of context ad-nauseum by the anti-OSS brigade now, is it?
Although tbh, in context it's pretty indefensible too.
"So I murdered someone - but I wrote this really cool open source app!"
You would remove the battery in order to ensure that the phone isn't picked up on the network. If your plan is to avoid the van being found by tracking the cell phone, then it makes sense to remove the battery and leave the phone behind.
Then again, this is a guy who thought that hosing out the inside of his car was a good idea, and wouldn't look at all suspicious when charged with murder. I can imagine a lot of flawed reasoning contributing to the idiosyncratic facts of this case.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
being "weird" means you are automatically judged guilty for any crime you are changed with. They will use the Hans Reiser case as a basis to find you guilty even if there is reasonable doubt and a lack of evidence.
Your girlfriend or wife can leave the country, spill some of their blood on your stuff before they leave, and even if no body is found, because you are a Computer Geek any jury will find you guilty even if she did leave the country.
Your girlfriend or wife can pull a Reiser on you, as the ultimate form of revenge for all of those years you ignored her and spent it on a computer instead of time with her.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
WHO IS THE COMPLAINANT?
The State. This is a criminal case, not civil. HAND.
The enemies of Democracy are
For all that juries get bashed, it may interest you to know that a survey several years ago found that judges agree with jury verdicts 80% of the time, and when they disagree it's not so strongly that the judge sets aside the verdict as simply wrong (which they can do).
I've heard several lawyers talk about how juries are surprisingly competent at detecting liars.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I believe they mean forced (non-consensual) sodomy. Yes, I know consensual sodomy is a crime in a few states too (can't remember if misdemeanor or felony).
fsck!
She wasn't a doctor, though. She was a "child physician", a title that lacks a counterpart in the US, and is often incorrectly translated to doctor. It doesn't give MD status, is a low-paid job in Russia, and is in reality closer to a midwife with prescription rights.
But no, it's pretty clear that she would not abandon her kids like that. And who, if planning to run away, would buy $140 worth of groceries and leave it in their car?
Let's hope the killer is man enough to now tell where the body was disposed of, so the family can find some closure.
At least it wasn't a guy who hacks Perl.
"And what is your profession?"
"Your honor, I am a Perl progr--"
"GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY"
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
Captain, Road Prison 36: What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
> Clearly he must have understood Reiser ... would not help his case by testifying.
Yet he put him on the stand anyway.
What a surprise. An attorney with morals!
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I had that exact experience. ReiserFS is very unstable; any benefits that it could possibly have in terms of speed are far outweighed by the inherent danger to your files. I know that, yes, there may be some circumstances where someone would be willing to make that tradeoff. However, after seeing a ResierFS partition truly crash and burn, I would never consider using it in either a personal or professional application. And I would seriously laugh at anyone who really couldn't think of a better alternative.
The arrogant and abusive response thing is actually common to a lot of open source communities; Reiser wasn't the only one. I think it's more common (and more violent) where a criticism on the product could be interpreted as a personal attack on the author(s) (for instance, where one main author is largely responsible for the project or its main design), but it does happen quite a lot.
Oh, and the nagware/begware messages on all the Reiser package utilities were the most annoying things I've ever seen. Almost forgot about those.
...he created one killer file system!
The judge said that Reiser was rude and arrogant and other unstated (but obviously bad) things. I think the judge would have found him Guilty too.
Reiser fsck YOU!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You cannot prosecute for murder without a dead body period. Even if you have witnesses, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness isn't lying... as you don't have no fscking remains.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Not only that, but his attorney is NOT a criminal defense attorney. Reiser insisted this guy represent him, even tho the lawyer did not want to. At the very end, he tried to have a mistrial declared because his lawyer was no good.
Huh? Where did you get that? His attorney is an extremely experienced criminal defense attorney.
>If his testimony were allowed ... It would have guaranteed a mistrial.
Nowhere is it established that Sturgeon killed anyone. And nobody called Sturgeon as a witness for any purpose whatsoever.
It would be very different, if there were any evidence that Sturgeon killed anyone (say, because he was testifying from prison or something.)
It's a pretty serious problem for this notion, that none of the people Sturgeon claimed to have killed, are dead.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
1st. she embezzled a load of money from namesys.
2nd. there is no evidence that she is dead.
3rd. the children are in russia with nina's mother.
4th. her father is the doctor.
5th. there is no evidence that she has not contacted her children.
6th. there is no evidence that she is not alive and well in russia.
7th. the children's testimony was extremely conflictive. no coaching eh?
there is no evidence.
The prosecution has only proven they don't know where nina reiser is.
Let's face it. A programmer despite being german is not really the type to disappear someone.
His behavior though incriminating to the untrained eye, is really what most of us would do in his situation.
even if he really did do it, c'mon the bitch stole from his company. she destroyed his life. who can blame him?
They're using their grammar skills there.
>What happend to the good old "we'd rather have ten guilty men run free than put one innocent man in jail"?
And what makes you so sure that California didn't free ten or eleven guilty men on the same day it convicted Resier?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Whether or not Sturgeon killed anyone is irrelevant. He admitted to killing eight people and that seriously calls his judgment, credibility, and sanity into question. Sturgeon wasn't called as a witness was because the judge already excluded his admission of eight murders. The prosecution would never call a prime suspect and the defense wouldn't do so if they can't peg him as a psycho because Sturgeon hates Reiser and would do anything to get him in jail.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Thanks, Hans Reiser. Because of you, they're going to have to redesign the whole quiz.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Read the fine article, sir. In fact, the summary may be enough. What is cited as a big part of this man's conviction? Is it not that he tried to overexplain himself and acted paranoid-delusional under oath? Is it not that he tried to take matters into his own hands in a setting where charisma and social interaction are key, while simultaneously admitting over and over that he is unable to interact with normal society? I hope that I'd not make the same mistake in his place. Maybe I'd even get off.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
Actually, a defense attorney almost never wants his client to testify, because---to be frank---most of them are guilty as sin and lousy liars. But a lot of them are really arrogant and think they'll have the jury eating out of their hands. Those guys are a prosecutor's dream. You can have the toughest case in the world, and then the defendant gets on the stand, and makes your case for you (kind of like Hans Reiser did).
And just because I have to (yes, I really do)... Yes, IAAL, but I don't represent you, and this is not legal advice. If you are charged with a crime and you rely on this post as legal advice, you are a moron. Actually, if you rely on any post on Slashdot as legal advice for any reason, you are a moron. Also, I do patents, copyrights and trademark, not murder. So assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I don't know how jury selection goes in CA, I practice in WA, but I can tell you this about jury selection -- it's the most milk-toast people that usually get on. Imagine a pool for a 6 person jury. The people are numbered in order from 1-20. Often enough, several people will be excused because of hearing problems, medical problems, or knowing a witness/party/judge/lawyer. The first 6 people in line are considered to be on the jury, except that each lawyer gets three strikes. If a person in front of the line is booted, then everyone behind moves up a slot. There are always 6 people at the front of the line.
Anyway, you have to figure out who you're absolute least favorite people are in the first 12 people in line. Then one attorney strikes, and the other strikes and so on until you're out of strikes, or both sides accept the front 6 in line. Expand everything for a 12 person jury.
What you end up with, is a jury of candidates that both sides considered "least worst". Anyway, if you want to be booted from a jury pool, express a bias toward one side -- in a criminal case, say "all cops are liars" or "all cops have a god-like understanding of what went down". You'll be sent home fast.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
At least it wasn't a guy who hacks Perl.
