Slashdot Mirror


Hans Reiser To Reveal Location of Wife's Body

dlgeek writes "The story of Hans Reiser is well known to all Slashdotters by now. Some still placed doubts about the conviction, stating that he might be innocent. It now seems that all doubt has been quelled, since Alameda County District Attorney Thomas Orloff has revealed that Hans Reiser will disclose the location of Nina's body for a reduced sentence. The deal is not yet finalized, though. 'There's been some overtures,' Orloff said, 'But everything is in its preliminary stage.' The deal would reduce his conviction from first degree to second degree murder. In addition, an anonymous source close to the situation said that 'the only real leverage he has is if he can provide a body. He really doesn't have any options left. Even if he won a retrial somehow, he'd likely be convicted.'"

882 comments

  1. World's Greatest Detective by alcmaeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    BS. This doesn't mean he did it. It means he is the World's Greatest Detective. He's Batman!

    1. Re:World's Greatest Detective by zwei2stein · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, you'd better hurry tell this to Dexter...

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
    2. Re:World's Greatest Detective by jo42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      OJ did it!

    3. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Slimee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like omg! Linux is run by murders!! Down with Linux! Down with open source! End the murderous rampage and burn your copy of Linux!

    4. Re:World's Greatest Detective by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, sure, blame it on the black guy. That's what they always do.

    5. Re:World's Greatest Detective by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear "Some Puerto Rican Guy" did it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 5, Funny

      You must be new here.

    7. Re:World's Greatest Detective by FoolsGold · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the Journal doesn't fit, you must acquit!

    8. Re:World's Greatest Detective by clam666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope this finally serves as a "wake up call" for Linux lickers and lovers that using Linux does increase chances of violence and murder. For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered wholesome, moral, and radidly patched products.

      Perhaps now they'll finally start listening to the studies that Linux and open-source leads to genital herpes and PWNING your wife with a .45 and a shovel.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    9. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Skrapion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are seven-digit users allowed to use that meme?

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
    10. Re:World's Greatest Detective by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, sure, blame it on the black guy. That's what they always do.

      you aren't keeping current, are you? the moslems are the new 'black guys'. everyone just moved up one peg.

      isn't america great?

      (ob disc: 'mind of mencia' joke. you really need to hear him tell it.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Directrix1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      All coding and no play makes Hans a dull boy.
      All coding and no play makes Hans a dull boy.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    12. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Fweeky · · Score: 5, Funny

      He doesn't know where he is, but he's got a lot of experience in building b-trees to locate things in sublinear time; how difficult can it be?

    13. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Adriax · · Score: 5, Funny

      I burn copies of linux all the time.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    14. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      (ob disc: 'mind of mencia' joke. you really need to hear him tell it.)
      Nah... Besides, I probably already heard it from someone else first...
    15. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Andrzej+Sawicki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not? They learned it the hard way.

    16. Re:World's Greatest Detective by paintswithcolour · · Score: 5, Funny
      Exactly Reiser doesn't have to say he killed his wife...he just needs to argue that IF he killed her, this is where he would have hidden the body.

      It's mere coincidence that the actual killer thought the same way.

    17. Re:World's Greatest Detective by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      mod parent up!

    18. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly Reiser doesn't have to say he killed his wife...he just needs to argue that IF he killed her, this is where he would have hidden the body.

      It's mere coincidence that the actual killer thought the same way.

      Problem is, he thought he was so smart that that sort of illogic would bamboozle at least 1 of 12 jurors. Let me be the first to say "I told you so!" All you who said he didn't do it, welcome your new "I told you so" overlords.

      He's only doing this because the body will eventually be found anyway, in which case, "In Soviet Amerika, body reveals YOU (to be a killer)."

      Jurors aren't (usually) stupid.

    19. Re:World's Greatest Detective by afidel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not, my UID is halfway through the 6 digits and I've been here since about 3 months after the site started. For the longest time there was no real reason to sign up for an account. It wasn't till they allowed you to filter John Katz that I bothered =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    20. Re:World's Greatest Detective by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are seven-digit users allowed to use that meme?

      No. You must be new here. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    21. Re:World's Greatest Detective by dentar · · Score: 2

      You six digit types...

      --
      -- I am. Therefore, I think!
    22. Re:World's Greatest Detective by GAVollink · · Score: 4, Funny

      True enough... If it weren't for newbies we'd have nobody to pick on. ;-)

    23. Re:World's Greatest Detective by grub · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to make a joke but then realized you're an old timer... :P

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    24. Re:World's Greatest Detective by evilandi · · Score: 1

      I thought everyone with five or more digits had to use the "Brazillian electrician" euphemism now?

      --
      Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
    25. Re:World's Greatest Detective by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1
      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    26. Re:World's Greatest Detective by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Three months after the site opened? I don't remember when I signed up, but I think it must've been longer than three months.

      I've always liked your sig, BTW.

    27. Re:World's Greatest Detective by BEI01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I guess Hans really did shoot first.

    28. Re:World's Greatest Detective by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      But, in a post-JonKatz world, can we really afford to get a UID just to filter JonKatz?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    29. Re:World's Greatest Detective by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      The correct answer was "Some Puerto Rican guy"

    30. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Neph · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was going to make a joke but I need to chase some kids off my lawn.

    31. Re:World's Greatest Detective by darkshadow · · Score: 1

      "He's Batman!"

      No, that's Jack Thompson

      --
      -Darkshadow (There was a thing called Heaven; but all the same they used to drink enormous quantities of alcohol.)
    32. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      BS. This doesn't mean he did it. It means he is the World's Greatest Detective. He's Batman! No. I am The Batman.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    33. Re:World's Greatest Detective by CowboyNealOption · · Score: 1

      Not all old folks prefer to use their old accounts all the time. Mostly because of stupid comments that could haunt us in future job interviews :-P

    34. Re:World's Greatest Detective by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      I hope this finally serves as a "wake up call" for Linux lickers and lovers that using Linux does increase chances of violence and murder. For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered wholesome, moral, and radidly patched products.


      Perhaps now they'll finally start listening to the studies that Linux and open-source leads to genital herpes and PWNING your wife with a .45 and a shovel.

      Jack Thompson, is that you? I thought the Florida Bar muzzled you for good (Or at least for 10 years, which should be long enough for everyone else to return to sanity)....
    35. Re:World's Greatest Detective by sfraggle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [reiser@slashdot ~]$ reiserfsck /
      reiserfsck 3.6.19 (2003 www.namesys.com)

      Will read-only check consistency of the filesystem on /
      Will put log info to 'stdout'

      Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes]:Yes
      ###########
      reiserfsck --check started at Mon Jun 9 16:11:27 2008
      ###########
      Replaying journal..
      No transactions found
      Checking internal tree..finished
      Comparing bitmaps..finished
      Checking Semantic tree:
      File "/home/reiser/nina" not linked to any inode!
      Saving to /lost+found.
      finished
      There are on the filesystem:
                      Dirs linked to /lost+found: 1
                      Leaves 17592014
                      Internal nodes 28487287
                      Directories 472928428
                      Other files 287848293
                      Data block pointers 294892849 (273742 of them are zero)
                      Safe links 28738783
      ###########
      reiserfsck finished at Mon Jun 9 16:11:27 2008
      ###########
      [reiser@slashdot ~]$ mv /lost+found/nina /root/police
      [reiser@slashdot ~]$

      --
      were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
    36. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Slimee · · Score: 1

      haha oh man. Pun to the max. I didn't even make the connection on the idea of "burning" software...oh boy

    37. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Phreakiture · · Score: 1
      //All coding and no play makes Hans a dull boy.
      //All coding and no play makes Hans a dull boy.

      FTFY. It compiles now.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    38. Re:World's Greatest Detective by bs7rphb · · Score: 1

      Linux lickers

      Eww... I mean, it's a nice OS but... Eww...

    39. Re:World's Greatest Detective by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      Nope, and neither are 6 digit users. Wait, what's my number?

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    40. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why mother nature gave Linux users a pimply face, a high voice and a white T-Shirt with SUN-logo, so that they won't find a woman, they could murder.

      PS: My captcha is 'victim', whatever /. wants to tell me with that.

    41. Re:World's Greatest Detective by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Newbie"? You calling someone "newbie"?!? That's rich.

      (Let's see if we can get Taco to come in here eventually.)

    42. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Vectronic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Jurors aren't (usually) stupid."

      What? isn't a jury made up of "fellow peers" generally meaning other civilians? therefore, you could probably say that...

      "Jurors are more often than not, stupid"

      Especially considering that they may have intentionally picked stupid people to be in the jury.. yeah yeah, "but they are picked randomly"...sure...but, they may have common sense, even if that common sense is only amungst those 12 people (well, plus the judge, lawyers, people watching)

      Which, allows them the benifit of the doubt.

    43. Re:World's Greatest Detective by drharris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jurors aren't (usually) stupid.

      Surely, you must be joking. Either that or you haven't seen many real juries.

      Jury selection almost invariably results in the removal of anyone who has half a brain and a pinch of skepticism. They want easily persuaded people in the jury so the attorneys can bedazzle them with their big words and penetrating drama.

    44. Re:World's Greatest Detective by oni · · Score: 1

      now *that* is an old-school joke. nicely done.

    45. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      I signed up so that I could participate in the FP frenzy.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    46. Re:World's Greatest Detective by joggle · · Score: 1

      Your UID is only a bit lower than mine so I'd assume you signed up some time in 2000 or early 2001 which would be a couple years after the site went up.

    47. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Newb.

      waits for it...

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    48. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Neither the defense nor the prosecution want stupid jurors - it makes the job of putting forward their arguments harder, not easier. Each side has a number of peremtory chanllenges, plus unlimited "for cause" challenges. Neither side has more opportunity to "stack" a jury with dummies, even if they wanted to.

    49. Re:World's Greatest Detective by wurp · · Score: 1

      Are six digit users allowed to questions someone using that meme?

    50. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1

      pot/kettle/black :)

    51. Re:World's Greatest Detective by XMyth · · Score: 1

      I haven't been here for nearly that long, I'm quite sure.....

    52. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jurors aren't (usually) stupid.

      Surely, you must be joking. Either that or you haven't seen many real juries.

      Jury selection almost invariably results in the removal of anyone who has half a brain and a pinch of skepticism. They want easily persuaded people in the jury so the attorneys can bedazzle them with their big words and penetrating drama.

      You've been watching too much TV. You also forget that both sides can challenge potential jurors, either for cause, or for no cause whatsoever. The people who don't want to do their civic duty will lie to get out of jury duty - that leaves a pool of people who are there, for the most part, because they won't concoct BS stories to get out of service, and take their committment to a fair trial seriously. I've not only seen real juries, I've sat as a juror in a murder case.

      Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.

    53. Re:World's Greatest Detective by sgentry6 · · Score: 3, Funny

      find / -type body -name '.*' | grep -i nina
      /usr/home/.woods/.nina-body

      Sorry, I couldn't help it.

    54. Re:World's Greatest Detective by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Hmm, would've been funnier as:

      Hal_Porter: But you can't be! You see, The Batman would never ever reveal his identity -- that's his great secret. So, what you're actually looking for is someone who has, say, dresses in black and fights crime late at night, but when asked "Are you The Batman?" he replies, "Absolutely not," Sir.
      alcmaeon: But, wait a minute! Hal_Porter, *you* dress in black and fight crime late at night ... oh, Hal_Porter! Are you The Batman?
      Hal_Porter: Absolutely not, Sir.
      ggvaidya: Hurray!

      [Victory is assured]

    55. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      I misread his comment also. He didn't *sign up* until after they had the ability to let you filter Jon Katz.

      For the curious, I did some Googling and it appears the 100,000 UID mark was crossed a little before Oct 8th, 1999.

    56. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      studies that Linux and open-source leads to genital herpes and PWNING your wife
      Linux will help me get a wife? I'm in!
    57. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Knightbane · · Score: 1

      "Are seven-digit users allowed to use that meme?"

      somehow, this was the first thing to make me giggle today.

    58. Re:World's Greatest Detective by drharris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually, I watch very little TV, but thanks.

      I'm in the "law enforcement business" and have also been through the jury selection process personally, although always am dismissed due to my obvious bias due to my job affiliation.

      The challenge process does not disprove my assessment. What you're left with is always the lowest common denominator that both sides can agree on. That nearly invariably filters out all but the most apparently malleable minds.

      Since you've sat as a juror, I'm sorry that I've indirectly insulted you, maybe both sides of your case actually wanted someone intelligent in the box, but it's certainly the exception and not the rule

    59. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Carnivore · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right to me.

    60. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Erbo · · Score: 5, Funny

      You both are a bunch of steenkin' n00bs. Now get off my lawn. :-)

      --
      Be who you are...and be it in style!
    61. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Big+Jason · · Score: 2, Funny

      Poser.

    62. Re:World's Greatest Detective by lars · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's spelled "nOOb", nOOb. Back when I joined we had to use smoke signals. Go ahead and try making a puff look like an "e" or a "w".

    63. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Kartoffel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah yes, the Katz filter. One of the benefits of early membership :)

    64. Re:World's Greatest Detective by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was aiming that at the old-schoolers. JonKatz hasn't been here for so long that I figured none of the (relative) newbies would get it.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    65. Re:World's Greatest Detective by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      You must be new here

    66. Re:World's Greatest Detective by raddan · · Score: 1

      That's hilarious. IIRC, that's why I created my account, too! I see I'm not the only one.

    67. Re:World's Greatest Detective by UNKN · · Score: 0

      "bedazzle them with their big words and penetrating drama" Hey, some folks take their penetrating any way they can get it.

    68. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry about the "TV" remark - it's just that people believe in "Law and Order" momemts. Jury duty is WORK, not a show.

      Nowadays, jurors will hear evidence related not just to DNA, but also blood spatter analysis, cellphone tower coverage and call records, autopsy reports, reports from the cops, EMT and doctors on the scene, other experts and witnesses, as well as the defendant. They get the reports, records, photos, and the actual evidentiary pieces, such as the murder weapon(s), clothing, etc. to take with them into the deliberation room.

      They also get careful instructions from the judge.

      Then again, we do things differently in Canada. For example, unlike the US, jurors are forbidden, under penalty of going to jail for 2 years, of ever revealing anything that was said or done during deliberations. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I told my employers that I would only hand in the notice for the trial AFTER it was concluded, and I didn't tell anyone who was on trial - I didn't want anyone searching the net or reading newspaper articles and accidently influencing me. Jury duty pays $90/day, plus transportation, parking, and meals; I lost money, and so did other jurors, but obviously some things are more important. People that don't want to make the sacrifices (including, in this case, a whole month off work), aren't the type of people you want on a jury anyway, right?

      Think about it - there are no "tell-all" book deals by jurors after a trial in Canada - and I believe it's better that way. We reached a decision. How or why we reached it is just between the 12 of us. We'll never talk about that part of it again, even amongst each other.

    69. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Locutus · · Score: 1

      But he really didn't do it, really. He's screwed anyways because Microsoft really did do it but instead of using that in his defense, he thought he could give the juror's something they would believe. He must have been shocked to find they didn't believe his concocted story.

      His only hope now is if he can produce a body, it might provide evidence to clear him of the crime. Maybe he's hoping that they won't find the X logo over her eyes, there will instead be the Windows Logo and therefore proof of who really done it. ;-)

      sorry parent, no mod points or ya woulda got another funny.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    70. Re:World's Greatest Detective by sammy+baby · · Score: 1

      Jeez, I remember that. Thanks for making me feel old.

      And I was one of the few people here who liked Katz.

    71. Re:World's Greatest Detective by cixelsyd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get off my lawn!

      --
      Take a dollar, divide it by 100, take two and call me in the morning.
    72. Re:World's Greatest Detective by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered
      > wholesome, moral, and radidly patched products.

      For too long now Linux lovers have accused Microsoft of tomfoolery, when Microsoft has only delivered
      wholesome, moral, and rabidly patched products.


      There, I fixed your typo for you.

    73. Re:World's Greatest Detective by drharris · · Score: 1

      Then again, we do things differently in Canada
      Aha.. forgive my ignorance in assuming we were talking about the U.S. I don't know jack about the Canadian courts, so we may have stumbled onto a cultural difference here.
    74. Re:World's Greatest Detective by mollymoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      A six-digit UID might have been here for nine years. Which is probably long enough to qualify. There's a lot of variation in the six-figures though, so we do need a cutoff. Let's say anyone with a UID over 202722 is a noob.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    75. Re:World's Greatest Detective by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hans Reiser couldn't have done it, because he lives on the planet Endor. But humans are from the planet Earth! Does this make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Reiser lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    76. Re:World's Greatest Detective by wurp · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's nice of you to let the guy who signed up after you slide!

    77. Re:World's Greatest Detective by wurp · · Score: 1

      Argh! I hate it when I make mistakes!

      s/questions/question/, of course.

    78. Re:World's Greatest Detective by holyspidoo · · Score: 0

      Rockstar will soon release GTA4 extreme edition, the linux port that only runs on filesystems made by *real killers*!!! So much controversy!

    79. Re:World's Greatest Detective by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

      Same here. Is it time to retire yet? Can I sell my /. number on eBay when I do?

    80. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Owyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hah.

      The only reason I post any more is to join in on these UID threads...

    81. Re:World's Greatest Detective by afidel · · Score: 1

      I signed up in 2001 I believe but I've been here since the fall of 1997, there were no accounts early on and even after they were implemented there was no real benefit to having one. The Katz filter was the killer feature that got me to signup to be tracked =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    82. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Pathwalker · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are amusing when they pop up from time to time.

    83. Re:World's Greatest Detective by gangien · · Score: 1

      you know i've been here since 99/00 sometime and i've seen that same jonkatz excuse so many times now.. it's really ok just to admit you didnt' find slashdot until like 2004. there's no shame in being a complete n00b :)

    84. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always liked your sig, BTW.


      I think his sig leaves out a box: the pine one. If you use the fourth, you're gonna need the fifth.
    85. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we both puff the right stuff, I can make it look like anything you want.

    86. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      There are some definite differences. For example, they called 300 people to be in the potential juror pool. The jury was screened for anyone who couldn't understand both official languages (english and french) because this was a *tri-lingual* trial. No french or english interpreters, and jurors were from both language groups, and had to be at ease in both languages.

      Also, once the pool was weeded of people who felt they had a cause, a reason to be excused, or otherwise thought they could "talk their way out of it", the 120 who were left were taken, 10 at a time, to another courtroom, where we were told to state our name, age, and occupation (w/o mentioning employer). That is *ALL* the information both the crown and the defense had on which to challenge jurors, and they still ended up booting 2 out of 3 candidates.

    87. Re:World's Greatest Detective by MilesAttacca · · Score: 1

      You four-digit types. (yes, I realize...)

      --
      98% of America's teens drink alcohol, smoke, and have sex. Put this in your sig if you like bagels.
    88. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Mark+J+Tilford · · Score: 4, Funny

      Darned Whippersnappers!

      --
      -----------
      100% pure freak
    89. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Sick+Boy · · Score: 1

      That's not true. That's what caused me to finally sign up, and my UID is significantly smaller than yours. Off my lawn, whippersnappers, no sense of history, etc, etc.

      --
      Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
    90. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >JonKatz hasn't been here for so long that I figured none of the (relative) newbies would get it.

      For those needing an explanation of JonKatz, the slashdot controversy is discussed in the Wikipedia article. Short version: author pretends to technical expertise he obviously lacks... gets roasted... stupidly persists... etc.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    91. Re:World's Greatest Detective by blueforce · · Score: 1

      Gee, I thought I was old. You win, Pops.

      --
      If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
    92. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *My* UID is zero!

    93. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like most of Mencia's jokes, it's actually not his, and while I haven't heard him tell it, I suspect he does the original teller a disservice.

    94. Re:World's Greatest Detective by blueskies · · Score: 1

      mind of mencia' joke. you really need to hear him tell it

      Does menstealia do any Kinison or Hicks these days?
    95. Re:World's Greatest Detective by N1ck0 · · Score: 1

      Jurors...you don't need to convince Jurors, just the District Attorney. If he cuts a deal to not be accused of murder a Jury can't convict him of it. He'll probably get an accessory plea or something.

    96. Re:World's Greatest Detective by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Neither the defense nor the prosecution want stupid jurors - it makes the job of putting forward their arguments harder, not easier.

      Having recently gone through the jury selection process (I wasn't picked), I can say that although they don't want stupid people, they do seem to want ignorant ones. Both the prosecutor and the defense pretty much axed anybody who expressed any knowledge of the law, typical judicial conventions, or Constitutional knowledge. It seemed that if you could name the top ten finalists on American Idol but couldn't name your congressman, governor, or senator, you were just what they wanted. Sheep. Mindless, thoughtless, easily-led sheep.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    97. Re:World's Greatest Detective by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      You tell'em, Gramps!

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    98. Re:World's Greatest Detective by dwye · · Score: 1

      From what I remember of that movie, the line should have been in a #pragma, not a mere comment. It definitely affected Nicholson's actions.

    99. Re:World's Greatest Detective by holloway · · Score: 1

      In case you're wondering what the parent is about see this google video

    100. Re:World's Greatest Detective by soliptic · · Score: 1

      It's #666, actually :)

    101. Re:World's Greatest Detective by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? I remember the hellmouth series at the tip of the nineties.

      By the aforementioned jonKatz, no less. See Voices from the Hellmouth

      I even bought and read his book Geeks (no referral linkage, if you must know).

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    102. Re:World's Greatest Detective by SEE · · Score: 1

      Are five-digit users . . . no, this is too much like work.

      Just get offa my lawn.

    103. Re:World's Greatest Detective by wurp · · Score: 1

      I'm gonna be so disappointed if this doesn't end up with a single digit user responding.

    104. Re:World's Greatest Detective by westlake · · Score: 1
      What you're left with is always the lowest common denominator...all but the most apparently malleable minds.
      maybe both sides of your case wanted someone intelligent in the box, but it's certainly the exception and not the rule

      It strikes me that nothing more than your own intellectual arrogance may have kept you out of the box.

    105. Re:World's Greatest Detective by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      "Newbie"? You calling someone "newbie"?!? That's rich.

      I'n fairly certain the GP poster has been reading /. for much longer than his UID would suggest.

    106. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jurors are more often than not, stupid"

      amungst

      benifit I see you know what you're talking about.
    107. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Pengo · · Score: 1


      God, your making me feel like a n00b here. :P

    108. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Cylix · · Score: 1

      I didn't really feel the article highlighted all of the controversy around katz.

      The commodore 64 story is fairly golden, but it didn't really touch on the hellmouth issues at all.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    109. Re:World's Greatest Detective by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Think about it - there are no "tell-all" book deals by jurors after a trial in Canada - and I believe it's better that way. We reached a decision. How or why we reached it is just between the 12 of us. We'll never talk about that part of it again, even amongst each other.

      In many cases the jurors don't want to talk about it again especially for cases like murder for which you were on the jury. Murder is heinous enough to begin with but some people just have a great talent of making it more heinous with their implementation and normal people just don't understand how someone can treat their fellow man so badly. It's bad enough to see images during a trial but many jurors just want to forget what they saw. Talking about it after the fact just brings those memories back. This doesn't happen all the time of course but I'd imagine it happens a lot.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    110. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      yessum, I shure dew, I am are hily noleedgebal fact in it.

    111. Re:World's Greatest Detective by martinX · · Score: 1

      Re:World's Greatest Detective (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, @04:48PM (#23715395)
      *My* UID is zero!

      No, that's your score.
      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    112. Re:World's Greatest Detective by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      A non-exhaustive search of the Voices from the Hellmouth thread didn't reveal any UIDs below 50k. I based my date on this comment, which says the 100k mark was passed in early October 1999. I found that post linked to by a comment here today, perhaps in this thread.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    113. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably just his parachute account, you know.

    114. Re:World's Greatest Detective by SirTreveyan · · Score: 1

      Us 4 digit types gotta stick together...after all there are only like 9000 of us.

      --

      SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

      0 rows returned

    115. Re:World's Greatest Detective by DeathElk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can I please mow your lawn?

    116. Re:World's Greatest Detective by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      72 - holy crap! Forget the lawn! Can I sweep out your cave?

    117. Re:World's Greatest Detective by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      Agreed - nearly every time I get called, I'm dismissed by one side or the other (usually don't know which) after they get the questionnaires back from all of the prospective jurors. Oddly enough, I've found that in conversations with my fellow dismissed jurors, they're usually technical professionals like myself (engineers, scientists, accountants, generally analytical types). The folks that stay? I can't say for sure, but they usually don't look the part of the former group, and some of the ones I've spoken with are typically not professionals. I won't say that they're stupid, but they're not typically the hard-core analytical types.

    118. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Shulai · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm surprised at this point of the thread I didn't found a reply from CmdrTaco(1)

    119. Re:World's Greatest Detective by spintriae · · Score: 1

      if (me.getID() < thread.getAuthor().getID()) {
      me.replyTo(post, "You must be new here.");
      } else {
      anonymousCoward.replyTo(thread, "You must be new here.");
      }
    120. Re:World's Greatest Detective by fmarkham · · Score: 1

      Aha.. forgive my ignorance . That must be the first time that phrase has been used on slashdot.
    121. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. : )

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    122. Re:World's Greatest Detective by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      True, but it's fun to troll the low-id folks. They seem to spider slashdot for opportunites to post about their low ID. At least, that seems to be the only time they post comments.

      Mae Ling Mak, naked and petrified, btw.

    123. Re:World's Greatest Detective by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Back when I first went 'online' it was with an acoustic coupler attached to a decwriter. That means 300 baud and the terminal printed on paper. Then I got a CP/M machine and could log onto BBSes without using feet of paper at each logon 'welcome.' Missed the hardcopy backscroll, of course.

      The first BBS that I sysoped was on an IBM-XT clone, and a 1200 baud modem. WWIV 3.21d.

      Anyway, there are lots of dinks who think the Internet is where it all started. Sorry. Only university types and those Unix snobs were on the Internet back then. We had things like Fidonet. All the WWIVs were networked. The Citadels were networked, too, though they were full of the twitch types. You could get a Usenet feed through a lot of different means, of course.

      I bought my first Linux distro in 1993. I admit that was late, because I wasn't a Unix type at the time. I had waited for the first 'Plug and Play' distro from Yggdrasil. First edition, Fall 1993.

      Whatever. Who cares. UIDs didn't even appear on comments here until after the Bruce Perens masquerade 'crisis' when he whined about being the REAL Bruce Perens. (he has a very whiney voice type as you can hear on the 'Revolution OS' film.

      The petrified statue is Mae Ling Mak. Only a newbie tool would associate anything at all with Natalie Portman.

    124. Re:World's Greatest Detective by magickal1 · · Score: 1

      yeah newbies gota love them keeps the place interesting! Rock on

      --
      Everyone has the right to choose, even to choose wrongly, if ever they are to choose correctly.(Author Unknown)
    125. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.

      You can get to the right result from the wrong starting point. If (hypothetically) you'd convict everyone suspected of murder regardless of evidence - then some of the actual murderers might tell you the location of the body in order to get a reduced sentence. You'd still have a lot of innocent people in jail, though.

    126. Re:World's Greatest Detective by UnixUnix · · Score: 1
      What about $15/day (California)?!

      ...not that I minded, it was a break from computing :)

    127. Re:World's Greatest Detective by zonker · · Score: 0

      btw, anyone know where katz is these days?

    128. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

      Are seven-digit users allowed to use that meme? It's beneath my level, and I have 5 digiths.
      --
      Help us build a better map!
    129. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

      Why not, my UID is halfway through the 6 digits and I've been here since about 3 months after the site started. If that were true, your UID would have 2 or 3 digits.
      --
      Help us build a better map!
    130. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

      I signed up in 2001 I believe but I've been here since the fall of 1997, there were no accounts early on and even after they were implemented there was no real benefit to having one. The Katz filter was the killer feature that got me to signup to be tracked =) Wuss. JonKatz was the daily gem of the day when he was around, sometimes if only for all the wrong reasons (post Hellmouth).
      --
      Help us build a better map!
    131. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

      A six-digit UID might have been here for nine years Noobs.

      Eivind.

      --
      Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
    132. Re:World's Greatest Detective by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Taco doesn't take part in theses "who has the lowest ID" threads.

    133. Re:World's Greatest Detective by mandie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I signed up during Summer 1999 while I was on the helpdesk at my town's ISP.

      Wow - the phrase "my town's ISP" is archaic.

      --
      Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
    134. Re:World's Greatest Detective by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      What about $15/day (California)?!

      ...not that I minded, it was a break from computing :)

      Shit, doesn't that violate the minimum wage laws?

      Maybe if US jurors were more adequately compensated, they'd be better able to focus ib the evidence being presented instead of worrying about how they're going to cover their bills, and you'd have fewer people trying all sorts of ass-goose theories trying to explain to judges why they should be excused from jury duty. $15? That doesn't even cover parking!

    135. Re:World's Greatest Detective by chrish · · Score: 1

      We don't really get out much. Unfortunately, it turns out that chicks don't dig low /. IDs.

      --
      - chrish
    136. Re:World's Greatest Detective by DG · · Score: 1

      We doing a 3-digit roll call? I'm in.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    137. Re:World's Greatest Detective by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Where have YOU been? He does so take part once in a while.

    138. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Back when I first went 'online' it was with an acoustic coupler attached to a decwriter. That means 300 baud and the terminal printed on paper.

      Paper? The luxury! Our terminals dropped made marks in wet clay.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    139. Re:World's Greatest Detective by nbvb · · Score: 1

      all this low-UID talk makes me wish I had signed up earlier .... I feel embarassed to be just under 32k. It should've been a lot less, but I was lazy.

    140. Re:World's Greatest Detective by nbvb · · Score: 1

      Ack! Even worse is that I'm apparently transposing digits today (just OVER 32k, not under) and committing typos (missed an 'r' in embarrassed ....)

      Shoot, I could be an editor!

    141. Re:World's Greatest Detective by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      Awwww, but I don't wanna be a noob!

    142. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Troed · · Score: 1

      Yup

    143. Re:World's Greatest Detective by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Ditto, I didn't create an account until I really had to (proxy servers, idiot users and not being able to post as ACs). Way back posting as an AC was just fine... I must have signed up around 2001 since I got my current radio licence about that time (hence M1FCJ). When I was in the uni, there was plenty of time to spend reading and posting in /.

    144. Re:World's Greatest Detective by pez · · Score: 1

      Sorry... can't help you there.

    145. Re:World's Greatest Detective by pez · · Score: 3, Funny

      meept!

    146. Re:World's Greatest Detective by pez · · Score: 1

      Luckily I have friends/family alert me of their existence.... an excuse to post, if you will.

      Anyone remember Chips & Dips?

    147. Re:World's Greatest Detective by UnixUnix · · Score: 1
      Actually, there is validated parking next to the Los Angeles Courthouse... and travel expenses, some fraction of a dollar per mile. So the $15 go to cover lunch :-)

      Justice is a spare, Spartan affair :-O

      If you want to get off duty, you can get creative. When asked whether you are able to fairly assess the evidence presented, you reply: "No need. I'm PSYCHIC. I already KNOW who is guilty and who isn't!"

    148. Re:World's Greatest Detective by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Looks like pez wins one Internets.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    149. Re:World's Greatest Detective by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You were guaranteed at least one fascinating trainwreck a week.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    150. Re:World's Greatest Detective by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      except you're just making stuff up. I was relating the real past.

    151. Re:World's Greatest Detective by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

      No, really.

      One of the time-honored Slashdot memes is that any mention of old technology turns into one-upsmanship that usually ends with someone mixing gluons in the early universe.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    152. Re:World's Greatest Detective by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Both the prosecutor and the defense pretty much axed anybody who expressed any knowledge of the law, typical judicial conventions, or Constitutional knowledge.

      Considering the complexity of the law, people who don't study it seriously are likely to have some pretty big misconceptions about it. However, if they think they have knowledge about it, it will likely color their opinions, or they could outright refuse correction. A lawyer can prepare his arguments beforehand, since he knows the law, but he can't know what incorrect assumptions a juror might have, and even if he could, he still wouldn't be used to thinking in their terms.

      Or to put it another way: someone who thinks he knows about law is either a wonderful or horrible juror. It would require time and effort to figure out which, so it's easier and safer to just disgard him.

      It seemed that if you could name the top ten finalists on American Idol but couldn't name your congressman, governor, or senator, you were just what they wanted. Sheep. Mindless, thoughtless, easily-led sheep.

      Not sharing your priorities doesn't make anyone mindless. And what's this talk about "their" senators - Disney is not eligible for juror duty, or is it ?

      --

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

    153. Re:World's Greatest Detective by ximenes · · Score: 1

      Back in my day we hadn't even discovered fire.

    154. Re:World's Greatest Detective by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Yes. I know this is mostly a dork fest.

      It isn't really one-upmanship when one side just makes things up that aren't even part of reality. Now, if the response had mentioned core memory, or the IBM Stretch, it would have been interesting.

  2. Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Weeks ago, there wasn't even a known body!

  3. *sigh* by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all. Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.

    Now he's just going to fess up to the murder.

    I guess this marks the end of ReiserFS. I'm sure no one in the Linux community wants to be associated to that piece of work.