Oh, they're not off the hook either. Randal Schwartz went to jail for for testing the security of systems he wasn't authorized to test at an employeer.
[[killer filesystem joke]]
The law is not an ass. No really.
Here in Brazil, to prosecute for any crime, the D.A. has to show that he has reasonable evidence that (1) the crime was committed ["materialidade"] __AND__ (2) that the accused committed the crime ["autoria"]. The prosecutor would be laughed out of court without (1) the body, (2) the murder weapon, (3) any _relevant_ evidence, (4) any witness... because not even the "materialidade" of the crime can be proven. It's reasonable to suppose Nina is in Russia with her kids... especially since nobody presented any evidence in contrary. /in dubio pro reu/ == "in doubt, for the defendant".
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
as NTFS 2008 mysteriously comes out within the next few months which eerily resembles ReiserFS. Money can't buy you love, but it sure as hell can buy you justice.
This is a FAT32 partition, it comes from microsoft.
It has a 4GB limit, in the age of 5GB DVDs why would you ship a product with a 4GB limit?
It just doesn't make any sense!
If this is FAT32 partition, the jury must acquit!!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Lawyers. There's so much more money to be made from appeals. For both sides. They know this. It's all a have.
Uhhh...huh? For "both sides"? The prosecutors don't make money on appeals.
Appellate courts can second-guess the trial judge, but they don't have the power to second-guess the trial jury. The only way these sorts of factual determinations could be reviewed on an appeal is if the trial judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury (i.e. didn't properly explain to them what standards of evidence they should be looking for), or if the judge improperly put to the jury something that was a matter of law instead of fact (i.e. if the allegation, even if true, wouldn't support the charge due to not meeting the definitions in the statute).
But if the trial was run improperly, and the jury just convicted someone on weak evidence, appeals courts don't have much they can do about it. (They also can't do much about it if the jury acquitted someone despite very strong evidence.)
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Personally I am blown away by the incompetence of the defense attorney. Clearly he must have understood Reiser (guilty or not) would not help his case by testifying. He should never have been put on the stand.
Clearly you haven't been following the case.
rd
on Hans' part. He feels really broken up, and is hoping the prosecutor and jury feel pangs of guilt after his execution when the ex-wife shows up at the funeral.
Civil. Yes.
I was referring to the more general aspects of it.
The Mothership
Property is theft.
No you don't.
You just tie them up and throw them in the river, if they float then God has pronounced them guilty and since God knows everything that's good enough. If they sink and drown, oh well they get to be Jesus so all is well.
This is why Hans is "guilty." If the only people who determine our justice are "too dumb to get out of jury duty" of course we will have injustices far greater than this. It takes competant jury to deliver justice, and with so many avoiding their duty, this is rare indeed.
It was his stupidity combined with his arrogance. He obviously thought that the jury was so beneath him intellectually that they'd accept whatever explanation he gave.
SnarlSlayer
You realize that both sides pick the jury, right?
Not only that, but if I'm a defendant and the lawyer doesn't want to let me testify, I can always fire the lawyer. The lawyer, ultimately, has no power over me. (The jury, on the other hand...)
Maybe we would have a lot more people being careful about sex if that were true.
Yeah, if the STD killed them before you finished. They have to die during the incident.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
It was odd, wish I could find the email. I had formatted one of my slack partitions for reiserfs. I remember writing to the author, saying something like, "wow, I saved X% by switching to your filesystem!". He writes back and wanted to quote me, I said, well, it's kinda inaccurate as I took my analysis from a "df -h" which kinda rounds the whole amounts, and would not be as accurate as plain ol' "df". The guy flipped out via email, he kept on insisting he quote my original "I saved X% with your filesystem". I eventually said no and we dropped it.
I can't remember if it was Hans, but I do remember it being a 15Gb hard drive and having problems with it after that. (Dunno maybe it was beta software at the time?). I started using jfs and ext3 shortly after that.
FLR
The problem with Hans, and where his credibility fell, was that he assumed he could just move on and dump an existing filesystem that lots of people used and come up with something completely new and incompatible. That's not the way filesystems work. It's kind of like ZFS now really.
No evidence? No body? No murder weapon? Who cares! The prosecutor used Power Point in his closing.. The defendant is "weird".
The following is a bit beyond "weird".
When police eventually located Hans Reiser's Honda CRX a few miles from his home, they found the interior waterlogged, the passenger seat missing, and two books on police murder investigations inside. They also found a sleeping-bag cover stained with a 6-inch wide blotch of Nina's dried blood. Reiser later testified that the couple had sex in the sleeping bag on a camping trip prior to their 2004 separation
This is my sig.
In my experience, ReiserFS is quite stable.
I've used it exclusively in every one of my machines since it got into the stable kernels (whenever that was -- I don't remember), and never had any problems. A few months ago I switched several partitions to ext3 (which was my first experience with journalled FS other than ReiserFS), because I wanted full selinux support. I like ReiserFS, and it's a shame it will probably disappear.
Of course, this is only one guy's experience.
"Use ReiserFS or I'll !@#$ing kill you"
...I'll fucking kill them!
If you haven't watched/listened to the video yet, *don't* listen to it through headphones. The sound level is really low, so you'll turn the sound up, and up, and then you'll hear various beeps and Windows sounds come through, really, stupidly loud.
a simple cut will do that if it does not clot nicely. And yes, any number of diseases impact the clotting mechanism. Heck, I have seen more menstrual blood spread more than a foot. But of course, it was shallow, not a soaking.
In the end, the CRX issue and his excuses and behavior were probably far more damning.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...not with the verdict, necessarily. The jury heard more evidence in more detail then I did, and more than any of you did.
I'm disappointed in the majority of slashdotters who are are convinced he's innocent. Do you realize that is really stupid? Why is a group of people who are so rational about technology, say, or science, willing to believe something they just can flat out not know?
He might have been guilty, he might have been innocent. The devil lies in the details, which the jury knows better than you.
Obviously it's out of some feeling of kinship with the guy, but, you know, that is a really poor reason. I swear; the reasoning here is about on par with somebody convinced that vaccinations cause autism.
Here in Brazil, to prosecute for any crime, the D.A. has to show
So I guess if you want to kill your wife, you should move to Brazil...
This is my sig.
If you know you had the STD and did not warn your partner than yes, if the partner dies (before you do) you can be charged with murder.
And just because I have to (yes, I really do)... Yes, IAAL, but I don't represent you, and this is not legal advice. If you are charged with a crime and you rely on this post as legal advice, you are a moron. Actually, if you rely on any post on Slashdot as legal advice for any reason, you are a moron. Also, I do patents, copyrights and trademark, not murder. So assume I don't know what I'm talking about.
New initialism: IANYL - I Am Not Your Lawyer.
Reiser is the trial attorney's worst nightmare.
He will not listen to reason.
He will demand to take the stand.
He will be arrogant and argumentative under cross examination.
He will expect to jury to believe everything he says simply because he said it - the subliminal message the jury will hear loud and clear from the moment he opens his mouth.
You know that in eleven days on the stand he will expose a sociopathic personality that is perfectly consistent with the picture that the prosecution has been trying to paint for six months.
This is a WAG from watching a lot of Law & Order, but there was a movie with Ashley Judd about ten years ago with this plot: Her husband frames her for murder, and when she gets out, she kills him with that defense in mind.