    1. Re:*sigh* by laejoh · · Score: 0

      Hold on, wait 'till Netcraft confirms there was one more crippling bombshell hit on the already beleaguered ReiserFS community!

    2. Re:*sigh* by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess this marks the end of ReiserFS. I'm sure no one in the Linux community wants to be associated to that piece of work.

      Which, while it might be true, is still stupid.

      Imagine if Albert Einstein had accepted the position of leader of Israel after World War II and ordered some massive war crime, like say slaughtering the Arabs with nukes.

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?
      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    3. Re:*sigh* by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if the DA says it then it must be true! I mean a DA is a kind of lawyer, right?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:*sigh* by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't feel bad. From the informaton that was coming out about the trial, there really was reasonable doubt until he took the stand. And the guy is quirky, so it's easy for geeks (who are often quirky) to identify with him.

    5. Re:*sigh* by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They should at least rename it to try to distance the software as much as possible from its creator....

    6. Re:*sigh* by gplus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ReiserFS. A real Killer Application. :-)

    7. Re:*sigh* by Reverend528 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I guess this marks the end of ReiserFS. I'm sure no one in the Linux community wants to be associated to that piece of work.

      Honestly, I don't see how this invalidates his work. Surely the code didn't drive him to commit murder.

      Disclaimer: I use ext3, but I'm sure reiserfs has some merits.

    8. Re:*sigh* by hostyle · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    9. Re:*sigh* by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1, Insightful

      After the first reports in the case, I was pretty unconvinced that he did it. What changed my mind earlier was two things: the way he hid the car, hosed it off and removed the front seat and the fact that he suddently felt an urge to drive to a mountainous region. The police found Nina Reiser's blood in the car. I wouldn't have convicted him based on this, because it wasn't established beyond reasonable doubt that he did it, but I thought he did it. The jury took a gamble to convict him because he gave the impression of being guilty and trying to cover something up.

      Now that he confessed, I'm sure he's guilty.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    10. Re:*sigh* by Tribbin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That raises the question; if Linus murders, will you stop using the kernel and everything associated with it?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    11. Re:*sigh* by OzRoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hans Geiger was a Nazi and betrayed his Jewish Collegues.

      Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's and attempted to build a Nuclear bomb. That one however is debatable. He later claimed he was secretly sabotaging the project.

      I think what will have to happen is ReiserFS will need to change its name. Once they do that then ithey will be able to move the project forward.

    12. Re:*sigh* by hav0x · · Score: 1

      that's just nasty.

      -1 Not Funny

    13. Re:*sigh* by arivanov · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You should never defend someone who was stupid enough to import himself a mail order bl'ad. This very clearly puts in the right perspective his social skills, social orientation and actual capabilities as a human to fit into human society.

      He however is definitely not alone, if he was Anastasia International would not have been targeting slashdot specifically for advertisements with pretty pictures of bl'ad in full war paint.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    14. Re:*sigh* by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      The problem with that theory was that this friend is not a killer, but a nutcase.
      He stated that he murdered a lot of people, but could never prove it. (nobody died, you know?)

      If you are really cyncical, you could suggest that Reiser was well aware if the fact this guy exists when he did what he did, planing to plant him as the offender.
      OTOH, if he was planning that much, he wouldnt have made some of the really boneheaded mistakes he did.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    15. Re:*sigh* by Xiph1980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ReiserFS is maybe created by a murderer, but that doesn't mean it's bad. Hans Reiser may have comitted an intolerable crime, but if you would rob yourself of what might be the best filesystem for your application, it would just be a bloody shame. In my opinion using ReiserFS doesn't immediately mean you agree with his actions. It just mean that you prefer ReiserFS over other systems.

      This being said though, I prefer ZFS myself :)

      Also, considering Microsoft has so many employees, I have no doubt, that there have been people working there that comitted far worse than a crime of passion. Doesn't mean that the product is bad... Well, okay it is, but not because of some employee going nuts.
      Besides, I think there are many CEO's or CFO's or any C?O's out there that have comitted far worse than a single murder, like Shell pumping oil in africa, killing thousands knowingly by pollution. If you'd go your route, you wouldn't be able to get groceries anymore in a normal fasion, because the truck getting the groceries might have filled it up with diesel at a shell.

      --
      Manuals are your last resort only
    16. Re:*sigh* by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      There's no proof that the friend murdered several people. He just claimed to have done, but couldn't seem to tell police whom he had murdered or where any bodies were.

      Sure, maybe Hans really did murder his wife, but I've never bought the friend's story.

    17. Re:*sigh* by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Honestly, I don't see how this invalidates his work. Surely the code didn't drive him to commit murder.
      Are you sure? Have you ever looked at that source? Hell, I almost murdered my wife after spending 15 minutes reading it, never mind trying to write the code!

    18. Re:*sigh* by Frekko · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest KillerFS!

    19. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking back, I think we can all agree that it would have been a wide move.

    20. Re:*sigh* by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't forget Werner Von Braun. He used slave labor to build the V2, was an SS officer, etc. But, without his help after the war, the U.S. probably would have never gotten to the moon.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    21. Re:*sigh* by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's and attempted to build a Nuclear bomb. That one however is debatable. Has anyone ever done a probability distribution for the options?
      --
      which is totally what she said
    22. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Please mod this guy +1 Bad taste.

    23. Re:*sigh* by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Albert Einstein didn't name his theories after himself.

      But after reading the article, the summary is highly deceptive. The article basically says that Hans needs to reveal the location of the body if he wants a reduced sentence.

      It doesn't say he will. The judge is just assuming that Hans will do that to reduce the sentence.

    24. Re:*sigh* by chubs730 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I laughed. Mod it up.

    25. Re:*sigh* by Bootle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now that he confessed, I'm sure he's guilty. Wow, glad to know you're on the case there Matlock!
    26. Re:*sigh* by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the end the article just says the judge assumes Hans will reveal the body to reduce the sentence. The summary is bad for this article.

      Hognoxious hit that detail on the head

      "Well if the DA says it then it must be true! I mean a DA is a kind of lawyer, right?"

      Alright alright, I'll RTFA before posting next time.

    27. Re:*sigh* by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Greatest Table EVER

      This is Guy Richie and there is nothing he can do about it.

    28. Re:*sigh* by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "his wife was seeing, a guy that *claimed to have* murdered several people."

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    29. Re:*sigh* by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would never say someone is guilty just based on a confession. There is ample evidence that confessions have quite a high false positive rate. However, taken in conjunction with evidence, it is as 'sure' as it gets.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    30. Re:*sigh* by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      The whole trial sounds like bullshit. No body, little blotches of blood that can't be accurately dated, no murder weapon, the victim's boyfriend admits to killing several other people but not her, and was once friend's with the accused.

      It's like they're making a fake murder case.

      I'm almost convinced that they are.

    31. Re:*sigh* by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Funny

      If Linus murders, it's obviously for the good of all of us. Just accept it.

    32. Re:*sigh* by afxgrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no confession. Just speculation that he will.

    33. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Now that he confessed, I'm sure he's guilty.

      Where does it say he confessed?

      You're an idiot.

      And so is whoever modded you up.

    34. Re:*sigh* by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Two steps ahead of you.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    35. Re:*sigh* by Aneurysm · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is of course possible that the file system is riddled with places where the evil bit has been secretly turned on.

    36. Re:*sigh* by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      If ReiserFS is a good FS why?
      Fine change the name if you want, but heck if hippies can drive VWs why the heck should we toss away a file system just because the lead programmer is scum?
      As far as defending him. Well if you honestly thought he was innocent then you had an obligation to. I wasn't on the jury and I didn't hear all the evidence so I tended to go with the jury.
      I take no joy in being right. Poor kids now have to live with no mother and a father that murdered their mother.
      As far as I can tell nothing here to be happy about for anyone.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    37. Re:*sigh* by vertinox · · Score: 1

      ReiserFS is maybe created by a murderer, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

      True, the Nazis actively funded the V2 rocket project and even used slave labor in the process, but it doesn't mean we should have shot all the scientists and burned all the research papers.

      If we did... We'd probaly never had made it to the moon.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    38. Re:*sigh* by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      The best part of that joke? The wiki entry is still accurate.

    39. Re:*sigh* by MrMr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well. he seemed to think we might, as Einstein himself said: ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein )
      By an application of the theory of relativity to the taste of readers, today in Germany I am called a German man of science, and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bête noire, the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English! (To The Times (London), November 28, 1919, quoted in The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice, 2005, ISBN 0-691-12075-7)

    40. Re:*sigh* by Capitalist+Piggy · · Score: 1

      Even if he shows where the body is, he still does not have to "confess", in essence he would be confessing, but it would not be an actual confession.

      Welcome to our legal system.

    41. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they could rename it to CMFS (ConvictedMurderersFS), that way we would know for sure, that author is a convicted murderer, otherwise we'd be still speculating if he indeed did or did not kill anyone.

      I don't see how this is relevant to file system, if it's (previous) author has been violating some law (that has nothing to do with file systems)?

    42. Re: *sigh* by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as it's your wife, and not your girlfriend, that may be worth considering for some users.

      Anyway it's a wonderful story. So when is the movie due?

    43. Re:*sigh* by jimicus · · Score: 2, Funny

      The best part of that joke? The wiki entry is still accurate. Not really. He only murdered his own wife.
    44. Re:*sigh* by joey_knisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about NinaFS?

    45. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, because all of the great thinkers of human history have also been perfectly socially adjusted, and have never done anything morally or socially dubious.

    46. Re:*sigh* by Animaether · · Score: 1

      "his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people"

      Not to pick nits, but he has only claimed to murder 8 people, and possibly a ninth; so far, he has not even been charged with any murder, let alone 8. As far as I can tell from current reports (details are sealed), the authorities aren't taking him too particularly seriously. Time will tell if/when a case is filed against him, however.

    47. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why????

      It's HIS work. If you blame him for the shit he did, you must also praise him for his good work.

    48. Re:*sigh* by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Also, considering Microsoft has so many employees, I have no doubt, that there have been people working there that comitted far worse than a crime of passion. Doesn't mean that the product is bad... Well, okay it is, but not because of some employee going nuts.

      No, the products are bad because of a single executive going nuts, the Chair Executive Officer.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    49. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first time reiserfsck wipes out your partition, homicide may enter your mind too.

      Whatever merits reiserfs has are pretty much erased by its incredibly poor failure modes. And to top it off, it doesn't even win that much on performance these days -- and its performance on large files is abysmal.

    50. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The penguin he had an incident with has not been seen in years.
      I have my own theories on what happened.

    51. Re:*sigh* by michrech · · Score: 1

      I believe we *would* have gotten to the moon -- it just would have taken us longer to do so.

      --
      bork bork bork!
    52. Re:*sigh* by necama · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the proper phrase is "would not have gotten to the moon that quickly." Once it is known that something is possible, then scientists can move rather quickly to reproduce it and make it an engineering task. Working directly with Von Braun simply sped up the process, since we didn't need to reproduce his work first.

    53. Re:*sigh* by zzqzzq_zzq · · Score: 1

      And as far as I can tell (from the interviews I've seen) See's nothing wrong with what he did......... :-?

    54. Re:*sigh* by Tom · · Score: 1

      Why?

      Seriously. So the guy's a murderer. That doesn't diminish his filesystem skills in the least, if you ask me. Why this obsession that good people must be all-around good?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    55. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I think too. Only I'd have replied: why not, people still use microsoft stuff after all.

    56. Re:*sigh* by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole trial sounds like bullshit. No body, little blotches of blood that can't be accurately dated, no murder weapon, the victim's boyfriend admits to killing several other people but not her, and was once friend's with the accused.

      It's like they're making a fake murder case.

      I'm almost convinced that they are. The man who killed several people made that claim but neglected to check one minor detail. Specifically, he forgot to ensure that the people he claimed to have murdered were actually dead.

      And regarding the lack of a body - that hasn't been needed for a conviction for many years, simply because there are so many ways to dispose of a body such that there is no way anyone on Earth will ever find it again.

      Looking at the facts, Reiser's estranged wife disappeared off the face of the earth without even attempting to contact her own children, and shortly afterwards he's found to have removed a seat from his car, hosed down the inside and taken a book called "How to get away with murder" out of the local library. He'd have needed a pretty good alibi to shoehorn reasonable doubt into those facts.
    57. Re:*sigh* by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      With a little marketing spin, it could become very popular.

      KillerFS?

      FearTheGeekFS?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    58. Re:*sigh* by Gilmoure · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our German scientists were better than the Russian's German scientists.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    59. Re:*sigh* by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all
       
      Whoa there, never feel like a moron for defending the accused before (most of?) the evidence is in and the jury has deliberated; that's the whole point of the innocent until proven guilty system. Otherwise we'll have to chant 'burn the witch' before the dunking tests.

    60. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. We would just rename it and attribute the work to another person. :)

    61. Re:*sigh* by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Also, considering Microsoft has so many employees, I have no doubt, that there have been people working there that comitted far worse than a crime of passion. Doesn't mean that the product is bad... Well, okay it is, but not because of some employee going nuts.


      It's only a matter of time before the current CEO is tried for manslaughter. Those flying chairs are dangerous!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    62. Re:*sigh* by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?

      Perhaps not at the time; if it were to happen today, you could put money on it.
      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    63. Re:*sigh* by fatmal · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia might confirm it, but does Netcraft?

    64. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      My car and truck license plate were stamped by convicts, and I'm sure some of them are murderers.

      I still drive them both with the required plates that have to be on all vehicles.

      Hmmm, since they were made by convicts, can I decline or move to free myself of anything created by a criminal? LOL I think NOT!

      Funny how stuff works!

    65. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Also, considering Microsoft has so many employees, I have no doubt, that there have been people working there that comitted far worse than a crime of passion.

      Steve Ballmer, in the library, with a chair.

    66. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't condone Wikipedia vandalism, but that is epic

    67. Re:*sigh* by tripmine · · Score: 1

      Dibs!
      TripmineFS

    68. Re:*sigh* by tm2b · · Score: 1

      I guess this marks the end of ReiserFS. I'm sure no one in the Linux community wants to be associated to that piece of work.
      Why? People still use GNU stuff after RMS did this.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    69. Re:*sigh* by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, while we were initially concerned he might have been a Nazi, when we tried to test that theory, as soon as we measured his rate of allegiance, his position became uncertain....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    70. Re:*sigh* by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      It's just being pragmatic. If Adolf Hitler had developed a filesystem and named it HitlerFS, nobody would want to use it no matter how amazingly wonderful it was. You can lament this all you like, but it won't change.

      Rename HitlerFS to, say, ZFS, and suddenly it's not so offensive. If you want ReiserFS to survive, a rename is in order.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    71. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes (if, that is, he murders me).

    72. Re:*sigh* by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      True, the Nazis actively funded the V2 rocket project and even used slave labor in the process, but it doesn't mean we should have shot all the scientists and burned all the research papers.

      While true of rocket technology, we did discard the results of their horrific experiments on human beings.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    73. Re:*sigh* by HisMother · · Score: 1

      OJFS!

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    74. Re:*sigh* by ja · · Score: 3, Funny

      It doesn't say he will. The judge is just assuming that Hans will do that to reduce the sentence. Exactly, and if he "won't", this will only prove that he really is wicked and must be burned!
      --

      send + more == money? ...
    75. Re:*sigh* by crywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
      That's not my department, says Werner von Braun

      - Tom Lehrer

      --
      CAUTION: Product may be hot after heating
    76. Re:*sigh* by fyoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      Linus would never murder anyone. He'd get his ninja wife to do it.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    77. Re:*sigh* by jandrese · · Score: 1

      From what I understand of the case, Hans's ex-wife just have had a thing for nutcases.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    78. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can not Imagine that Albert Einstein would have had accepted the position of leader of Israel after World War II and ordered some massive war crime, like say slaughtering the Arabs with nukes.

      He was a Pacifist.

    79. Re:*sigh* by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Who cares what he reveals? Everyone knows where BODY is- right below HEAD but before the closing HTML.

    80. Re:*sigh* by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      The article basically says that Hans needs to reveal the location of the body if he wants a reduced sentence.

      Yes, clearly it is Reiser's responsibility to provide evidence that he did not commit first degree murder.

    81. Re:*sigh* by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      The man who killed several people made that claim but neglected to check one minor detail. Specifically, he forgot to ensure that the people he claimed to have murdered were actually dead.
      Yes, that's what I meant by 'couldn't tell police who he'd murdered'. Some of the people he had named were, indeed, alive and well -- so maybe he just didn't know who he killed? Or maybe he never killed anybody and just claimed that he did. Seems like the last statement rings the most true to me, being the simplest explanation.

      there are so many ways to dispose of a body such that there is no way anyone on Earth will ever find it again.
      Indeed. In other somewhat recent events, it took them MONTHS to find Lacie Peterson's body (which was NEVER fully recovered nad suffered so much damage, the only thing they could identify was her unborn child), and they were fully prepared to launch a case against her husband and convicted murderer Scott Peterson with or without a body. When they did find it -- in the same waters where he claimed to have been fishing at the time of her death, well, it just made things easier. But they were prepared to toss Scott Peterson in prison even if the courts threw out the body as evidence (which I think they did, IIRC).

    82. Re:*sigh* by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Wooosh.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    83. Re:*sigh* by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      The judge is just assuming that Hans will do that to reduce the sentence.

      Clearly, there is more that I don't know than I do, but why would the judge make such an offer?

      The judge already has a murder 1 on the guy (I think, the facts seem a little muddy now), murder 2 is a lesser sentence, and increases the liklihood that he will serve less time, better odds for parole, all of that.

      My point is that this seems to be that this is a win-win for Reiser, and a lose-lose for the judge. I thought their goal in life was to imprison everyone indefinitely.

    84. Re:*sigh* by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That actually worked for Hitler. When he signed off on the cute car design that he had commissioned, he had the foresight not to name it something like the "Führerwagen". The rest is history.

    85. Re:*sigh* by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      we did discard the results of their horrific experiments on human beings. Not according to Wikipedia:

      Modern ethical issues

      The modern body of medical knowledge about how the human body reacts to freezing to the point of death is based almost exclusively on these Nazi experiments. This, together with the recent use of data from Nazi research into the effects of phosgene gas, has proved controversial and presents an ethical dilemma for modern physicians who do not agree with the methods used to obtain this data.[17] Similarly, controversy has arisen from the use of results of biological warfare testing done by the Imperial Japanese Army's Unit 731.[29] However, the results from Unit 731 were kept classified by the United States and the majority of doctors involved were given pardons.[30]
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    86. Re:*sigh* by kjots · · Score: 1

      Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.

      A guy that claimed to have murdered several people, none of whom were actually dead. Not much point in trying to defend people with the wrong facts, dumbass.

    87. Re:*sigh* by citog · · Score: 4, Funny

      You need to update to the latest version in CVS ..

    88. Re:*sigh* by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Werner Von Braun. He used slave labor to build the V2, was an SS officer, etc. But, without his help after the war, the U.S. probably would have never gotten to the moon.

      Only because he beat the prognosticating Kramdens to it.

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    89. Re:*sigh* by flibuste · · Score: 1

      I personnally believe Linus to be on a secret mission from the outer space to take over the world as we know it. And uses alien agents to do his dirty "FS" job, whatever that is.

    90. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's actually quite accurate, historically. Moe Berg was sent to see a lecture by Heisenberg in Switzerland, and tried exactly that: to gauge the possibility that Heisenberg would defect (he also had a gun in his pocket to use if he discovered that Heisenberg knew how to build a bomb). Heisenberg suspected him of being SS and was very cagey about it. See *Heisenberg's War* for details.

    91. Re:*sigh* by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      We'd do what we always do when these things happen. Wait until someone we could accept made a slight modification/improvement/what-have-you and then credit them completely or let history forget the basis of their work.

    92. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop spreading these lies. In Germany during WW2, everyone was a Nazi, doesn't mean it was by choice. Same with Von Braun, if he didn't use the inferior slave labor (they actually sabotaged a lot of rockets by building it poorly), someone else would have just replaced him. If Hitler or some SS come knocking on your door and tell you something, you better do it, but that does not mean you want to.

      And what 'help'? After the war, the Americans used him to build weapons, something he always didn't really want to do, he wanted to build rockets to get to the moon. It was only years latter that he got the chance to work on a rocket to get to the moon, and after much pleading/asking on his part I believe.

    93. Re:*sigh* by Creepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As I recall, he said the V2 being used as a weapon was "his darkest day" because he wanted it used for space travel.

      Whether it influenced his joining the SS or not, civilian rocketry was forbidden by the Nazi party, so it was either join them or don't do it. While I don't know his personal beliefs, in many ways he was a victim of circumstance - he was an SS officer before he claimed to have known about the deaths in labor camps (though I'm sure he knew they were anti-semitic) and at one point was under investigation by the gestapo during the war for anti-patriotic thinking. Given the situation and the government running a police state spying and incarcerating anyone that opposed them, I imagine he felt powerless to change it.

    94. Re:*sigh* by blincoln · · Score: 1

      When he signed off on the cute car design that he had commissioned, he had the foresight not to name it something like the "Führerwagen".

      But... think of the marketing possibilities. "Das ist mein krieg, das ist mein blut, das ist mein automobil". "Ein Reich, ein Volk, but many drivers wanted". Etc.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    95. Re:*sigh* by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If HitlerFS provided any benefits over what I'm currently using, I'd gladly use it. Heck, you could call it EveryoneWhoUsesThisFileSystemIsAnIdiot and the same applies - the only objection I would have would be with its length. The general public may think the name of a particular product is important, but I do not.

    96. Re:*sigh* by kyofunikushimi · · Score: 1

      He's not necessarily going to fess up. They're offering him this deal. No word on whether he's even entertaining it. If he truly didn't kill her... well, then he can't give 'em the body.

      --
      oo
    97. Re:*sigh* by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      ... the judge. I thought their goal in life was to imprison everyone indefinitely. Please do get a grip. A judge's goal is to ensure justice.
      A friend of mine is a DA in a major metro area in the US, and you should hear all the complaints about those 'liberal' judges who 'want to put insane murderers back on the streets'.
    98. Re:*sigh* by drharris · · Score: 1

      I suspect without Hans' rabid interest, the project will wither and die. There's just not that big of a base of developers who are as invested in the project as he was.

      I believe most(all?) kernel hackers will not shed a tear for Hans and will be happy not to have to deal with his flames on the list anymore. With that, ReiserFS will become a distant memory.

    99. Re:*sigh* by dougmc · · Score: 1

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author? This is the worst analogy I've seen today. Granted, it's still early, but even so, you're likely to win the `worst analogy of the day' award. Congratulations!


      Why is it a bad analogy, you might ask? Because General Relativity was Einstein's attempt to explain an aspect of the universe. No matter how much we might hate him, that won't change the universe, and if he explained it well, then we're stuck with that.

      ReiserFS is something built by man. If we don't like it, we build something new. It might have some similarities, but would be different in other ways. Also, computer software needs supporting -- as bugs and security holes are found, they need fixing. Reiser presumably cannot do this from prison, and he was the driving force behind ReiserFS.

      In any event, ReiserFS was dead when he was convicted -- producing a body won't make it more dead.

    100. Re:*sigh* by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      If Linus murders, it's obviously for the good of all of us

      He works for the Linux Foundation, not Aperture Science!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    101. Re:*sigh* by pthor1231 · · Score: 1

      I would never make a decision based on a /. summary either. Read the article, then point to the line that says "Hans will lead authorities to Nina's dead body in exchange for a lighter punishment." You can't, because it's not there. The article is just speculation.

    102. Re:*sigh* by kipman725 · · Score: 1

      Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's and attempted to build a Nuclear bomb. That one however is debatable. He later claimed he was secretly sabotaging the project. ... such uncertainty
    103. Re:*sigh* by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't work, since as we all know it was actually his wife who wrote Linux!

      Though what that means is that if Linus killed anyone, we could just change Linux back to its original name, Tovix.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    104. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus "murders" every time he makes a post or takes the podium.

    105. Re:*sigh* by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily: BODY is optional. You can have a page with only a HEAD. Will the court be lenient if only a HEAD or - even worse! - only a TITLE is returned?

    106. Re:*sigh* by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      A model

      And years later, this became THE hippie car;)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    107. Re:*sigh* by pclminion · · Score: 1

      Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all. Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.

      Why did you ever feel like you should defend him in the first place? The place for his defense (or rather, stunning lack of it) was in the court room. I understand geek solidarity, but just because a guy is smart and writes code we can respect doesn't mean he's incapable of committing murder.

      Anyway, we're doing it again, aren't we? He hasn't revealed anything yet. We don't know anything. Maybe we should go out for drinks and think about something else and let the courts deal with Hans Reiser.

    108. Re:*sigh* by billcopc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What puzzles me, or should I say "baffles", is how revealing the location of the body somehow makes this man less of a psycho.

      Finding the body does not automagically make Hans less of a threat. Why would his sentence be reduced ? He should be grateful the victim's family doesn't have him drawn and quartered.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    109. Re:*sigh* by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Our German scientists were better than the Russian's German scientists. Certainly better fed, anyway.
      --
      #DeleteChrome
    110. Re:*sigh* by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nice to see someone willing to stand behind strong words... oh wait. Okay, you're an anonymous jerk.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    111. Re:*sigh* by Kevin72594 · · Score: 1

      You not finding the name important does not help the FS succeed. A userbase of more than 1 is necessary last I checked.

    112. Re:*sigh* by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I didn't think any serious investigation was actually performd against his claims...

    113. Re:*sigh* by saider · · Score: 1

      Finding the body does not automagically make Hans less of a threat. Why would his sentence be reduced ?

      To motivate him to disclose the location of the body and allow the family to bury her. Providing closure to the family of the victim is one of the interests of justice.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    114. Re:*sigh* by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As I recall, he said the V2 being used as a weapon was "his darkest day" because he wanted it used for space travel.

      "The rocket worked perfectly except for landing on the wrong planet." -- von Braun after hearing about a V-2 launch towards England

    115. Re:*sigh* by jnana · · Score: 1

      Not to ruin the joke, but BODY isn't optional: try the following in the W3C validator:

      <html>
      <head><title>Not Valid</title></head>
      <!-- <body><p>Uncomment this line to make it valid.</p></body> -->
      </html>

    116. Re:*sigh* by Karma+Sink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's because it shows a difference between the attitude he showed in the courtroom and the attitude that will make him eventually eligible for parole.

      He has been resistant the entire time to say a single word about his own guilt. That is the action of a man who either thinks he did no wrong, or who knows he did wrong but thinks he is clever enough to get away with it.

      If he reveals the location of the body, then it's clear that he's willing to move forward and admit that he committed murder. Which, in turn, means it's more likely for him to feel remorse and become rehabilitated.

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
    117. Re:*sigh* by joggle · · Score: 1

      I agree. Much of his influence was only very early in the program for the initial rocket designs. Much of the architecture for the moon mission did not use his ideas at all.

    118. Re:*sigh* by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Our German scientists were better than the Russian's German scientists.

      Here let me fix that for you. "Our nazis where better than their nazis."

      I never really understood the complete hero worship of von braun anyway. Drive through Huntsville Alabama and he's like a god with them rednecks. For godsakes people he was a fucking nazi. He was a member of the nazi party. His rockets where built by slave labor and kill thousands in England. He was a war criminal and should have been treated like one.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    119. Re:*sigh* by Cyberllama · · Score: 1

      Wonder how long that lasts . . .

    120. Re:*sigh* by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Funny

      Werewolf?

                      There. Wolf. There. Castle?

      Why are you talking that way?

                        Thought you wanted to. I'm easy.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    121. Re:*sigh* by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people.

      Do you feel that repeating that enough times will make it true? Or were you just not paying any attention to the whole thing?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    122. Re:*sigh* by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      Not according to me. I've seen the data on hypothermia presented. It is valuable information. The presenter made the point that using the data to save lives does more to honor those who were tortured to death to obtain it than hiding it would.

    123. Re:*sigh* by rainer_d · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As I recall, he said the V2 being used as a weapon was "his darkest day" because he wanted it used for space travel.

      Whether it influenced his joining the SS or not, civilian rocketry was forbidden by the Nazi party, so it was either join them or don't do it. While I don't know his personal beliefs, in many ways he was a victim of circumstance - he was an SS officer before he claimed to have known about the deaths in labor camps (though I'm sure he knew they were anti-semitic) and at one point was under investigation by the gestapo during the war for anti-patriotic thinking. Given the situation and the government running a police state spying and incarcerating anyone that opposed them, I imagine he felt powerless to change it. Giving Werner von Braun the benefit of the doubt is noble (I'm German), but there is one thing that smart people in Germany during 33-45 realized: if you are unscrupulous, there is no limit how far you can get.
      Like all scientists, he had a dream he would sacrifice anything for. Even the lifes of others.
      British people are still outraged over the fact the the guy responsible for bombing London would sit next to a pool in Texas in the late 40s instead of the trial-bench in Nurenberg.
      During the Nazi-reign, nearly nearly endless resources could get committed to your project - if you had the buy-in of the handful of top-brass that were able to directly talk to the Fuehrer and influence him.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    124. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's and attempted to build a Nuclear bomb. That one however is debatable. Has anyone ever done a probability distribution for the options? I bet somebody has, but I can't be certain.
    125. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen what Linus writes on the mailing lists? I'm already kind of embarrassed to use Linux. I assumed he was a murdering psychotic in real life, too.

      If the Dalai Lama writes a computer operating system, I'll switch in a Tibetan minute, but I don't see that happening during *my* present incarnation.

    126. Re:*sigh* by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
      Particularly in a case like this, where hard evidence is scant.

      It is simple to say, "He did a lot of weird stuff, he must have done it." That's what most people would do. It boils down to Being different is wrong.

      It is hard to consider realistically the boundary between unusual and inexplicable and the boundary between reasonable doubt and conceivable doubt.

    127. Re:*sigh* by cpjackso · · Score: 1

      Can I be the first to suggest NinaFS? (seriously fuck Hans if he did it - but there's no point wasting his hard work!).

    128. Re:*sigh* by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1

      Especially when you consider a fact which is mentioned in the article: Innocent people may spend longer in jail. Admitting the crime and saying you're sorry gets you paroled faster. Steadfastly proclaiming your innocence can keep you in jail.

    129. Re:*sigh* by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's and attempted to build a Nuclear bomb.

      Well, we can't be certain about both...

    130. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should at least rename it to try to distance the software as much as possible from its creator

      Don't be stupid.

      If Linus murdered someone, would we want to change the name "Linux"?

      Be mature and recognize that people have moments of evil and greatness.

    131. Re:*sigh* by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Okay, well what if it was called "EveryoneWhoUsesThisFileSystemFucksBabyBoys"? Would you still feel comfortable answering the question "what file system do you use?"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    132. Re:*sigh* by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting perspective. I think ReiserFS is a darned useful filesystem. I wouldn't think less of anyone for continuing the work, and I wouldn't hesitate to do so myself. I don't consider continuing a useful invention to be an endorsement of the inventor.

    133. Re:*sigh* by griffjon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      to quote Tom Lehrer on Von Braun;

      "'Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department' Says Werner Von Brown" http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/vonbraun.htm

      --
      Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    134. Re:*sigh* by marxmarv · · Score: 1

      Yes, clearly it is Reiser's responsibility to provide evidence that he did not commit first degree murder. Yes, clearly it is Mr. Reiser's responsibility to provide evidence that he did not commit first degree murder, especially if he has been (we assume erroneously) found guilty of it by a court of law and he is in a unique position to provide that evidence.
      --
      /. -- the Free Republic of technology.
    135. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to raise these kinds of questions that ruin everybody's coffee? I hate you. You're like the future ex-girlfriend I'm trying to avoid.

    136. Re:*sigh* by ElMiguel · · Score: 2, Funny

      If Linus murders, it's obviously for the good of all of us

      ... except the ones who are dead.

    137. Re:*sigh* by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

      My point is that a guilty verdict should be beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the DA would try to bargain with him for a lesser sentence suggests that there is a reasonable doubt.

    138. Re:*sigh* by fbjon · · Score: 1

      How about NinaFS? That is both spooky and intriguing at the same time. I would make an attempt to ask her family first, though.
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    139. Re:*sigh* by Toon+Moene · · Score: 1

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?
      Unfortunately, this assumes that ReiserFS is nearly as useful as General Relativity.
    140. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, i was sure left with a desire for rose-colored rum.

    141. Re:*sigh* by turgid · · Score: 1

      American justice!!! Head assplode!!

      They've convicted you and you have no chance to reverse the decision. They offer you a "bargain" to take 10 years off your sentence so even though you know there is no body because you didn't do it) you fess up to make it look like you are remorseful and have learned some sort of lesson.

      They go digging, no body. Oh well, coyotes ate it. Or something.

      Seeking no truth, winning is all, find it so grim so true so real.

      We will probably never know the truth, and justice will never be done, but the public got a scapegoat and the media got a circus.

      He may have done it. We will never know, and we don't care. Public hanging. Good feelings all round.