However, I'm under the impression from commentary at the time that it's the specific act that's prosecuted, not the general act. In other words, if Nina reappears and Hans blows her away in front of a cop after getting out, he would be prosecuted for killing her then and there, and the fact that he'd already served a prison term for murdering her twenty years ago, even if he was demonstrably falsely convicted, isn't material. In other words, the actual murder twenty years later is considered a separate criminal act (which it is--different time, different place, different actions by Reiser).
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Here, specifically, is where I think your "must choose acceptable false positive rate" premise strays from protecting the free back into punishing the wicket:
...the fact is that you do need to accept some error rate to live in a lawful society. No, you must not accept false positives. To accept false positives is to accept that law itself may harm society. Eroding the burden of proof and the threshold of evidence may serve to nail the bad guys, but they also serve to harm the innocent. Unfortunately, some "evil bastard" who "deserves" punishment will walk when we stand up for the rule of law and for the rights of human beings in order to avoid setting precedent that increases the incidence of false positives.Citizens at large, as your comment on the other jurors' response illustrates, are more concerned with punishment than with the protection of human beings. I believe that the same jury, given the same quality and quantity of evidence, would be less likely to convict on a less serious charge:
Manslaughter? "Well, this evidence is incriminating but shaky, and it's important to avoid convicting the wrong person since even if we accidentally let the killer off since this was not a crime of malice."
Murder 1? "Well, this evidence shaky but incriminating, and it's important to punish the person who did this if at all possible even if we accidentally convicting the wrong person since this was a crime of malice."
Your appraisal is of what happens in practice, but it should not be what we strive for as human beings. In practice, our system may find false positives, but we must strive to eliminate them, not merely be satisfied with them through some perverse obsession with punishment. Convictions are about protecting human beings from harm, whether at the hands of alley/corporate thugs or the hands of the law overzealously pursuing "justice".
In other words, you'd never convict someone unless you personally witnessed the crime.
In pretty much every other case, there can be another reasonable explanation.
How many people ever used ReiserFS?
I had been using ReiserFS since it was first integrated into the kernel, on several systems over several years, without incident. I considered it to be a superior design over ext[2,3] for large filesystems - the complete lack of a filesystem check at boot time was a huge bonus in the days it took tens of minutes to perform a full scan of a typical ext2 partition.
I migrated to ext3 when Reiser was initially charged - just in case. I guess I won't be switching back...
Unless you really are "that guy". Then you might feel a bit different about the error rate.
"Do you agree with the statement that is it better to have five guilty men go free then put one innocent man in jail?"
This question is sufficiently vague as to be unanswerable by a reasonable person IMO. For instance, are all the people in this question being charged with the exact same crime? I agree that some error rate is inevitable though, if only in cases like this where defendents incriminate themselves.
Of course, guilty verdicts that are later overturned deserve compensation if the verdict was caused by some flaw or oversight in the system, such as police incompetence.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
For a lot of reasons, people will confess to crimes they didn't commit. There are mountains of literature on it so you can do research as to theories why and conditions that cause it and such. Suffice to say it happens. So the courts don't just take any random confession at face value. You'll notice that Sturgeon isn't in prison. If you confess to 8 murders, and the court believes you, you'd better believe you are going to be behind bars. That he isn't says that they don't find his confessions to be at all credible.
Now this is important, because otherwise, it would create a "Get out of murder free" situation more or less. As an example:
Suppose you and I conspire together. You are going to murder someone, but I agree that if you get caught I'll confess to it at your trial. This would of course create reasonable doubt for you. However, I'll make sure that there is plenty of evidence showing I didn't do it (for example be on camera somewhere at the time of the murder) so when they bring me to trial, I get off. Bingo, you got away with murder.
This isn't even to mention the problem of people with mental problems who confess to things they didn't do for any number of reasons.
A good judge isn't going to allow evidence, on either side, that is likely false. They also aren't going to allow in evidence that is highly prejudicial if it isn't relevant to the case, even if it is true. For example on the prosecution side prior bad acts are limited. They can be admitted to evidence if they relate to the case, for example if someone is accused of robbery and he has 5 robbery convictions, well that's relevant because it establishes a pattern of behaviour. However if you were on trial for tax evasion, they couldn't get in a domestic violence conviction, since all that would do is prejudice the jury and it isn't relevant.
... can easily make a 6-inch blot. If you don't know that, then you have never been punched in the nose or had a girlfriend. Or both.
I wonder how linux will be in 25 years when he gets out of prison. It'd be funny if his filesystem was still being used. Anyhow, ext3's better, so I don't really care.
Cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home?
it'd be the battle of the two weirdos and Hans, being the guy in a murder case who hasn't admitted to murdering, probably would have came out on top
So, since Sturgeon's confession is complete bullshit, it seems like a good thing that the judge didn't allow it, no?
sic transit gloria mundi
What you are missing is that what he did with his car was NOT done immediately after her disappearance. It was not mentioned in the article, but it was firmly established in court that he bought the books AFTER he found himself under investigation by the police, and (without knowing the full testimony) it appears he had plenty of time to read them before leaving them in his car. That is hardly "immediately after". The only thing mentioned in the article about that is that they "eventually" found the car somewhere. Again, far from immediate.
Even if the client's testimony can only hurt the defense, the lawyer must allow the client to testify if the client so insists.
Don't lawyers generally have to comply with their client's wishes? Even without constitutional rights being involved, I don't think a lawyer can just go off and present a defense that the defendant doesn't approve of.
sic transit gloria mundi
what makes no sense to me is why the jury was not told that her paramour has confessed to killing 8 people. Given two suspects, both whom are intimate with the deceased and one is a mass murderer, would this not sort of raise a reasonable doubt about the other? Given the the murders were also inspired by domestic issues (i.e. not robbery, etc...) surely this is even more relevant. Given the murder knew the defendant very well (best friend) and presumably would know how to get to his house and car. Know his habits. etc... Why was this not presented?
Given the evidence against resiser it seems pretty damning for him in the absence of a plausible alternative. But there was a very plausible one.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
People are not "innocent until proven guilty". They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Big difference.
If I kill someone, I'm guilty from the moment I do it, whether or not it's ever proven in court.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
You can't be convicted of the same crime twice. Killing a person in a different place on a different day is a different crime. The fact that it's the same person is only new evidence to overturn your prior conviction.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Yeah, Reiser was involved in so many flamewars it's just weird that he has/had such a following among the munchkins on Slashdot. He even once accused Linus of being part of some RedHat-masterminded conspiracy against him.
Anyway he never struck me as a "typical linux programmer" as posters here are trying to portray him. He certainly didn't play well with the other alpha-geeks.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
there is no acceptable error rate for putting innocent people in jail. one is too many.
That's an admirable, uncompromising position. How do you propose we achieve that in real life?
sic transit gloria mundi
Sheesh. Except maybe about the "GanstaFS" bit. But still. I'm just sayin.
And obviously, anyone who names a filesystem GangstaFS must be a young white maleThat's "Smartest Mother Fucker in the Universe" syndrome. From what I've read of him online, Hans was certainly one of these people. He's much smarter than the average person in a great number of things. This, combined with a social ineptitude, has lead to a self image where he believes he is smarter than, well, everyone and basically smart at everything.
So none of what went on surprises me. Like the fact that he testified, and fucked it up badly. Someone who was intelligent and educated in the law would probably realise that simply being silent was the best option, especially if they realised they weren't a good witness. However not someone like that, they are smarter than everyone! They have to explain to those retards on the jury how it all went down, and how because they were so smart they couldn't be guilty!