    142. Re:*sigh* by stry_cat · · Score: 1

      He has been resistant the entire time to say a single word about his own guilt. That is the action of a man who either thinks he did no wrong, or who knows he did wrong but thinks he is clever enough to get away with it. or that he is actually innocent.
    143. Re:*sigh* by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      sure.. i use EWUTFSFBB or EWUT_FS for short.

    144. Re:*sigh* by argel · · Score: 1

      Wait! Are you saying Linus is Kira!?!?

      --

      -- Argel
    145. Re:*sigh* by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Since all the family including Nina ran off back to Russia I doubt they'd care.

    146. Re:*sigh* by clt829 · · Score: 1

      No, but I might be willing to actually start calling it GNU/Linux.

    147. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And when you send your data to /dev/null it fucking stays there and doesn't come back.

    148. Re:*sigh* by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as the KdF-Wagen was practically a point by point rip off of the Czech Tatra T97, down to the distinctive "beetle" shape, there isn't much reason to associate the design with Hitler. Tatra sued Porsche, and Porsche was going to settle when Hitler stepped in and told him he'd "fix his problem," which he did by invading Czechoslovakia.

      VW settled with Tatra in 1961 for 3M DM.

      Hitler doesn't really deserve any credit for the Beetle. It's amazing people have given it to him for so many years.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    149. Re:*sigh* by heretic108 · · Score: 1

      That raises the question; if Linus murders, will you stop using the kernel and everything associated with it?
      Guess I'd have to - the hurd won't be ready until, at the very least, NVidia and other video card manufacturers come up with Emacs-lisp drivers for their hardware.
      --
      -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
    150. Re:*sigh* by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?

      I think its very likely what would have happened.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    151. Re:*sigh* by Titoxd · · Score: 1

      1:27.

    152. Re:*sigh* by tr9sh · · Score: 1

      Americans went to the moon?!

    153. Re:*sigh* by jafac · · Score: 1

      It's arguable that Werner Von Braun, father of the V-2, was also instrumental in getting the US to the moon (solving some of the really hard parts of development of the Saturn V). I'm not sure what Von Braun's political stance was. . .

      Ferdinand Porsche was very public about being "politically neutral" (which was about the only safe degree to take against the third reich) - and was still arrested for war crimes by the French, and spent time imprisoned in a tractor factory.

      At the same time, great American Industrialists like Ford, (or Prescott Bush!) (or Adolph Coors, another family that supports the right-wing extremists in the US) not only were publicly in support of the third reich's political positions, they openly provided material support to the nazis.

      Bill Gates, with his vision, arguably, changed the face of personal computing radically; early Microsoft efforts may not have been the best quality, but they put personal computers into the hands of, well, PEOPLE, in an era where computers were completely unaffordable to all but large corporations. And we know where his vision went after that. . .

      Then there's the entire concept of Socialism; which, while it has it's logical flaws, is usually never attacked logically on the basis of those flaws, and instead, is attacked on the basis that Stalin killed 60 million Russians, and therefore, anything to the left of Ronald Reagan is Evil, and comes from the Devil.

      If anyone has a reason to look for an excuse to shoot-down RieserFS, or Rieser's ideas, they won't have to look far for a bogus reason (having nothing to do with technical merits or a business case). For many people - that will be enough to make the decision.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    154. Re:*sigh* by jafac · · Score: 1

      Or - the Russians might have beaten us, and we would have lost hope and quit, like they did when we beat them.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    155. Re:*sigh* by jafac · · Score: 1

      What's probably going on here, is that he wants to change his story, that he had an argument, went nuts, and accidentally killed her (second degree murder: First requires proof of premeditation).

      So if he can cough-up the body, maybe there's physical evidence that there was no premeditation.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    156. Re:*sigh* by salahx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah it needs a name that detracts from murder. How about the "Open Journled File System?

    157. Re:*sigh* by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Werner Von Braun. He used slave labor to build the V2, was an SS officer, etc. But, without his help after the war, the U.S. probably would have never gotten to the moon. Probably?
      That's one hell of an understatement.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    158. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Linus,

      Don't get any ideas!

    159. Re:*sigh* by LrdDimwit · · Score: 1

      It suggests you don't know that this is common practice: offer some sentence reduction to get the guy to talk, about how he did it and tried to get away with it. It offers closure to the family of the victim (note here his son wrote asking him why he 'hid mommy'), it also helps the police with future investigations, and it ensures time and effort aren't wasted when, two years later, some hiker finds the body and raises a stink.

    160. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would depend on whether General Relativity followed illegal orders from Einstein.

    161. Re:*sigh* by westlake · · Score: 1
      It's because it shows a difference between the attitude he showed in the courtroom and the attitude that will make him eventually eligible for parole.

      The deal is off if evidence is found to support Reiser's conviction on first degree murder.

      To be "eligible for parole" in California does not mean that parole will ever be granted. Fifteen years from now, the board doesn't have to grant Reiser the benefit of the doubt if what it sees is evidence of premeditation.

      It could just be that the state thinks that it has read Reiser correctly and he can be tempted into making one last mistake.

    162. Re:*sigh* by GradiusCVK · · Score: 1

      Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all I guess we all oughta just assume guilty until proven innocent to avoid ever defending someone who turned out to be guilty?
    163. Re:*sigh* by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      The summary is bad for this article if you want to be fair and balanced.

      The summary is amazing if you want to have your site slashdotted

    164. Re:*sigh* by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Don't forget Werner Von Braun. He used slave labor to build the V2, was an SS officer, etc. But, without his help after the war, the U.S. probably would have never gotten to the moon."

      Ah, the good old days before politically correct Human Resource managers!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    165. Re:*sigh* by jythie · · Score: 1

      He has not confessed. The DA is mearly saying that IF he were to confess and show them the body then they would CONSIDER a lower sentence.

    166. Re:*sigh* by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1
      I've seen reference that the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments require proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

      Supplement: [P. 1761, add to n.83:]

      See also Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury requires a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14efrag7_user.html#fnb83

      (a) Sullivan's Sixth Amendment right to jury trial was denied by the giving of a constitutionally deficient beyond a reasonable doubt instruction. The Fifth Amendment requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, see, e.g., In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, and the Sixth Amendment requirement that the jury, rather than the judge, reach the requisite finding of "guilty," are interrelated: The required jury verdict is a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-5129.ZS.html

      Fifth amendment:

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Sixth amendment:

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Fourteenth is too long and I have no idea how it even pertains to this.

      This is distressing; but nothing technically says you need proof beyond reasonable doubt, only a conviction. We rely on two things: Judgment of The People (i.e. Jury), or judgment of a judge (if you waive jury rights). Funny, beyond that we have no constitutional definition of "Due Process."

    167. Re:*sigh* by jythie · · Score: 1

      Not really. Bits an pieces of nazi data filtered into the medial community over the years and lives have been saved by doing so.

    168. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if he murders RMS?

    169. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. You're just glossing over Von Braun's history and just fixing the label onto him which sounds the worst. Yes, he was an SS officer... but it still doesn't mean he did anything.

      The details (context) mean everything:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

    170. Re:*sigh* by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Fuck honor. We have dead people, and we have people we can still save. This isn't a hard decision. Any discussion on ethics immediately ends when you start talking about preserving warm-fuzziness at the cost of real, tangible lives.

    171. Re:*sigh* by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      It's arguable that Werner Von Braun, father of the V-2, was also instrumental in getting the US to the moon (solving some of the really hard parts of development of the Saturn V). I'm not sure what Von Braun's political stance was. . . It's save to say that he would join whomever would offer to pay his bills (and boy did the Apollo program rack-up bills).
      USA probably offered the best overall package.

      Germany in 33-45 offered possibilities to scientists or entrepreneurs who were unscrupulous and obsessed enough that would never every arise again in history. It's only comparable with the building of the pyramids.
      It's said that war shoes the best and worst in people. In Werner von Brauns case, it's probably both. He was smart enough to see when the end was inevitable and moved all of his staff, all of his research, notes, drawings, construction-plans and even most of the physical material (prototypes etc.) into the US-zone at the end of the war. That was his "get out of jail"-card.

      This has nothing to do with Hans Reiser, though.
      Hans Reiser is no Werner von Braun. He's got no "get out of jail"-card.
      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    172. Re:*sigh* by tiqui · · Score: 1

      Imagine if Albert Einstein had accepted the position of leader of Israel after World War II and ordered some massive war crime, like say slaughtering the Arabs with nukes.

      I'm not even Jewish and this is borderline offensive. Why tie Israel or Jews to an unrelated murder, and why the presumption of the Jew perpetrating a "massive war crime"? I hope somebody else does not drag-in asians with eyesight issues or blacks and watermelons, or native Americans with "firewater", arabs with camels, southern white boys with their cousins, or ...

      This sort of stuff is simply not needed to advance the discussion of one woman apparently murdered by one man (afaik neither being jewish) in California (not the mideast)

      The nice thing about Linux is that anybody uncomfortable with using Reiser code in the aftermath of this can simply not use it.

    173. Re:*sigh* by tiqui · · Score: 1

      Well done! I did not think there was anything in this that could give me a laugh.

    174. Re:*sigh* by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      A bunch of Nazi doctors/forensic scientists performed biopsies/autopsies on inmate at Aushwitz their research was destroyed and banned.

      So yea some research gets banned.

    175. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I am already using NetBSD.

    176. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if Steve Ballmer was the victim.

    177. Re:*sigh* by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Having actually sat on a jury, I can tell you that the judge gave us a good definition of "reasonable doubt", with emphasis on the "reasonable". From the article, Reiser did things that sure look like he was trying to erase evidence (e.g. getting rid of part of his car and hosing down the interior) and his explanations were simply "unreasonable". In that case, there is no "reasonable doubt".

    178. Re:*sigh* by fmarkham · · Score: 1

      Except that he was a member of the Nazi party and the SS.

    179. Re:*sigh* by fmarkham · · Score: 1

      <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN"
         "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">
      <HTML>
      <HEAD>
      <TITLE>A simple frameset document</TITLE>
      </HEAD>
      <FRAMESET cols="20%, 80%">
        <FRAMESET rows="100, 200">
            <FRAME src="contents_of_frame1.html">
            <FRAME src="contents_of_frame2.gif">
        </FRAMESET>
        <FRAME src="contents_of_frame3.html">
        <NOFRAMES>
            <P>This frameset document contains:
            <UL>
               <LI><A href="contents_of_frame1.html">Some neat contents</A>
               <LI><IMG src="contents_of_frame2.gif" alt="A neat image">
               <LI><A href="contents_of_frame3.html">Some other neat contents</A>
            </UL>
        </NOFRAMES>
      </FRAMESET>
      </HTML>

      See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/present/frames.html

    180. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest OJFS!

    181. Re:*sigh* by jnana · · Score: 1

      Right you are! I haven't used frames since about 2000 and didn't think to check the frameset DTD.

      Thanks for the correction.

    182. Re:*sigh* by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Clearly you're not on the ReiserFS mailing list.

      Vicious, he is. I'm not saying he did it, but if he did, he strikes me as the kind of ass who'd think he's smarter than everyone in the courtroom. The sad thing is in this day and age, he's probably right.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    183. Re:*sigh* by RedOctober · · Score: 1

      Except we just had a long trial which concluded the exact opposite, at least in the court's eyes (which are the ones that count). The court must now deal with him as though he were guilty.

    184. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.

    185. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/Tovix/Freax/

    186. Re:*sigh* by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      Would we just toss aside General Relativity, never to see it again, because we don't want to be associated with the author?


      The difference here is that Hans produced a large piece of code which now needs to be vetted in its' entirety. Albert produced a (relatively) smaller piece of code which has already been vetted, time and time again.
      --
      Does it go on forever?
    187. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, ReiserFS is an invention therefore we can abandon it with, well, gay abandon.

      Natural Laws cannot so easily be dispensed with. We could not, say, throw gravity to the wind.

      Though you were modded interesting, maybe you were hoping for credibility.

      --
      Terence Boylen

    188. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heya Mr. Bush. Is ranting about wikipedia vandalism your latest tactic on distracting the people from your silly wars? Or is it just revenge for replacing your mugshot on wikipedia with one of Darth Vader ?

    189. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      von Braun was a WAR CRIMINAL. He was the administrator of the rocket-production facility at Dora which used SLAVE LABOUR.

      I'll repeat that. He wasn't "just a scientist", he was the head administrator, with full administrative responsibility, for a facility that used jews and others as slave labourers under terrible conditions (underground).

      Sorry, but there's no room for ambiguity here. At the Nuremburg trials, people were hung for less than that.

    190. Re:*sigh* by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      He named it the KdF-Wagen (i.e. Kraft durch Freude (Strength Through Joy), the official leisure organization in the Third Reich). The company that produced them (after the initial prototypes were built by Zundapp and NSU) was called Volkswagen.
      The car was saved by its high "aww, cute" factor (and by British Army officer Major Ivan Hirst who restarted production after the war).

    191. Re:*sigh* by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      We should appoint some fungineers to decide the question.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    192. Re:*sigh* by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Well, I would call being the administrator of a production facility that used slave labor and had its own concentration camp "something."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    193. Re:*sigh* by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      In what way did I tie Israel or Jews to an unrelated murder? I used it as an example, nothing more.

      Your comment is nothing more than knee-jerk reactionism.

      I could, in fact, have made the (likely better) comparison with Werner Von Braun, the Nazis, and rocketry, but I didn't think of it at the time.

      Moreover, it is hardly sociopolitically implausible for the Israelis to engage in widespread use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East during times of conflict- they were apparently prepared to do so more than once.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    194. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Linus will Kill Bill. :D

    195. Re:*sigh* by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all. Like he was friends, and his wife was seeing, a guy that murdered several people. Now he's just going to fess up to the murder. I guess this marks the end of ReiserFS. I'm sure no one in the Linux community wants to be associated to that piece of work. No, don't feel that way. I am sure there is a lot of people that believed he was innocent based on the information. It really did for a while look like she fell off the map and ran away. However, now there can be closure and peace to the family of his slain wife and children.

      Now I could be off base here, but sadly it didn't look good for Hans to begin with. Thing we all must remember is that despite there being no body, 12 people who didn't know either side of the case found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I am all but positive there is information and facts that were not released to the public and media. Also, his friend who claimed to have killed several people - so far there has been nothing said or mentioned if there is even a shred of truth to his claims. There is a big difference between saying you killed several people and actually killing several people. This is especially true if there isn't several dead/missing people that correlate to the claims.

      I would like to make clear that I neither defend or criticize the verdict. I think though that if he is guilty then he must do the time, otherwise he is innocent and must be set free. As for the ReiserFS, I highly doubt it will fall off the map or not be used by others in the Linux community. It may get renamed or something, but I don't think the trial or the outcome will kill the code.
    196. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe if we made killing thousands knowingly a bigger deal than 'getting groceries in a normal fashion' we could stop companies like Shell from doing things like that in the first place. But hey, don't let me interfere with how you get your groceries or anything.

      Mind you with ReiserFS being open source it can be developed and used without Reiser profiting, and unlike Shell Hans didn't kill his wife for the express purpose of developing ReiserFS. That we know of.

      Besides, I think there are many CEO's or CFO's or any C?O's out there that have comitted far worse than a single murder, like Shell pumping oil in africa, killing thousands knowingly by pollution. If you'd go your route, you wouldn't be able to get groceries anymore in a normal fasion, because the truck getting the groceries might have filled it up with diesel at a shell.
    197. Re:*sigh* by blake182 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Werner Von Braun

      Since we're already off-topic, this won't hurt. A song about good ole Werner. The bottom line -- take a job with the team on top.

    198. Re:*sigh* by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      V1 and V2 rockets were fair weapons in war. War is ugly. Do you think the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo were fun happenings?

      The slave labor is more of a problem, although it wasn't his idea and claimed he didn't like it but could do nothing to change it. I don't buy that myself.

      Von Braun is controversial but helped build the Saturn V booster.

    199. Re:*sigh* by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he was still (very) useful to the allies after the war, so he didn't hang. I'm not defending him, he is just the product of his time.

      Without WWII, WVB would probably have just been an academic gentleman interested in rocketry. He would probably have caused not a single death and not even become a footnote to history, like most of us.

      Conversely you will find many people outside the US that think many recent US presidents should be tried as war criminials.

      In the real world morals don't count for too much if you have the connections, the power, or something no one else has. Is that news to you?

    200. Re:*sigh* by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about war crimes by the allied forces, if those could be called war crimes. Granted the V2 rocket was a weapon of war. We could no more hold Von Braun accountable than we can the people that designed the fire arms of the nazis. So I'll give you the first point.