This is of course going to go over like a ton of bricks on the jury and come off as extremely arrogant, which it is.
all circumstantial evidence
Why do people keep harping on circumstantial evidence? It's a perfectly valid type of evidence, and most murder convictions rely on it. Seriously, how often do you expect people to see someone getting murdered?
sic transit gloria mundi
Goes to prove that, despite the fact he in fact had a lawyer the old saying "A man who represents himself in a court of law has a fool for a client" is proven true here.
If I were his lawyer, I would have slapped him upside the head and told him to STFU. Of course if he was his own lawyer and did that.. Well, it would have proven this guy needed to plead "Nutty as squirrel crap".
seen silence of the lambs? i'd be looking at this sturgeon guy...
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I don't know much about this case, yet, but appears to me that several traits of Asperger's Syndrome were mistaken for guilt. For example, it was stated that Reiser's ability to remember license plates but not remember where he slept etc. indicated his guilt.
Episodic Memory (memory of events, times, places & associated emotions) is affected in Asperger's, sometimes to the point of amnesia. But Semantic Memory, memory for facts is often greatly enhanced. This appears to have lead Reiser to forget relevant autobiographical information but recall irrelevant facts, causing those unfamiliar with Asperger's to interpret his testimony as evasive and false. From Gardiner (2001) DOI:0.1098/rstb.2001.0955:
"There is evidence that remembering is selectively impaired in various populations, including not only amnesic patients and older adults but also adults with Asperger's syndrome."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
But that's not the same thing as the legal definition of irrefutable guilt. There were 26 men on death row in Illinois who were later released because of irregularities in the guilt that 12 sane men and women found utterly common -sense believable in every single case.
Right - circumstantial which otherwise wouldn't really have amounted to squat if Lacey Peterson was old fat ugly and not incredibly white bread.
Sean Sturgeon openly admitted to eight murders & 1 attempt, including, IIRC, one he hadn't even been charged with yet. This makes his word that he had nothing to do with Nina Reiser's death pretty believable (at least if I was a juror).
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
If Nina isn't dead, where the hell is she? Even an estranged wife would come out to acquit her ex-husband of murder.
If your friend got a restraining order against you because of alleged assault, and then he went missing, it would be a little closer to what happened with Reiser.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Just to think,a man who creates a file system to reduce internal fragmentation,his own life is fragmented now.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I wasn't saying in any way that the defense didn't participate in jury selection. It's as much to the defense's advantage as the prosecution's advantage to have a jury that is easily swayed by emotion. It is far harder to argue based solely on facts than if you can trot out the cute little kid who says how much he misses mommy and hates daddy, or the police officer who says with firm conviction, "No, I am certain that there was no blood on the seat." Such arguments are all fundamentally about credibility of witnesses, and in a case where there are precious few facts, all you can really do is argue about credibility of the "he-said-she-said" variety.
It still sucks---particularly if the person you are representing strikes the jury as being an asshole.... :-)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
...don't journal wife killing evidence.
I've been reading this thread for the past 15 minutes, and it's all starting to look like a game of Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney.
But no, it's pretty clear that she would not abandon her kids like that.
And if she is alive (I'm not convinced either way), she didn't. Her mom took her kids to Russia.
And who, if planning to run away, would buy $140 worth of groceries and leave it in their car?
Someone trying to frame their spouse.
What happend to the good old "we'd rather have ten guilty men run free than put one innocent man in jail"?
9/11 -- I'm so glad I've been out of the US for eight years.
Put identity in the browser.
this is someone many of you folks know.
perhaps you all know the details of the case and that's why there's no outrage.
I've followed the case only obliquely.
it "sounds suspicious," but not like a Murder One conviction.
Is the general consensus here that he's guilty?
How much trial materials would I need to get through to have an "Ahh!" moment? (links)
I miss my CRX.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The old Slashdot, if you hit back on FireFox accidently, you would not lose your comment. The new one, you do.
This is my sig.
there was a movie with Ashley Judd about ten years ago with this plot: Her husband frames her for murder, and when she gets out, she kills him with that defense in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_(film)
Check out some of the folks here who've been following this case for months.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Oh man, the issues go even deeper when you start considering memories and shit. Eyewitnesses are far from reliable. Give me circumstantial any day, I can spin a good tale. :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
You wrote it yourself: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very important point! What is supposed to be tested in court is not his veracity, but the evidence against him! The proof!
There was NO convincing, verifiable evidence that he committed a murder. None. Only evidence that he did weird things. Being a computer programmer, based on that kind of evidence a good percentage of the people I have worked with could be convicted of murder based on nothing more than a rumor started by an unfriendly neighbor.
If he lied, all that establishes is that he lied. If he is weird and unbelievable, all that establishes is that he is weird and unbelievable. Neither is evidence of murder!
That does NOT positively contribute to evidence of his guilt! If the jury felt that it did, either they were not instructed properly (quite likely), or they are a bunch of dumbshits (equally likely).
The movie was "Double Jeopardy." While it made for an interesting plot for a movie their interpretation of the constitutional right is off. The idea is you can't be tried for the same exact crime - not a similar and closely related crime which could not have happened if the original accusation was actually true. If Hans did kill Nina double jeopardy would keep him from being tried for it again as soon as he got out. While the idea of re-punishing someone seems silly it's good to have it in writing to limit abuse. IANAL
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
If a woman needs lots of blood to frame someone, they just need to take out their tampon at the right time of month.
Whether he did it or not, getting on the stand was a terrible idea. The day he spent talking about the condition of his car, for instance.
If he was telling the truth, he's horrible at explaining himself, and not very logical to begin with - the best place to sleep in a hatchback is in the back, with the seats folded forward.
If he was lying, he's an even bigger idiot - in that case, he should go down in history as one of it's most horrible liars.
It's something that seems pretty common among people with a certain mindset - just because they're good at one intellectual activity, they think they should be good at almost any. But that's obviously not the case, and you know what is said about pride...
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
According to the San Francisco Chronicle blog that was following Reiser's trial, Sean Sturgeon's testimony was not excluded: he was never called on to testify, by either the prosecution or the defense.
If you were the defense attorney and Sturgeon could provide testimony that would help exonerate your client, wouldn't you call him as a witness?
When about to be accused of murder, next time purchase the books on "murder trials" as well as those on "police murder investigations".
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
What Reiser really should have been convicted of is felony Arrogance & Reckless Self-Absorption. The way he came across in his testimony, I would have felt the need to go outside & check if he said it was cloudy.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
no body, no crime scene, no reliable eyewitness and virtually no physical evidence yet Hans was convicted.
There was a body, there was a crime scene, a reliable eyewitness, and a lot of physical evidence, yet OJ was NOT convicted!!
Amazing justice system
I find it interesting that in all the information published Hans is never quoted trying to reach his 'fugitive' wife. Don't you think Hans should have been showing himself upset about Nina's 'hiding' somewhere and focus on that point in his defense?
Without a body, it is at least plausible that Sturgeon and the wife were in cahoots to get the husband put away. Lacking any concrete evidence, it's certainly possible for what's being described on
Presented with a frame job as such, Reiser would've had only three options: plead guilty, plead it to be a frame job, or plead his case.
The fact that Sturgeon had motivation to see Reiser put away adds to that possibility, in my opinion.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
A quick counter-example : if the society had some technical means of recording every person's actions, all the time, no matter what, then your argument would go out the window. With a perfect record of a person's every move, it would be trivial to establish who committed any given crime.
The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
Because I'll bet that if you talk to the jurors, one or two, or maybe even all of them, thought he was guilty. However, based on the evidence presented in court, they found that there was reasonable doubt he was guilty, and thus let him walk.
The prosecution badly botched the case in many ways. I have to say, if I'd been on the jury, I almost certainly would have voted to acquit and I thought he was guilty as hell. Reason is the question you are being asked isn't "What do you think?" The question you are being asked is "Did the prosecution prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt?" Those are two very different things. In OJ's case, I think there was reasonable doubt. Not "likely doubt" or "major doubt", but enough that it is reasonable to doubt he did it, even if I personally don't buy it.
I also agree that it is unlikely the GP worked at a law firm. He calls the prosecution the "persecution". Now I've known a good many lawyers, having done mock trail and been friends with some, roommates with law students and so on. I've never met a defense attorney that had it in for the state's attorneys. They'd argue in the courtroom, but there was respect for each other. That's not to say that everyone likes everyone, but I've never met a defense attorney who thinks all prosecutors are so bad that they'd call them "persecutors".
Imagine what Ballmer would make of that!
It's more likely that his work will be handed to someone else, or another group, to manage. Not because he isn't up to it, but because it would be really bad PR for the FOSS movement to have a major file system managed by a convicted murderer.
Not all prisoners are murderers, so it's likely that FOSS contribution would be a good idea for some, sort of a rehab thing.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
And zealot mentality isn't necessary logical. To them, a major OSS figure being convicted of murder is a blow to OSS. Thus it is a bad thing and they don't want to believe it's real.
I mean look at the crap with the OLPC. When it was all OSS, all the time, the zealots had nothing but praise. They talked about how great it was not because of the software, but because of how it would help children and bridge the technology gap and such. Now they are hating on it, even though it still promises the same fundamental world-changing things, it isn't within their dogma anymore so they hate it.
It's the same sort of thing as religious zealotry. You can be a zealot about ideals other than a religion, but it leads to the same kind of attitude and though process. When something doesn't fit in your beliefs, you deny it and explain it away.
aww man.. does that mean I have to wait 25+ years for a decent update to the reiserFS ?!?
Where is the justice in that?
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That sounds like a lot of effort when you could just weigh them against a duck.
This must be the first time in weeks I don't get a Russian Brides ad.
How odd.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Somehow I'm getting the impression that you've got no idea what you're talking about. Do you use examples from astrology to attack astronomy? Economy to attack ecology?
Psychology does try really hard to be a serious science. Its only real problem is its tendency to attract people who are really bad at math. That doesn't make it pseudoscience, that makes it a science with a lots of bad scientists.
It does establish that he is mentally disturbed and has murderous fantasies. If Sturgeon was the one on trial, it would count against him about as much as some of Reiser's behavior. But Sturgeon isn't the one on trial, and the US has an adversarial system where the accused is put on trial to see if the prosecutions case against them stacks up, not an inquisitorial system where other possibilities can be considered.
the missing wife is a friend of a MASS-MURDERER, and yet the police decide to not press charge against him and instead decide that the ex-husband is the more likely suspect ... I think there is a good chance they got the wrong guy.
That is too abstract advice. If person not really guilty he/she usually talk to police, any advice notwithstanding. Not talking put you in confrontational position, which is psychologically uncomfortable and stressful. And that wouldn't be end of the story. Police would proceed with harassment, threatening phone call and subpoenas. They would also have ground for obtaining warrant for search. And if they search your place they will take away your computer(s) whenever that reasonable or not.
Best course would be talk to lawyer, explain situation and take his advice, talk or not and what to talk about. But be warned - crappy lawyers happen too. And don't be guilty, that always help.
to keep innocent people _out_ far more than to keep the guilty _in_. So, yes, if you think you are capable of disposing completely of the body and kill your wife without leaving behind the murder weapon or any witnesses, by all means come to Brasil. You would never be prosecuted here without those things.
OTOH, if you (completely hypotetically) marry a Russian girl and she flies out of the country leaving a trail of suspicious (but ultimately irrelevant) evidence trying to frame you (*), you may also want to come here.
(*) I am not saying that this is what happened. I am saying that this is _plausible_ and if I were NR trying to skip town and wanting my mom to pick up the kids and bring them to Russia, _that_ is exactly what I would do. So, HR is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But yes, as a lot of people pointed out, he talked himself into jail, because juries are _known_ to put oddballs away.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Judge Hank "The Hangman" BMW: "Shut up! Shut up! Now, prosecutor, why you think he done it?"
Prosecutor: "Okay, number one, Your Honor, just look at him."
Frito: "He talks like a fag too."
Prosecutor: "And B, we got all this, like, evidence of how, like, this guy didn't even pay at the hospital. And I heard that he doesn't even have his tattoo. I know! And I'm all, 'You've gotta be shittin' me.' But check this out, man. Judge should be like, 'Guilty'. Peace."
is what I have read insofar. I had zits (and sex -- HR's explanation) that produced such stains. My point is exactly that this is not evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" for any reasonable definition of "reasonable" :-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I think it was more likely Nina's blood in the CRX(which hans had been witnessed trying to hose out), the missing car seat, the heated divorce, and the custody dispute that got this guy convicted. He is guilty. Justice was served. I don't buy for a second that "traits of asperger's" caused all that.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
Badass Resumes
Hans goes to prison, serves sentence, goes out free.
His wife is found healthy and alive.
He captures her and murders her in a very public and very gory way.
He goes free, can't be sentenced twice for the same crime.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Jury of peers my ass!
Epic. Just epic.
I'm not commenting on whether or not he is innocent or guilty, I'm just stating my impression that allot of his behaviors in court that led the jurors to convict him were not related to guilt but are typical behaviors seen Asperger's - such as deficits in episodic memory. You would be surprised how many court cases hinge on jurors early impressions of the indited suspect rather then tangible evidence. Having read more about the case, I agree that it is very likely that he is guilty.
The lawyer is the agent of the client, and so the lawyer generally must abide by the client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation. But, the lawyer is also a professional with independent ethical and professional obligations. Thus, the lawyer is responsible for establishing the means of representation, in reasonable consultation with the client.
For example, the lawyer cannot ethically use dilatory tactics (e.g., groundless motions and unwarranted requests for delay) or support the client in committing perjury (if the client insists on lying on the stand, the lawyer may be obliged to tell the court that the testimony given was false). For example, "[w]hatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely." See Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, para. 51. Of course, presenting a defense that the client does not want presented is different from refusing to present a particular defense.
That being said, there might be some circumstances where a lawyer could present a particular defense that the client did not want presented. If the defense attorney can show that the client is not competent to decide which defenses to use, then the defense attorney may ask the court to appoint a guardian to represent the client's interests. The court-appointed guardian may approve of a defense that the client disapproves of, enabling to the lawyer to put forth a particular defense against the client's wishes.
I can definitely see how Asperger's traits can be mistaken for acting guilty.
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
The books about murder investigations he ALLEGEDLY bought are proof enough. He's a genius engineer, are they seriously suggesting he would RTFM?
He is going against his ethics. Open source guy committing a closed source muder?
Based on what I've heard the case against him was weak.
There was more evidence of against OJ and he walked.
I just had a thought. The children have been sent to relatives in Russia, what if the wife worked out that if she "disappeared under suspicious circumstances" and went back to Russia then her husband would never get custody even if he was cleared. She gets the kids, he takes the fall, any life insurance she has gets paid to grandmother, she rejoins family and children in a few months after the press stop looking at the case.