      But I have to hold fast on the second part. His rockets where built with slave labor and he knew about it. That makes him a war criminal. Maybe he is not as accountable as the fuckers who ran the camps but he shouldn't have gotten a free ride. I think from the way I read what you say you agree with me on that point.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    201. Re:*sigh* by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Everyone involved in war is a war criminal in some way. von Braun did not ask for slave workers, he was given them and ordered to use them. He did not force them to work, guards did. What he did not do was stop them from being mistreated or killed, but in a paranoid police state that is a surefire way to get yourself killed.

      As I recall, he claimed never have gone to the concentration camp itself (most were run by the most loyal party members) and called the worker conditions deplorable in the facility he administrated and did go to.

          At the original Nuremberg trials nobody hung for less than that - everyone involved directly contributed in some way and were not in the middle. Only two slave camp administrators were involved - (Fritz?) Sauckel, who organized and ran the labor camps (and got death) and Albert Speer, his superior, who used them to build armaments (and got 20 years in prison). Speer's book, Inside the Third Reich, was even a textbook in a history class I took.

      War is horrible, and bad things happen. Circumstances like this are still happening - arresting people without a trial? The United States did that in World War 2 (mostly Japanese, but also some Germans and Italians) and still does it today (Guantanamo Bay). Slave labor? Well, the prison labor system in the US currently pays prisoners as little as 21 cents an hour, which is pretty close, using prison labor is on the rise, and America has a history of it (chain gangs and the like). You can claim they are helping pay for their room and board or whatever, but that could be flipped to argue for WW2 prisoners as well.

    202. Re:*sigh* by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's just being pragmatic. If Adolf Hitler had developed a filesystem and named it HitlerFS, nobody would want to use it no matter how amazingly wonderful it was. You can lament this all you like, but it won't change.

      Hitler was the force behind autobahns and Volkswagen. Both are in use today.

      And it would clearly be "Ein FS" ;).

      --

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

    203. Re:*sigh* by dangitman · · Score: 1

      But, without his help after the war, the U.S. probably would have never gotten to the moon.

      Wait, the US is on the moon now? Actually, that might explain a lot about the bizarro world we are living in.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  4. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by hostyle · · Score: 1

    Whereas now theres an unknown body - and they don't know where it is yet either.

    --
    Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
  5. Huh? by bunratty · · Score: 1

    You mean I can't believe everything I read on Slashdot? What's next, I can't believe everything I read on the rest of the Internet, too?

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  6. Snarky comments by sammyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope this thread has minimal snarky sarcastic comments, this is just sad all around.

    1. Re:Snarky comments by elguillelmo · · Score: 1

      Agree... the whole story is too sad

      --
      Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
    2. Re:Snarky comments by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I hope this thread has minimal snarky sarcastic comments, this is just sad all around.
      Agreed. This bat-shit crazy mama's boy a la Norman Bates doesn't deserve minimal snarky sarcastic comments. Let's go for the gusto!
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:Snarky comments by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "I hope this thread has minimal snarky sarcastic comments, this is just sad all around."

      Where's the "Good luck with that" mod when you need it?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:Snarky comments by elguillelmo · · Score: 1

      FTA: On a side note, for Reiser to disclose the body might bring some element of closure to his two children, a boy now 8 and a girl 6. They live with Nina's parents in St. Petersburg, Russia. The boy, in letters to his father last year, asked his dad why he "hid" his mother.

      --
      Dawkins Revisited: A person is shit's way of making more shit -- Steve Barnett, anthropologist.
    5. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What was even sadder is the people who were trying to defend him around here with every conspiracy known. The evidence was overwhelming from the beginning, but people danced around the most obvious evidence and played up some other guy who supposedly admitted to other murders.

    6. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to say this but I hope it keeps coming. Just because the whole story is sad doesn't mean we should all be sad, ffs, if I'd have to be sad for every death I've read I'd be dead by now just from depression alone. I'm sure someone will remind of some funny/stupid thing you did in your funeral and for sure you won't come out of the dead just to be an ass again will you?

      People die, get over it.

    7. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to burst your hope. It doesn't matter if 99.9% of users think this entire story is too depressing to comment on. That 0.1% who don't are the most likely to hit the Reply button, and so that's all you'll see. Self-selection is a bitch sometimes.

    8. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Meta-snarky

    9. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimal snarky sarcastic comments?

      You do realise you're posting to Slashdot, right?

    10. Re:Snarky comments by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, we must never joke about tragedy.

      Have you ever considered that some people might use humor as compensation mechanism to stay sane in an insane world? You may want to stay somber for your own mental health, and that's fine, but have some tolerance for people who want to stay upbeat.

      NASA stands for "needs another seven astronauts", btw.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Snarky comments by flibuste · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're posting on Slashdot... And you're not even new here!

    12. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the existing comments before you posted?

      By the way, what did North Tower say to South Tower?
      -"Boeing!"

    13. Re:Snarky comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is the best (and worst) thing I've ever heard

    14. Re:Snarky comments by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      Know why the vending machines at NASA all have Sprite in them? Because they can't get 7-UP.

    15. Re:Snarky comments by lysse · · Score: 1

      Surely it's a few more than that now?

    16. Re:Snarky comments by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The key word is "another" :)

      But give me a break, I heard the joke when I was 10 in 5th grade. I know that Challenger must have been traumatic for me, because I can remember all of the jokes (some of which are only funny to a ten year old).

      What was the last thing Christa McAuliffe said to her husband? You feed the dogs, I'll feed the fish.

      What were the last words heard aboard the Challenger? What's this button do?

      It really was a horrible tragedy and I'm sorry if my humor offends, but that was the way we dealt.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Snarky comments by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      And tragedy doesn't deserve to be allowed to crush our spirits.

      I told my wife that I was disturbed by how hard I laughed at www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/96q1/seuss2.html, and she reminded me of the Thomas More quote "The Devil, the proud spirit, cannot endure to be mocked."

  7. fuck by hav0x · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I totally didn't see this one coming.
    Always thought the guy was inocent.
    Plus this is a really dumb move ... even if convicted I bet the parole board would take into consideration the lack of a body, and hard evidence for that matter, just a few years into his sentence.
    Really dumb move especially for a sociopath.

    1. Re:fuck by afxgrin · · Score: 3, Informative

      The summary is deceiving dude. The judge just speculates he's going to reveal the location for a reduction of sentence.

      There's seriously nothing saying Hans even knows where it is.

    2. Re:fuck by martinX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The opposite, I think. The parole board isn't there to second-guess the jury, or give you time off "just in case". They assume that because you were found guilty, you are guilty and your protestations to the contrary are simply because you refuse to face up to the fact you are guilty, so you can't yet be paroled.

      This means, of course, that if you are innocent, it sucks to be you when you front up to a parole board.

      Disclaimer: I garnered my knowledge from someone who was innocent but in jail, and also the movie Double Jeopardy, starring Ashley Judd.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    3. Re:fuck by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, really is quite simple for him. First he gangs up with his buddy who is similarly innocent but banged up because he was obviously framed, busts out of the joint with said buddy, preferably using some death-defying feat, then gets some guns, and goes on a shooting rampage trying to hide from the cops and FBI, in order to find the guy who framed them all (probably Ballmer, you just know it) then in a close-called thing, as the FBI is closing in, get the bad guy to confess as they are listening in, thus removing all need for a new trial and which also neatly accounts for the dead bodies (after all, you're now proven innocent, so killing all the bad guys' henchmen is just forgotten about).

      Disclaimer: I garnered my legal knowledge from the movie Tango and Cash and others starring Mel Gibson.

    4. Re:fuck by Grizzled+Old+Scout · · Score: 1

      Why, and I'm not being snarky, I'm asking, did you think he was innocent?

      I can see one believing that the evidence as it was presented against him did not rise to the legal standard (I'd disagree, but never mind that now) and that the integrity of the process, a process which protects the rights of us all, demands a not-guilty verdict, but to me, the common-sense standard was always guilty. His behavior can be wrapped up in techs-are-weird spin only up to a point.

      Are you defining "innocent" as "not guilty by the reasonable-doubt standard" or did you genuinely believe that he had nothing to do with the murder? And if the latter, on what did you base that?

      BTW, this might not be a dumb move. I know pretty much zippo about California law, but my understanding is that first-degree murder is potentially punishable by death, provided certain circumstances. It's possible that Reiser (and/or his attorneys) felt that those circumstances could or might apply and made the deal to take all possibility of the death penalty off the table.

    5. Re:fuck by Aphriza · · Score: 1

      Ashley Judd in the sailboat killed....

    6. Re:fuck by martinX · · Score: 1

      Can this one also star Tommy Lee? He's so hot right now. So is Hansel.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  8. Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 5, Interesting

    did the article just speculate?

    No where in the article does it say that he has agreed to it, they are speculating that there might be a reduced sentence if Hans discloses where the body is. Also, he is most likely going to be someone's "slave" once he is in prison, so if he gets 15 or 25 years it is most likely going to be in protected custody (= voluntary solitary confinement) and 15 years alone is going to mess him even up let alone 25 years, either way he is done for.

    Glad I'm not in the US, getting life in prison for something that has way too many loose ends, just isn't right.

    (On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. There was a couple who got life in prison for mistreating their child to the point of death (raised her as a vegan) - a British couple got 3 years community service for the same thing)

    1. Re:Am I missing something or by gronofer · · Score: 2, Informative

      did the article just speculate? Seems so to me. There's no indication here that Reiser has been involved in the discussions. To say "all doubt has been quelled" is premature, since nothing new has been added.
    2. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 1

      Oh also the article claims that he has nothing to gain from a retrial even if found innocent, wtf? If found innocent wouldn't that mean zero time in jail?

    3. Re:Am I missing something or by faloi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like they're in discussions about it. Presumably the DA wouldn't leak something about a deal of that nature unless he's really bad at his job. I would think that kind of publicity from the DA could earn him some censure, at he very least.

      Long terms in prison tend to be the result of mandatory minimum sentences. Politicians, in a zeal to "fight crime!!111" have placed certain minimum terms on crimes, so judges can have their hands tied in sentencing. For the record, depending on which case you're thinking of, the US couple got 99 days in jail. And none of it was related to the death of their child, it was for neglect of their other four children (being underweight and malnourished).

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    4. Re:Am I missing something or by Loibisch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      did the article just speculate?

      No where in the article does it say that he has agreed to it, they are speculating that there might be a reduced sentence if Hans discloses where the body is. Yeah, upon reading the summary I, too, thought that Reiser was actually admitting to having killed his wife. But since this is just a potential deal that is based on the general notion that he actually HAS killed her and thee is no comment from Reiser himself this article is pretty bar any information.

      For all those defending him there's still a string or two of hope. Personally I think the whole thing is too fishy to be able to put a man in prison for life for something he might not have done.
      "Beyond reasonable doubt" my ass...
    5. Re:Am I missing something or by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "did the article just speculate?"

      Welcome to Slashdot!

    6. Re:Am I missing something or by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order

      That used to be the purpose of prison. But then America decided that that was namby-pamby liberal bullshit and that the purpose of prison was to make the prisoner's life as miserable and awful as possible, even if the end result is someone who can't handle society outside and is likely to become a repeat offender. Really, you'll find it difficult to make the argument with most Americans that prison ought to provide rehabilitation rather than the harshest possible punishment.

      As an aside, there's nothing about raising your child as a vegan which necessarily constitutes mistreatment. Being a dipshit about nutritional requirements, though, is a different issue. I know several pairs of vegan parents who have raised their children as vegans, and the kids are quite healthy and normal - the parents are merely educated about properly balancing diets and nutrition for children.

    7. Re:Am I missing something or by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It sounds like they're in discussions about it. Presumably the DA wouldn't leak something about a deal of that nature unless he's really bad at his job. I would think that kind of publicity from the DA could earn him some censure, at he very least. But there's no hint as to what direction those discussions are taking. Right now, for all we know the discussions are along the lines of:

      Prosecutor: Come on, you've been found guilty. Your only hope of improving your situation even slightly is to admit you did it and tell us where the body is.
      Reiser: Didn't do it.
      (lather, rinse and repeat)
    8. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 1

      About the couples, just read from a Danish source here: http://politiken.dk/udland/article520653.ece (last paragraph) and they don't list their sources, but based on my (single minded) view of both countries it fits snugly.

    9. Re:Am I missing something or by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      (On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. There was a couple who got life in prison for mistreating their child to the point of death (raised her as a vegan) - a British couple got 3 years community service for the same thing)

      You think being responsible for the mistreatment and death of your own child should only warrant community service? Sorry, if someone is that cold-hearted, they can rot in jail.
      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    10. Re:Am I missing something or by domatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order.



      That can be a point of prison but there are at least four not always compatible reasons from prison:

      1. Deterrence.
      2. Reformation.
      3. Punishment.
      4. Removal.

      Ultra long sentences serve 1,3, and 4 at the expense of 2. Furthermore, reform tends to get lip service at best in the US. We're generally a revenge minded lot Who Want Criminals Off The Street And Thinking Twice About Messing Up.
    11. Re:Am I missing something or by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. In the US, that applies to everything but murder. Person's who commit murder are removed from society completely. It's kinda sad but it's the general consensus in just about every state (that I know of). Most of the debate about the legal system is about how this removal from society should be performed. Should they spend the rest of their lives in prison, or be put to death?
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    12. Re:Am I missing something or by zx75 · · Score: 1

      I can't say that I'm a fan of extremely long prison terms except in extreme circumstances (Robert Pickton I'm talking about you). However I would overlook that for the present considering that the US still practices capital punishment and Reiser could very well face death if convicted of 1st degree murder.

      Add on top of that the US supporting indefinite imprisonment without trial in military prisons such as Guantanamo Bay, and I think that alternatives to 25 years are much, much worse.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    13. Re:Am I missing something or by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not implying he should be in prison for less then 20 years, for murder?

      You see, sending a person to prison is not really about that person, but really sending the message to any person who is contemplating murder.

      I am not saying this guy's head should be put on a stake in central park. But prison time of 15 years for murder would be just senseless.

      It's true that a person can't back to normal life after 25 years of prison time, but what do you purpose we do with murderers? When is a killer ready to go back to streets?

    14. Re:Am I missing something or by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order.

      So what do you suggest for murder? 12 months?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    15. Re:Am I missing something or by burris · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would overlook that for the present considering that the US still practices capital punishment and Reiser could very well face death if convicted of 1st degree murder.


      Hans Reiser has already been convicted of 1st degree murder. He won't be facing the death penalty because in California they only give that out for 1st degree murder "with special circumstances" such as multiple murders or laying in wait.
    16. Re:Am I missing something or by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Glad I'm not in the US, getting life in prison for something that has way too many loose ends, just isn't right.

      Loose ends? Only if you believe "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" means "guilty beyond all doubt". I can only assume you haven't actually seen the list of evidence against him.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    17. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military killers are let back on the streets readily. Psychologically, there's little difference between them and many murderers.

    18. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      There was a couple who got life in prison for mistreating their child to the point of death (raised her as a vegan) - a British couple got 3 years community service for the same thing


      Starve your child to death and all you have to do is pick up trash once a week for a few years? And you think that's a GOOD thing? Wow, just wow...

      We put murderers away for a long time because they're murderers. They've taken away someone's most basic right, the right to their own life. Law exists to protect rights, and so there can be no compromise in this regard.

      I agree with you, though. Someone convicted of first degree murder won't be able to re-integrate to society after 25 years in prison. But the term of the prison sentence has nothing to do with that.

      The only way to make sure society is protected from such individuals is to ensure they do not have the opportunity to ever hurt anyone again. And there is no prison sentence that can give that guarantee.
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    19. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the jails are run by corporations they need to maximize profit. This is one way to do it. How many percent of the US population is in prison again?

    20. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another point of prison is to protect society from people who are dangerous. Keep them locked up for life if need be (or execute them). Assuming Hans did this (seems reasonable given that he has been convicted and the evidence made public seems pretty compelling), yet won't admit it, he does indeed seem dangerous. If he did it in the heat of the moment but was relatively normal one might expect more of an "Oh my god! - what did I do?" reaction, and horror that he just killed his wife and children's mother... but so far there is no contrition or admission whatsoever - he seems to think he can get away with it, and who's to say that if released he might not kill someone else who pisses him off to the same degree. He's certainly unlikley to get parole unless he admits to it and shows some contrition.

    21. Re:Am I missing something or by Tom · · Score: 1

      (On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. It used to be that. These days, the point of prison is to keep the prison system running, and wardens, politicians and a whole industry supporting it in business.

      No, really. In many US states, the union of prison wardens is the strongest and most influential union.
      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:Am I missing something or by domatic · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by Removal as in "removal from society".

    23. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare they!

      It is our job to speculate here; not in the article.

      What were they thinking?

    24. Re:Am I missing something or by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      In all of the states that I'm aware of, the prison system exists to provide good-paying jobs to corrections officers in out of the way areas with bleak economic prospects. The other aspects (punishment, rehabilitation, etc) are just side-effects.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    25. Re:Am I missing something or by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. From what I know, prison has three possible purposes:
      1) Deterrence.
      2) Removal of a dangerous person from society.
      3) Rehabilitation.