Crack pot theory, yes,but its better than some of the ones that have turned out true.
Yes.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I'm sure Scott Peterson finds this hysterical; about as funny as your comment is insightful.
AM i the only person that uses FAT32 and has 4GB,5GB,6GB,7GB,8GB single files on it.Granted these are ISO images not documents. Does it matter? I have burned DVDs from these files without issue.
I am an attorney. I try jury cases, civil litigation these days, but I worked for a short stint as a prosecutor. I have selected many jurors.
I can tell you first off that most attorneys do NOT want engineers on their juries. The reason is not at all that we don't want critical thinkers. Rather, it's because most engineers are a lot more like Hans Reiser than they would like to admit. Engineers have a tendency to glorify logic to the point that they ignore common sense. The law, and particularly criminal law, is not a science. No one can conclusively proove that a person committed a crime in the same way that a mathematician can prove his theorums. Engineers also tend to be arrogant, and tend to believe that they know more than everyone else about everything. I ought to know, my brother is one. And so the fear is that engineers will have a marked tendency to consider the evidence in an unfair way, to ignore what the lawyers say about the evidence, and to bully everyone else in the jury room into a point of view that does not give due credit to all of the circumstances and the evidence.
Take Reiser's case. The man is so obviously guilty it reeks. An Engineer might say, well they haven't even proved that she's dead. But somehow we are supposed to believe that she left a car full of groveries on the side of the road, failed to show up to her best friend's house, and left her kids in the hands of a man that she hates so that she could fly away to Russia? That's ridiculous. A lawyer would say that you don't have to prove something as absolutely true, but only beyond a *reasonable* doubt. It isn't reasonable to believe that this woman left her car, her groceries, her friends, and her kids to fly off to Russia, where nobody has heard from her since.
Think about it, if the prosecution had to have a body every time they tried someone for murder, than any murderer who found a good enough hiding spot for the body would get off. That may be scientifically sound, but it's not justice.
Now take the fact that they found Nina's blood in Reiser's house, and on his sleeping bag. He removed his car seat from his car, and flooded the compartment to try to wash it, and left an inch of water in there. Then he claims he was sleeping in his car. Is there any other reasonable explanation than that this car was used to transport a body? Sure, you can come up with other explanations, but none of them are *reasonable* The books on murder, the suspicious behavior, etc., are just icing on the cake.
But the reality is that a good attorney might have had a chance to get Reiser off, despite his glaring guilt. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a damn high burden to meet, and often times a good lawyer can inject enough uncertainty into a case to keep the jury from reaching that threshhold. But when Reiser took the stand, he basically removed all chance of that happening. He apparently gave some completely ridiculous explanations to some very important questions, like why in gods name would anyone use a hose to wash out their car and then leave an inch of standing water in there, when that is where they sleep. So basically, Reiser made what could have been reasonable doubts sound completely unreasonable. And that is why he was convicted, and not because of his arrogance or disdain towards humanity (although I'm sure that didn't help him either).
Er, hang an a minute
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
>The fact that Sturgeon had motivation to see Reiser put away adds to that possibility, in my opinion.
If anyone feels strongly enough, they can have private detectives keep an eye on Sturgeon, and maybe try to find Nina.
There might be some money in it. Finding Nina would mean a big black eye to California. Good luck with that.
Maybe you can get Reiser to tell you, within say, a 50 mile radius, where the car seat was.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
If framing someone, you would want the police to find the "evidence", and not hide it.
If that were the case, I think it would be far more likely that she left her car within a minute's walk from his house, with the cell phone working, instead of hiding it and taking the battery out of the cell phone. And you wouldn't leave the car With bags full of groceries somewhere where any hobo could have stolen the goods before the cops found them.
"Zen is total bullshit. When you realize that fact, you have mastered Zen."
Which is the master, which is the bullshit?
Play Command HQ online
Reiserfs is a killer file system.
I don't think Hans Reiser ever bothered to watch The Simpsons.
"Drunken hicks of the jury..." --> chain gang.
Seriously, what kind of a moronic idiot would blabbermouth to the jury when he doesn't need to?
Speaking in your own defense is a gesture both of defiance and panic. It says to the jury "Hey, my case is going so rotten that I have to open my big fat mouth to defend myself even though the constitution says I don't have to", as well as a smartassed "Woo hoo I'm such a hotshot I can defend myself even when I'm facing first degree murder charges".
The ONLY time you SHOULD speak up is if you are forced to, and legally, you can only be forced to if you have immunity. In the case where you are being detained as a terrorist or are otherwise being deprived of your constitutional rights, you should still keep your mouth shut.
Ordinarily, I'd stick up for him purely out of geek pride. However, IMHO his sheer stupidity is grounds for revoking his geek card, and with what I now hear of hash collisions in ReiserFS causing directory garbage (silent corruption, always a MAJOR no-no in ANY situation, especially a kernel based file system), I feel more at ease that his conviction will not ruin too many things even if ReiserFS were to go belly up.
I honestly do hope that, in the interests of pure justice, the final verdict will accurately reflect the facts. But he no longer has my sympathy as a fellow geek.
And his company is likely to be sold off anyway. Even if he does eventually beat the guilty verdict, he's liable for wrongful death. Simply being convicted of murder is prima facie evidence in a civil lawsuit. He'll probably go bankrupt even if he DOES avoid prison. Just like OJ.
Hans Reiser, if you want to keep your geek card, then please keep your goddamned mouth SHUT.
So your wife is missing, and the cops are asking questions; we're assuming that they're trying to find her and any clue would help. However, you ask if you're under arrest, you are told that you are not. Then you say nothing further, get up, and leave.
Don't you thus become the prime suspect in a jiffy?
At the very least you're not helping the cause, which might be to actually find your wife. So how does one navigate this one?
Imagine if punishments for a police officer breaking any law were automatically trebbled. Officer breaks down door, officer faces triple the maximum punishment for breaking and entering, plus theft for whatever evidence they seized without a warrant. Right now, if a thief did it and anonymously turned the evidence they found over to the authorities, the evidence is still admissible. It should be for the police too.
The idea is that to prevent the police from breaking the law while gathering evidence, they have to make all evidence obtained illegally inadmissable. I disagree. They need to make breaking the law illegal or something! As it stands judges and police officers are 100% immune from the law, hence the only way to "punish" a police officer who breaks the law is to take away his "conviction points" so he gets less of a raise and has diminished chances at promotion.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The prosecutor was also able to exclude the testimony of a guy called Sturgeon,
The prosecutor was unable to exclude the testimony. They prosecutor got the judge to rule that the confession couldn't be mentioned unless Sturgeon was called, something the defense was unwilling to do. If Sturgeon was called by either side to testify, the confessions would be fair game. The prosecutor didn't see any benefit to calling him, and the defense was probably unwilling to call a nut to the stand that had a non-zero chance of confessing to assassinating Lincoln, making the defense look stupid and desperate, not giving a credible new suspect.
Learn to love Alaska
The Wired article referenced in this /. story was remarkably poorly written. It did a poor job of showing why Reiser was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (the appropriate burden of proof in murder cases). Merely being "rude", "annoying", long-winded, and giving implausible explanations for the scant evidence provided shouldn't make someone guilty of murder. The article conveys no clear sense that this trial is an appropriate test of the prosecution: if the prosecution didn't make their case, the defendant is supposed to go free. The American system of justice is supposed to err on the side of letting murderers go free rather than convict the innocent. Toward the end of the article we get a gem in the same vein as how the judge found Reiser's attitude (the judge is quoted as saying "There are not enough words in the English language to describe the way you are.". Wired retorts "But the jurors found a word on Monday: guilty.").