      I make no statements about how successful or appropriate it is for any of these purposes. And it is not an attempt to validate the US's absurd sentences.
    26. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (This is getting off topic and is just my view on prison sentences in general)
      While I can follow the logic - if people fear prison, harsher sentences will make them fear it even more - I think making prison sentences too harsh will force people to become desperate, desperate animals will fight to their death and thus you end up with more violent arrests where the one being chased will have no regard for others life since their own life is now on the stake.

      Here in Denmark we used to have next to no high speed chases, when police came you would generally just give up, get the slap on your wrist, serve the time and get back out for a second try. Lately sentences has gone up, crime has become more violent (but less frequent) and you hear about high speed chases about once a week.

      Yes it sucks that people only serve 6 months in jail for rape (in Denmark), but at what point have they suffered enough? Will someone ever be punished enough for the victim to feel restitution? (I think it has been proven that having the victim and perpetrator meet along with counseling works better, than locking him up for umpteen years)

      (Disclaimer been victim of assault and I think the 2 month probation and an apology was sufficient - also been victim of a hit-n-run where I think the driver got correct sentence (lost his license for a year and have to do a full drivers test to re-qualify) and paid for destruction of property)

    27. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 2, Informative

      But they weren't cold hearted, they where ignorant.

      Problem is in the US being ignorant is not a defense and thus the deed carries a minimum sentence of umpteen years. Over here ignorance still isn't an excuse it will however allow the judges to levy a punishment better fitting the crime.

      Also remember society based on revenge will just spiral out of control - who executes the executioner?

    28. Re:Am I missing something or by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 1

      oh you make an excellent point, let the Reiser go.

      ever heard of the saying
      "two wrongs don't make a right"

    29. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 1

      In Denmark life imprisonment means 15-18 years, however in special circumstances a perpetrator can be put into special custody where the perpetrator will never have the possibility of getting out, but that is reserved for extreme cases. In most cases the society is capable of forgiving (but not forgetting) the crime.

    30. Re:Am I missing something or by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Beyond reasonable doubt" my ass... "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "With no shadow of a doubt" are two different things.
    31. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, prison is supposed to help people become productive members of society again, yes.

      In practice... not so much, and in the USA at least (but likely elsewhere, too, to varying extents), it seems that much of what prison terms are about is really revenge - something along the lines of "you did something bad, so we're going to do something bad to you in return". An eye for an eye and all that.

      Just look at how many people are in favour of the death penalty, for example. No matter whether you agree with that one or not, I think nobody can argue that its intention is to "enable people to become productive members of society again".

      It's sick, and it's sad, but what can you do?

    32. Re:Am I missing something or by a_generic_name · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is when people get more than one life sentence. I suppose you could say that they're parallel life sentences, and not five consecutive lives, but it still sounds stupid.

    33. Re:Am I missing something or by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1, Informative

      I ask you to do nothing except think through your argument, and then take it to the logical conclusion.

      Are you sure that's an argument you really want to make?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    34. Re:Am I missing something or by jimicus · · Score: 1

      It's true that a person can't back to normal life after 25 years of prison time, but what do you purpose we do with murderers? When is a killer ready to go back to streets? Which is all well and good, but statistics suggest that most murders (Note: Not all. There is a proportion of the criminal world who have no problem with adding "murder" to their CV) are:

        - One-off crimes committed in moments of madness
      OR
        - Premeditated by someone who's got a history of being the victim of violent abuse, generally going right back to childhood.

      Now, do these people need to be taken off the street for 25 years or do they need help? Or both?
    35. Re:Am I missing something or by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      "Even if he won [the opportunity for] a retrial somehow, he'd likely be convicted."

      That's what the sentence means.

    36. Re:Am I missing something or by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Yes, and when that 21 year old who is "just ignorant" about alcohol is reckless and kills or permanently maims someone, ultimately they have to pay the price for their actions.

      Sometimes you have to man up for your mistakes. Why should society tolerate stupidity?

    37. Re:Am I missing something or by numbsafari · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And anyone they killed is going to have a hard time getting back into society, as well.

      I guess Nina is going to have a hard time "reaquanting herself with the social order" given that she's now in permanent "non-voluntary solitary confinement".

      As for the starvation of a defenseless child... I don't even know how you can trivialize something like that.

      Huh.

      Punishment here seems to fit the crime.

    38. Re:Am I missing something or by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Long prison sentences don't really serve to deter criminals, if they did, Canada would have much higher violent crime rates than the US, but that is clearly not the case (pdf).

      Indeed, it could be reasonably postulated that longer prison terms lead criminals to kill their victims so that they can't be identified and sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

    39. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add keeping the "minorities" i check (no I'm not kidding).

      There are way too many siblings asking on my view, so I'll just sum up some of the stuff here, mods don't kill for attaching it here :)

      I don't know if 12 months is the correct amount, I don't know if 3 years of community service is the right - what I do know is giving someone 25 years imprisonment wont solve anything, other than the points parent made. Punishment should fit the crime and circumstances, not have some arbitrary minimum sentence. Also a society should punish the perpetrator and when released time served has been done, having lists making it impossible to live within a city (sexual offenders) just isn't right. If society deems the punishment to lenient then lock them up for how long it takes, castrate the truly horrible offenders if you think they will do it again if let out, creating a list for flash mobs just isn't the right way.

      What I do know is being assaulted sucked, being run over by a hit-n-run sucked, but at NO point did I think either of the perpetrators should be locked up for years or have their lives completely destroyed - I do however think that the guy assaulting me should be offered counseling and perhaps strongly recommended to undergo treating for drugs.

    40. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats with those extremely long terms in prison? Anyone going in for 25 years will never be able to get back into society - I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. That's one purpose of prison: to remove someone from society to a place where they can serve their time and be rehabilitated. Another purpose is to remove the person from society so that the threat to society is removed; this is where life in prison or the death penalty comes in (the difference theoretically being whether society wants to pay to keep the person alive). The 25 year sentence seems like a half-arsed compromise between these two goals. Yet another purpose is to create "a scary place you don't want to go" to keep people in line; there's a lot of debate over how well that works, too.

      One more thing to keep in mind is that once people are in prison, there aren't a whole lot of things you can do to keep them from rioting and murdering the guards. Reduced sentences for good behavior is one of those things.

      Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and admit that some things and people are so broken you just can't fix them.
    41. Re:Am I missing something or by swb · · Score: 1

      Yes it sucks that people only serve 6 months in jail for rape (in Denmark), but at what point have they suffered enough?

      Why don't I rape your wife/sister/girlfriend and then drop in on her six months and one day after to see how she feels about whether I've suffered enough?

      Lax punishment works in small, homogenous commuinities where crime is generally non-existent and petty (small-time property crime, fighting-type assault, etc), since it generally assumes that the community is functional enough to produce community members with a respect for others and that the people involved really aren't "bad".

      In larger communities it ends up serving no deterrence effect, particularly when you are dealing with violent crimes. There's also a justice angle to consider; where punishment is too lax (6 months for rape? You have to be kidding me!) you often end up with cycles of revenge where people feel that they need to dish out their own punishment.

    42. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though I am quite liberal in most of my political views, I do support the death penalty as a means of removal from society; there is no reason to sustain life if it has no added value to society (do not misinterpret - I'm talking specifically about legal removal).

      However, I would opt for a system where only recidivists would be put to death. That would mean that a single conviction can never lead to death-by-judex, and would put additional pressure on convicts to never make the same mistake again.

      Of course, there might always be incidents where a single conviction could still result in immediate death (serial killers come to mind), but in my mind it seems a lot less heartless to be able to say "look, you've been given a second chance. You blew it" than the seemingly-random way the death sentence is employed now.

    43. Re:Am I missing something or by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      When the jails are run by corporations they need to maximize profit. This is one way to do it. How many percent of the US population is in prison again? Not nearly enough by the look of it.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    44. Re:Am I missing something or by mlingojones · · Score: 0

      "Under the plan, Reiser's cooperation could reduce his April conviction from first-degree murder to second degree."

      Even the title of the Wired article is misleading; from what it says, he hasn't "offered" anything. The above quote indicates that he won't even have a large role in the discussions.

    45. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget

      5. penance

      its where the word penitentiary came from.

      The first penitentiaries were based on the idea of being in solitary confinement so you could read the bible and repent your sins.

    46. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US prison system is a market. It hasn't got much to do with justice nor improving the society.

    47. Re:Am I missing something or by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope you're not implying he should be in prison for less then 20 years, for murder?

      Yes, I would see much shorter sentences than that.

      You see, sending a person to prison is not really about that person, but really sending the message to any person who is contemplating murder.

      The sentence for murder being 20 years instead of 10 is going to stop how many murders, exactly? When death penalty doesn't stop people from murdering, why would you think longer sentences would?

      The reason why the American people want harsh sentencing is because they want revenge. What causes the least amount of future crime has no bearing on it. Treating convicts like human beings, teaching them skills and values that can make them able to function in society without committing crimes, and letting slates be wiped clean when a sentence has been served, that all leads to less recidivism, without increasing the crime rate.

      The often touted right-wing claim that if the criminals are treated well, they would want to go to jail is a completely unfounded fabrication. In countries that do treat their criminals like human beings, convicts still prefer freedom over incarceration, no matter how benign it otherwise is.
      The big difference, as I see it, is whether you teach the convicts that being hard, harsh and treating others like they're worthless is the thing to do, or whether you teach them that being nice to others pays off.

      But that's all academical -- as long as the US system is based on the biblical revenge system, it won't change, and the US is doomed to have a much higher crime rate and recidivism rate than other Western countries.
    48. Re:Am I missing something or by blincoln · · Score: 1

      As an aside, there's nothing about raising your child as a vegan which necessarily constitutes mistreatment.

      That's technically true, but it's incredibly difficult to get consistently well-balanced nutrition out of a totally vegan diet. I was vegan for three years, and ended up going back to being a vegetarian because of the nutritional hassles.

      While I think that raising children as vegan is a noble idea, it's not a risk I would take myself if I were a parent.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    49. Re:Am I missing something or by xjerky · · Score: 1

      "Kinda sad"?? Do you actually think that a person should enjoy life on the street while their victim remains rotting in the grave?

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    50. Re:Am I missing something or by xjerky · · Score: 1

      Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    51. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal neglect and first degree murder are not the same thing.

    52. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of justice fuckface?

    53. Re:Am I missing something or by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Maybe if he says sorry and agrees to shake hands.

      And says it like he means it.

      And no crossed fingers.

    54. Re:Am I missing something or by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      Really, it's not that hard. You need to make sure your children get enough balanced protein, and adequate quantities of iron, B vitamins, and a couple other things. You just have to pay attention.

      Unfortunately, a lot of people never think to pay attention to what they (or their children) eat. It's something you hear from people who become vegans/vegetarians: I got fat, I lost muscle mass, etc. etc. You got fat because you ate nothing but pasta and cheese, you lost muscle mass because you didn't consume enough protein. Eat some spinach and have some tofu. Morons.

    55. Re:Am I missing something or by jguthrie · · Score: 1

      It is my understanding that punishment serves as a deterrent effect, but the deterrence comes from the certainty of the punishment rather than the severity of it. I don't think that the postulate concerning long prison terms leading to murder is likely to be true, primarily due to the large taboo about killing that most people have.

    56. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, yeah, you are missing something. A conscience or moral compass or whatever you want to call it.

      He killed his wife. He's lucky to still be breathing. He was convicted 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Whining about a murderer getting only 15-25 yrs is ... incomprehensible to me.

      And a British couple only getting a few years of COMMUNITY SERVICE for nearly killing their child? Uh, that doesn't put the US system in a bad light, chap.

      I am a serious critic of capital punishment, but I sometime worry that you folks in Europe and elsewhere are seriously losing any sense of the value of life when I read posts like this.

      "extremely long terms in prison"??? Are they longer than death? Do they even remotely compare to the damage inflicted upon the innocent? At all?

      Please in the future, before posting something like that, just ... just don't.

    57. Re:Am I missing something or by balthan · · Score: 1

      I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order

      The problem is there is no point. There's no overreaching goal. It's an ad hoc system where special interest groups get to push their own agenda. MADD wants anyone blowing a .06 to be executed, abuse victims want all sexual offenders fitted with radio collars, and politicans are always pushing the latest [adorable victim name]'s Law.

    58. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party. So, people who can make a logical argument with supporting statements are the reason you vote illogically?

      I guess that actually makes sense in a twisted way.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    59. Re:Am I missing something or by xjerky · · Score: 1

      I didn't see being kinder and gentler to murderers as being a logical argument. Nor is it illogical that I'd vote for a party that tends to be harder on murderers, since that's important to me.

      --
      A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
    60. Re:Am I missing something or by raddan · · Score: 1

      Ted Conover covers the philosophical basis for prisons in the U.S. in his book Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing where he took a job as a "correctional officer". This book was given to me by a friend who was at C.O. at the time, and he confirmed that there is quite a bit of confusion as to what the ultimate point of prison is. In some ways, it doesn't matter-- if the people who enact the system have a particular philosophy, it doesn't mean much if that philosophy isn't shared by the correctional staff. My own impression from the contact I had with other C.O.'s is that these guys try not to think about it much-- they're there to crack skulls when people get out of line. Most of them tend to see the system as flawed and corrupt, but it's not really their problem.

    61. Re:Am I missing something or by blincoln · · Score: 1

      When I was vegan, I was really watching what I ate, and I still wasn't getting something that I needed in my diet. As soon as I added dairy back in, I felt much healthier and had more energy. I was eating plenty of tofu, beans, and other vegan protein sources, so it wasn't just a lack of protein in general.

      Looking back on when I was growing up, even that level of paying attention to what I ate would have been completely improbable. So unless a child's parents are going to micromanage their diet, it still seems too risky to me.

      I do hope that after vat-grown meat becomes common the dairy industry moves to a similar model of not using actual cows to produce their product. They (well, most of them) already treat their animals like parts in a machine, so I imagine that a cyborg stomach/udder in a box with three ports (nutrients in, waste out, milk out) would make everyone involved happier.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    62. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I didn't see being kinder and gentler to murderers as being a logical argument. That's because it's not. But that's not what he wrote, it must be all that you understood though, else you would not have cited it, right?
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    63. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order. That last half of your statement may not be a part of many peoples concept of justice when it comes to certain types of crime. For many people, if the crime you commit is severe enough, you just aren't wanted back in society under any circumstance. Some crimes are unforgivable and the punishments for such crimes don't end - at least not until death. Some people may think this is barbaric but, for others, it's simply the ultimate form of justice for societies worst offenders.

      I can see both sides of the issue but, honestly, I don't have a problem with simply disposing of (execution or life imprisonment) people like violent killers or child rapists. I don't want such people back in society even if they are 'reformed'. They've willfully and utterly destroyed innocent lives and nothing short of having their lives destroyed in return is sufficient punishment for them.
    64. Re:Am I missing something or by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 1
      "Presumably the DA wouldn't leak something about a deal of that nature unless he's really bad at his job."

      Or if he was running for reelection and wanted a little extra publicity about how he put away a 100% definitely guilty murderer.

    65. Re:Am I missing something or by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If that was the nature of the discussions, then there would be no discussion at all. Reiser has been convicted. There's no reason for him to talk to the DA unless he wants to, and if he doesn't want to try to make a deal, then he can tell the DA to shove off. Talking can only hurt him.

      I realize that the problem with this logic is that this is what his lawyer would be telling him, and as we already know, Reiser doesn't put much stock in that (though I'd hope he'd learned something). So maybe Reiser is engaged in exactly that discussion, just because he wants to be able to continue talking about how innocent and also brilliant he is.

      Still, "ongoing discussions" does make me think that they are at least discussing the possibility of some kind of deal.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    66. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what do you suggest for murder? 12 months?

      Assuming 28 day months. On Venus.

    67. Re:Am I missing something or by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, when you started consuming dairy again, did you also start eating eggs?

    68. Re:Am I missing something or by Karma+Sink · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. This vegan thing is just getting out because people are just finally becoming stupid enough to try to raise their children as vegans. There is no ignorance defense regarding the fact that drunk driving is dangerous and kills people. It's impossible to legally drive and not know that.

      That's the major difference. It's possible to be a fairly rational adult in most respects in the United States and still have stupid opinions regarding nutrition and doctors. When everyone knows you can't feed a kid a vegan diet, I'll buy that it's worth a 25 year sentence. Until it's something that's filtered down to retarded vegans, I don't think that's fair.

      To go a bit further with it; I think that these cases are getting enough publicity (and being turned into House episodes, and etc) that this moment is starting to come very quickly.