Wired treats the reader to a series of highly suspicious bits of evidence (a waterlogged car, blood on a pedestal in Reiser's house, etc.) but no summary connecting the evidence into a cohesive argument with expert testimony. Nothing to show us readers that the prosecution's story is beyond reasonable doubt and no critical commentary to explain the apparent disparity between the lack of prosecutorial obligation and the end result. After reading the Wired article I'm left to conclude that the prosecution simply didn't meet their burden. Thus I'm compelled to ask: Was the jury so pissed off at Reiser's demeanor (which the judge was said to describe as "rude" and "arrogant") that they were allowed to forget their obligation to make the prosecution prove its case? Was the judge (who comes off in the Wired article as amazingly unprofessional) unwilling to set aside the jury's verdict and enter a not guilty verdict because the prosecution didn't do their job?
Perhaps this is just another instance of corporate media simply not doing their job.
Digital Citizen
A nerd that doesn't know when to shut up? WHY I NEVER
is my advice to Reiser when (and if) he manages to get out of jail.
I don't think it wasn't allowed. I think that neither lawyer called him. That's important. The defense lawyer didn't call him either (or I misunderstood the portion of the trial liveblog that I read)
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
JFK, moon landing, 9/11, Paul is dead ....
So to you who utterly proclaim she is alive in Russia with her kids, why don't you hire a detective to put the kids or her mother under surveillance? She will show up, maybe she is already there. I know it would be expensive but if enough of you chip in it wouldn't be that bad. And if you TRULY believe he is innocent don't you have a moral requirement to at least chip in $50 or $100 to help out?
Is it possible that Hans' lawyers already did this and came up empty? I don't know, but that might have been money well spent by the defense. Or maybe the lawyers declined to waste the money this way since they believed this theory was a load of crap.
My conscience is clear, I think he is guilty as hell but those of you who are wringing your hands, perhaps put you could put together a "Free Hans" foundation investigate the location of the wife. First step would be for some TRUE BELIEVERS to step up and look at everything in the court transcripts and post it online, highlight interesting/important parts and post it online. I get the feeling once people calm down a bit in a week or so no one is going to do anything at all.
would that affect anything?
... the Feds
or a gun firm?
or was close to a senator
or worked at newscorp?
or someone at the rifle association
or someone in washington
or some high chief in the police force
or DOHS
or hehehehe
(complete list is longer)
I'm not saying the verdict would be the opposite.
I'm asking what other parameters would be required to convict him like this, without a decent amount of proof of *murder*?
It's real murder, as in *death* of a woman, not one of Hans' MMPORG or violence favs.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
"If Nina ever shows up alive, she's in trouble."
Not only she. Many more.
"The argument relies on Russia being a lawless place where a person of international interest can simply disappear. That may be true to some degree, but she has to *remain* disappeared for *life* "
Not exactly.
"What's she getting out of this that would make such a difficult life worthwhile?"
New face after surgery. New life. New husband. New many things, if she so arranges.
Of course, all that is IF she is alive, which is the whole point.
Hackers have long memories. It works both ways.
Enjoy the feeling.
99.9% of murderers get caught because there was a motive to the murder, and motive induces doubt. Hans did have a motive - and whether there was hard evidence linking him to the crime or not, it doesn't place Hans beyond reasonable doubt.
In other words, if 12 people (your peers) agree on their doubts of you, even without the hard evidence linking him to the crime scene, you can kiss your ass good bye.
So the question Hans should've been asking himself before he offed his wife, was "Am I/my story believeable enough to others?" - which he obviously hadn't....
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
These are felonies?!
Only if you're not doing it right.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Actually, my experience is from Gentoo. ReiserFS is one of the hundreds of reasons I'll never use gentoo again.
It has gotten better over the years. However, there are still numerous "naturally occuring" means to corrupt reiserfs in ways the tools will detect but never fix. It's a reasonable filesystem, but the tools are complete crap.
Actually, yes, I do have to. My firm requires me to. But hey, if you are a lawyer and you practice law in a state where lawyers are immune from negligent misrepresentation suits, Enjoy the feeling, man. Also, let me know which state it is so I can move there. In Texas, lawyers are about the only people left that you still can sue.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Or perhaps you can seek to put a halt to the litigious nature of the society you live in.
Of course, that would require lawyers to do something useful and beneficial at cost to themselves.
Oh well.
Which is to say that the juries the lawyers select agree with what the lawyers think...
In any case: the question in my mind would be what kind of lies. Reiser might have been innocent and still felt the need to lie about all sorts of things. They kept asking him to explain his peculiar behavior, and just at a guess he was trying to simplify his mental processes to make it sound more coherent -- for example, he'll admit to being worried about the police seizing his car, but downplayed the possibility that a Russian mob was interested in him (except at one point).
I suspect that if Reiser had really been honest about what he was thinking at every stage, he would've sounded like a total lunatic to most of the jury.
(The trouble with being paranoid is no one will believe you have real enemies.)
Which slashdot have you been reading? My impression is the slash-kids think Linus is god, and anyone who argues with him must a raving loon.
Yeah, real computer geeks never indulge in crazed conspiracy theories. No one like that could ever write code that was worth anything.
I hate to break the news to you, but Linus has kind of blown his reputation as being a mellow, supremely rational, diplomatic leader after that bitkeeper affair...
We're all a pretty cranky bunch, when you come down to it. Hans Reiser may be a little crankier than most, but not by all that much.
Yeah, I've been using ReiserFS nearly exclusively on a few machines a half-dozen years, without any trouble. All the anecdotes about horrible failures do seem to date from the early days. I like two things about ReiserFS myself: (1) it scales down as well as up -- there are a number of serious file-systems for linux these days, but only ReiserFS takes the many-small-files case seriously; (2) in a directory listing the size of a directory has some relationship to the amount of data inside the directory -- you can tell at a glance whether a directory is empty or full of stuff (with something like ext3 it always shows a size of 4048 even if it's empty).
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend ReiserFS 3 to anyone who thought they might have a use for it (e.g. it would seem to be the best for mail servers, usenet servers, and so on).
The real shame is Reiser 4: it sounds to me like a really interesting project... it's too bad the conflict between Hans and the kernel developers was never resolved.
But then if you want to be "optimistic" about it, it could be putting someone else in charge of the project now is just what it needs.
There didn't used to be that many alternatives. There was ext2 and reiserfs and that was it. It took awhile for SGI and IBM and so on to decide to hop on the open source band-wagon...
And in any case, I've always found ReiserFS to be rock-solid myself (and ext3 is far from perfect), so what you've got here is the old dueling-anecdotes problem.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I certainly hope the would not find him guilty of murder because of his horrible demeanor.
So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
Asperger's (for those just tuning in) results in people not understanding, or picking up on people's social "cues". A lot of this may result in him giving answers to questions which are asinine - but to him - may seem quite logical - as he wouldn't understand why one would find them awkward. People with Asperger's understand things more literally, and can't "read between the lines" as others might.
This said - he may have believed his answers to be very logical - and not understand why someone else wouldn't think the same. Either way, regardless of what he thinks or feels about him - his answers were very out-to-lunch to the point of being unplausable.
If he answered "I don't know how that got there - I must have been framed" to so many of his questions, I'd probably be more apt to possibly believe there was a chance that that was true - but the ridiculous answers he gave - one after another - each one more rediculous than the next...
So maybe Asperger's would lead him to not understand why those answers were so unbelievable - but didn't change the fact that those were his answers. It didn't make him guilty - it just made him a less credible liar.
I have removed my seats and occasionally hose out the interior as well. I own a Jeep and that is part of the joy of owning one. You can hose them out quite easily and the seats are easy to remove. Just saying!
Huh?
but the fact is that you do need to accept some error rate to live in a lawful society.
Except that if you're the victim of the error rate you don't get to live in that lawful society.
I realize this comment is 2 days late...
[Hans]...should never have been permitted, by his attorney, to take the stand.
According to the article, Hans' attorney DIDN'T want him to take the stand, but Hans did so anyway.
In addition (in the U.S.), the attorney simply couldn't keep Hans from taking the stand - it isn't up to the attorney. The attorney offers advice, which the client is free to disregard.
Criminal defendants can also represent themselves, and not even HAVE an attorney (although in those cases, the judge will often appoint a public defender to make sure the defedant gets some advice, mostly about court procedure and to advise on not making mistakes that will result in a totally skewed trial).
Just wanted to let you know that the attorney couldn't have prevented Hans from taking the stand.
I found ReiserFS to be rock solid for over a year ... until it hosed my data. I still have the original drive and images of that one, basically as a reminder for this very situation.
Anecdotes aren't proof, that is correct. However, they are perfectly valid dis-proof. Assertion: ReiserFS is stable and won't destroy your data. Reality: there is at least one person (me) who has proof that this is not the case. I'm sure we could find several hundred people to say the same thing. When do anecdotes turn into a pattern that you have to be concerned about?
At any rate, you're never going to convince anyone that was bitten by the problems with ReiserFS to reconsider. I heartily recommend that you migrate any data you actually care about off of ReiserFS, and onto a sane file system. Do it before it's too late. You won't be able to say that you weren't warned.
I should point out that the argument I made about the passport is equally valid regarding her bank account and her cellphone. If she cleaned out her bank account, people would know she was running. If she accessed it remotely, she could be tracked. Same if she used her cellphone.
In fact, that takes care of EVERY ONE of your reasons for claiming you "doubt" she ran. All of them fall down under scrutiny. And the possibility that she did in fact leave voluntarily becomes that much more plausible.
If I wanted it to appear that I had died or disappeared, then I would definitely make my car look abandoned. That is Misdirection 101. And it would be incredibly stupid of me to use my passport, bank account, or cellphone. Those would be the FIRST things to be left behind.
No, because of his unbelievable testimony. I'm unable to comprehend why the GGP of this post thinks that a judge alone is likely to be more lenient than this jury was. The judge was clearly not impressed with Reiser's behaviour during the trial and there's no reason to believe that the judge found Reiser's evidence any more compelling than the jury did.
No text necessary.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Oh yes, proof. I only have your word for it that you've (somehow) ruled out a hardware failure. There's also the interesting pattern that most of these anecdotes are really old, and you know, bugs do indeed get fixed sometimes.
Oh I'm sure. And the numbers of people who've had problems with ext* would probably be even larger, if only because there are so many of them.
When you have someone who has taken the trouble to organize the anecdotes into real data; though in the case of file-system reliability rates, what you want is an independant testing agency to hammer on them under laboratory conditions.
But in the mean time, if you're leaving data on your hard drive one day, and you expect it to be there the next day, you're being a bit of a fool, irrespective of your choice of file-system. But you know that already, right?
All they saw was a smart man telling them they were idiots. And that, they don't like. So they voted for the lynching.
Or they were simply convinced he killed her (i.e. doing their job). Probably only Hans and Nina know for sure, but I can see why he was convicted.
you had me at #!
n/t
you had me at #!
I know I'll be branded elitist for saying this, but if you think /. constitutes any kind of elite, you really need to look that word up.
Only in America is it pejorative. What's with that?
you had me at #!
Looks like we're regressing.
Somebody's been paying attention!!
you had me at #!
If one accepts the prosecution's case, then wilful, deliberate, and premeditated not to mention intent to inflict death would seem to fit pretty neatly.
you had me at #!
seen silence of the lambs
That's a MOVIE. This case is REAL LIFE. One has nothing to do with the other, despite popular belief.
you had me at #!
n / t
you had me at #!
Probably a lot of the youngsters here won't believe it, but particularly in the area he works in, you can do a hell of a lot with pen and paper.
He's internalised the design of R3 and R4, and probably has a roadmap in his head beyond that. If he's allowed to communicate code/designs with the outside world, he could get a great deal done during his sentence. And I hope that happens, because R3 is a fantastic piece of work and R4 pushed things in even more interesting directions.
Some people here can't separate the crime from the man's works. The work of Namesys stands separate from Hans' family's tragic implosion (whatever actually happened).
you had me at #!
no text at all
you had me at #!
All he had to do was locate Nina in Russia.
While I commented above that she should be able to "disappear" there, she did not seem to have a compelling reason to do so, unless she was already scared that Hans was crazy enough to kill her (and would follow her to Russia to do so).
Hans had a slightly better chance of tracking her down, and he would have been very, very, very motivated to do so, after being charged. But we never heard about any attempts (since he was already locked up, I imagine any attempts were formally through Russian authorities and doomed to failure).
you had me at #!
"We may not even bother to charge you, but even if we do, we'll certainly kick you around in Hotel Guantanamo for a few years first, You Filthy Enemy of Capitalism."
you had me at #!
you don't ask a SQL database engineer to do assembly code programming
I have no trouble doing both well. YMMV.
you had me at #!
the sudden revelation that any clueless jackhole can build a filesystem
Unfortunately for your ambitions, that's simply not true. :)
Whatever happened in his personal life, Reiser and his team did/are doing a beautiful design and engineering job on R3 and R4.
you had me at #!
Murder is not always 100% wrong all the time no exceptions.
Civilisation to CodyRazor: You've spent way too much time in Hollywood land.
you had me at #!
...Because it's well engineered, fast and rock solid.
I've seen ext3 lose a disk. I've never seen R3 lose anything, and that's after decades of runtime and many pull-plug tests on various colocated servers, desktops, laptops, etc.
Besides, the engineering of the filesystems has nothing to do with Hans' personal life. I am hoping he will be able to continue his filesystem work from prison even if it's just with pen and paper; at least society will gain some benefit.
you had me at #!
ReiserFS is one of the hundreds of reasons I'll never use gentoo again
That's a pretty dumb remark, don't you think?
Even if reiser3 were problematic (in my experience, it's not) you can certainly use whatever damn fs you want with Gentoo.
you had me at #!
He wasn't rich.
As for "success" - even in /.-land, do you *really* think that being a filesystem genius with your product in the kernel is going to pull glamorous Russian chicks? Women turned on by success and money are looking for a nicer car than a CRX and a little more in the bank than Hans' overdrawn accounts and failing business.
Next theory?
you had me at #!
Don't ever serve on a jury.
you had me at #!
They're terrible (I guess they sent the intern). I prescribe 10 years of art school to whoever did these cartoons.
you had me at #!
If not, STFU. Your post is a string of non sequiturs.
you had me at #!
(Not that I've ever seen a bug in it.)
you had me at #!
You're not the first person to make that stupid string of words that you think is funny; but I sure hope you're the last. *PLONK*
you had me at #!
Life isn't a movie.
you had me at #!