      --

      When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
    69. Re:Am I missing something or by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that his wife liked to cut herself in the car, that the car seat just really needed to be junked, and that any car is more fun to sleep in after you hose it down with water. (Or maybe the water is for those fishes you're talking about...)

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    70. Re:Am I missing something or by rtechie · · Score: 1

      On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison?

      Two reasons:

      1) The American prison system is based on the notion that it is mainly younger people, aged 18-45 who commit crimes. So the idea is to keep "criminal types" in prison until they hit age 45 (18 + 25 years is 43) whereupon they will commit few crimes upon release.

      2) A large percentage of the prison (not jail) system is privatized. Prison corporations make more money the longer people are in jail due to economy of scale. A prisoner held for 25 years generates more revenue (proportionately) than one held for 5 years because the longer a prisoner is held (with exceptions) the LESS it costs to hold them per year. Private prisons actually want more life imprisonment because older (65+) prisoners aren't very violent, and generate more revenue for the prison company because they demand more money for elder care (which they basically don't provide).

    71. Re:Am I missing something or by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      Another reason Reformation is given short shrift is that we havent' had a lot of luck with it in the US, and that goes back WAYYY before the War of Drugs, etc.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    72. Re:Am I missing something or by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      Our sentences are capricious and wildly fluctuating. That said, they're usually too short. You can beat the piss out of an 80 year old woman and half kill her and spend a year or two in prison, but go out and do some drugs and spend 10 years in prison.

      As for loose ends, there are seldom cases without loose ends. He obviously did it, and he should be in prison for life. If there were no loose ends he should be executed. Vicious scum like that should never be loosed in society again. People who severely neglect or abuse children should also be in prison for life. Let out the non-violent offenders much more quickly and spend the resources on housing murderous POS's like Reiser.

      Hopefully he does get passed around the prison block like a used condom, he deserves it not only for what he did to his wife but for the legacy he's left his children. He deserves to be brutalized to no end.

    73. Re:Am I missing something or by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      God, what's wrong with you people? Why are you defending this murderer? There seem to be two extremes. There are the Joe Average jurors who are dumb as dirt and let people like OJ out, or who don't understand the case and just decide on "feeling".

      Then there are the middle tier people like the Reiser defenders who think they're very smart and find numerous nitpick after nitpick to try to convince themselves they're being fair, impartial, and rational when in fact they're doing no such thing.

      There is plenty of evidence that he did it to convict him. You people will probably still try to claim he's innocent if/when he does lead them to the body and confess, or you'll use some pathetic "but based on the evidence at hand in the trial, he could have been innocent!" argument. It's just silly.

      He did it. There is evidence he did it, tons of it. "Circumstantial" evidence isn't a bad kind of evidence, like many of you seem to think. You start with a premise, and you narrow down all the possible causes of that premise until you're left with only one explanation that fits the case beyond a reasonable doubt. e.g. person missing, blood found, odd behavior, attempts to hide evidence, etc... Each and every item that points towards Reiser to the exclusion of other explanations for her being missing builds the case until it reaches the threshold beyond which a reasonable person would not be able escape the conclusion that he murdered her to the the exclusion of all other resonable explanations.

      This isn't the god damned Star Trek holodeck with Sherlock Homes and Mr. Watson finding a smoking gun and a body hidden in the basement, you pathetic dweebs. This is real life and except in the case of the 105IQ set killing someone you're not going to find a whole mess of incontrovertible hard evidence for a murder like this.

    74. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I generally concur with your views, but with a few modifications. I believe that for the death penalty to be applied, the bar must be set higher than "beyond a reasonable doubt" to something perhaps best expressed as "all but absolute certainty". If that level of proof cannot be met, then life without parole should be the harshest sentencing allowed. Also, I believe there should be some exceptions to your recidivism idea. You mentioned serial killers; I'd include those who murder for hire, and given enough thought there are probably a few other (admittedly uncommon) categories of murderers for whom the death penalty could reasonably be applied at the first conviction.

      - T

    75. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a side note, whats with those extremely long terms in prison?
      Folk in the USA just seem to like harsh punishments. Amateur psychologists often muse that it may be a relic of the frontier society; other people prefer to draw attention to the difficulties of policing a country so big. Either way, Reiser is actually being treated pretty leniently compared to what he'd have faced in some parts of the USA. Decades behind bars followed by release as an old and broken man may be a harsh punishment for a man whose conviction is open to very reasonable doubt (at least as to the degree of the crime), but it's better than decades on Death Row followed by execution.
    76. Re:Am I missing something or by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      People who want a penal system which has the same level of deterrence, a lower recidivism rate and produces productive members of society? I'd have thought a Republican would be all for a penal system which was cheaper to run and better for the economy. Perhaps you'll understand the selfish POV: shorter sentences with effective reform mean you pay less tax.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    77. Re:Am I missing something or by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      My experience with vegans, living with them and working with them, is that it isn't so much about the dietary discipline (which is pretty substantial) but about the 'animal rights' political agenda. These have been people who, for example, won't use leather.

      Veganism as political movement.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    78. Re:Am I missing something or by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well, in America, it's pretty much a given that even if you spend 6 months in prison, you're never going to have much of a chance at a normal life outside again. You're never going to have a real, legitimate job, of the kind that pays enough to support a family.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    79. Re:Am I missing something or by jafac · · Score: 1

      Another point is to create a permanent underclass who will never be employable again in their lives, so that they will be forced to take lower-paying jobs. When significant numbers of people are permanently marked like this, for non-violent drug offenses, then before you know it, you've got the next-best-thing to a slave-labor force: slave-labor, that has to pay for their own housing and car-insurance!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    80. Re:Am I missing something or by rtechie · · Score: 1

      The only way to make sure society is protected from such individuals is to ensure they do not have the opportunity to ever hurt anyone again. The only way to make sure society is protected from such individuals is to execute every last man, woman, and child in society. No people means no criminals.

      Many people seem to be under the delusion that "criminals" are somehow fundamentally different from other people. People who commit crimes, even violent crimes, are fundamentally identical to you, me, and everyone else. The difference is that when confronted with an unusual situation they made a bad decision. That's it.

      Take Hans Reiser. Assuming he was released in a few years, what is the ACTUAL chance he would re-offend? Approximately zero. He only murdered Nina because of a particular set of circumstances involving custody and divorce. These are extremely unlikely to occur again, and even if they do, it's not likely Reiser would react in the same way. OJ hasn't killed anyone else either.

      So the main reason Reiser is getting life is revenge/deterrence, not to "protect society".

    81. Re:Am I missing something or by dwye · · Score: 1

      Well, in America, it's pretty much a given that even if you spend 6 months in prison, you're never going to have much of a chance at a normal life outside again. You're never going to have a real, legitimate job, of the kind that pays enough to support a family.

      Yeah. You'll be stuck living as an author, actor, and political commentator, like G. Gordon Libby. Or a gun designer working for various Firearms companies, like "Carbine" Williams. Or living the life of Abignale, working for the FBI, catching other criminals.

    82. Re:Am I missing something or by dwye · · Score: 1

      The often touted left-wing claim that the right-wing claims that if the criminals are treated well, they would want to go to jail is a completely unfounded fabrication. In countries that do treat their criminals like human beings, convicts still prefer freedom over incarceration, no matter how benign it otherwise is.

      Fixed it for you.

      Of course they mind short sentences in minimum security. Just because someone can do a short sentence "standing on his head" does not mean that they would want to, anymore than I like paying $50 for parking violations, or $150 for a speeding ticket; it just means that they don't mind it much.

    83. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Loose ends? Her blood was in his car!

      Please don't make him into another OJ. You know what I mean, trading it's-completely-ob

    84. Re:Am I missing something or by Workaphobia · · Score: 1

      Sounds right to me. It's along the same lines as a maximum sentence of 40 years for allowing a minor to observe porn on a spyware ridden computer.

      Must just be you.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    85. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Yes, I want to argue that people who starve their children to death are bad people.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    86. Re:Am I missing something or by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Punishment here seems to fit the crime The modern penal system in civilized countries does not (make that "should not") have punishment as an objective.

      I mean, I understand where you're coming from, and I even agree with your sentiment, but these things have been tested and studied a lot, and society as a whole benefits more from trying to reform criminals (even while some cannot be reformed) than to lock them up and throw away the key.
    87. Re:Am I missing something or by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      That was not the logical conclusion of your argument, however.

      The logical conclusion of your argument is that anyone who takes life is entirely unable to integrate into society, and you state it yourself, although in many more words.

      As that is obviously foolish, why should this reduction of your argument be any less foolish?

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    88. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Touchy, touchy--never understand why merely saying that one is a republican can warrant such scorn and hate--"voting illogically?" Seriously, let's not be so judgmental! Respect diversity of intellect as well as skin color and sexuality!

      If you or the GGGP actually cared about crime stats, there's a lot you could read and learn. There's a guest blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look.

    89. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      but go out and do some drugs and spend 10 years in prison. Please back that up with some data?
    90. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      2) A large percentage of the prison (not jail) system is privatized. Prison corporations make more money the longer people are in jail due to economy of scale. ... Private prisons actually want more life imprisonment because older (65+) prisoners aren't very violent, and generate more revenue for the prison compan Even IF what you say is true (and I dispute that--feel free to provide some backing evidence), for what you say to have any relevance at all, there would have to be collusion between all lawyers (defense+prosecuting), judges, police, and Big Prison Co. Is that really what you're claiming?

      I know it's always easy to see connections that aren't there, but do you have any evidence, any suggestions, anything, that would give any backing to your conspiracy theory?
    91. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Here in Denmark we used to have next to no high speed chases, when police came you would generally just give up, get the slap on your wrist, serve the time and get back out for a second try. Lately sentences has gone up, crime has become more violent (but less frequent) and you hear about high speed chases about once a week. Do I even need to say that correlation != causation? Is it not possible that there are a variety of other economic / social / etc issues that might contribute?

      Yes it sucks that people only serve 6 months in jail for rape (in Denmark), but at what point have they suffered enough? The point is also to stop offenders from offending. The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs can vary very widely. Repeat offenders are a huge problem in many jurisdictions.

      One way in which Europe tends to be far better than the US is that the mentally ill tend to be forcibly institutionalized in greater numbers in Europe. (read an interesting study once comparing US+European incarceration rates--including mental health hospitals/institutions along with prisons and jails, the number of incarcerations is much closer--still higher in America, but much closer) In America, many of those people end up in jail.
    92. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Touchy, touchy--never understand why merely saying that one is a republican can warrant such scorn and hate--"voting illogically?" Stupid, stupid. My response has nothing to do with him claiming to vote republican. My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification. In essence he made the idiot's response to a reasoned argument and I called him an idiot for doing so.

      If you or the GGGP actually cared about crime stats, there's a lot you could read and learn. There's a guest blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look. If you gave a shat you'd at least state your thesis - i.e. what do you think these 'crime stats' mean, furthermore you'd actually post a link to the specific discussion instead of just wave your hands in the air. BUT, considering your total lack of insight into this thread so far I think you are just committing an act of mental masturbation in public simply because it gets you off.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    93. Re:Am I missing something or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly "life in prison" is 100% punitive in nature and intent. I think many US citizens understand that (myself included).

      However, your point about extended stays for lesser crimes not being consistent with "correctional" goals is a good one. I think it suggests flaws in our system but does not necesarily reflect a flaw in the idea that correctional measures can take a long time to implement.

      As to your comparison of correctional measures, I'm not sure how community service "corrects" people prone to mistreatment their own children any more than years in prison.

    94. Re:Am I missing something or by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is no evidence that long sentences or the death penalty adds deterrence, so you could remove that from your list of benefits of ultra long sentences. The risk of getting caught, on the other hand, is a huge deterrant, so that's where you should put your time and money if you want to reduce crime.

    95. Re:Am I missing something or by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Bit touchy today aren't you? I didn't say he didn't do it nor was I defending him. It's just that in a lot of public cases a lot of people tend to make up their "facts" by what sensationalism-mongering the press reports.

      Usually after a couple of years of trial and negotiations no one cares anymore if the initial accusations were correct. For example Michael Jackson will always be a child molester to some people even though his name should now be cleared.

      Reiser was always a murderer to some people right from the start because it was repeated over and over.

      I don't really care either way...

    96. Re:Am I missing something or by Raenex · · Score: 1

      nor was I defending him Yes you were, when you stated ' "Beyond reasonable doubt" my ass...'. That's what everybody who defends him says: That there's reasonable doubt.

      Except in this case, I don't see reasonable doubt. The missing car seat, washing out his car, and claims to having slept in the washed out car don't make any sense. He had the motive, the opportunity, and his behavior all point to murder. At some point you have to stop saying "well maybe" and assume guilt.

      Reiser was always a murderer to some people right from the start because it was repeated over and over. And to some people he was innocent right from the start because they looked up to him.
    97. Re:Am I missing something or by Loibisch · · Score: 1

      Great...the forums just ate my post when I unfolded your previous message to check on a thing you said...so here's everything in about half the space:

      - I'm not saying the guy is innocent, just that there's not enough to put him in prison for life (no matter if he did it or not)
      - all the 'suspicious behavior' you mentioned are only the few (potentially misleading) things that got reported in big media.
      - I, too, thought the guy was guilty beyond any doubt before I started reading a (heavily biased but still accurate) log of the trial's happenings. Let's just say hosing down your car is much less suspicious if you've just come back from Burning Man Festival.
      - I'm not looking up to this guy in any way.

      Thing is he might have done it, he might not. Without a body you only have 'suspicious behavior' which is not the same as 'cold, hard evidence' in my book.

      Anyway, last thing I'm saying in this case because even just trying to prove my point (media reports rule the public opinion in such a 'big' case) I start to sound like a Reiser nutcase.

    98. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      No, that is not my argument. I said anyone who is guilty of committing murder in the first degree will always be a threat to society and can never be trusted to integrate back into it. There's a enormous difference between just "taking a life" and "first degree murder".

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    99. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Many people seem to be under the delusion that "criminals" are somehow fundamentally different from other people. People who commit crimes, even violent crimes, are fundamentally identical to you, me, and everyone else. The difference is that when confronted with an unusual situation they made a bad decision. That's it.


      No, someone guilty of first degree murder is fundamentally different than you and me. By definition they decided--having taken reasonable time to cool off and think things through--that they could take away someone else's right to live. This is not a crime of passion, this is not an accidental killing, this is not a bad choice made in the heat of the moment. This is a premeditated act. A conscious decision made with full awareness of the gravity of their actions. This is not the action of a reasonable individual. This isn't a case of "I made a mistake." And once someone has shown they are capable of such an act, it is society's responsibility to ensure they do not get another chance.

      Seriously, we're not talking about shoplifting here.

      OJ hasn't killed anyone else either.

      Sounds like he came relatively close recently...

      Let's play a game. You come up with examples of murderers who were put to death and killed again afterwards and I'll come up with examples of murderers who were paroled/escaped/served their time and killed again. You can go first.
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    100. Re:Am I missing something or by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      They've taken away someone's most basic right, the right to their own life. Law exists to protect rights, and so there can be no compromise in this regard.

      You are changing your statement, then?

      The logical analysis of this statement is that there can be no legal compromise on those who take life.

      This is especially true because the definition of 'murder in the first degree' is solely a legal construct, and people who are guilty of committing it may or may not actually have taken a life (and there is very little other than legal technicalities that separates murder in the first degree from, say, murder in the second degree).

      There is a distinct difference between someone who is guilty of murder in the first degree and someone who takes a life; the two concepts may overlap at various points but they are in no way synonymous.

      It appears you are mixing two dissimilar concepts (taking a life and first degree murder) and then comparing them through two different lenses (societal reintegration and the law) and coming up with necessarily muddled and indistinct answers.

      Moreover, you seem to be taking the ground that societal integration is a static concept that does not take into account the society one is integrating into.
      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    101. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Stupid, stupid. And Ad Hominems! Well done :-)

      My response has nothing to do with him claiming to vote republican. My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification. Except he didn't say any such thing! If you're going to chastise me for "not giving a shat," "mental masturbation," and being "stupid, stupid" you might want to consider attempting to avoid the same thing!

      If you gave a shat you'd at least state your thesis I don't have a thesis, I'm not by any means an expert on crime and imprisonment, and I'm not going to armchair quarterback it here.

      furthermore you'd actually post a link to the specific discussion instead of just wave your hands in the air. I'd be delighted to help you out. FYI, you could have just googled for "Volokh Conspiracy." The link is volokh.com. You can just scan down to posts by "James Q. Wilson" and the ensuing discussions below. This is a lawyer blog (though many non-lawyers have joined the comments lately).

      BUT, considering your total lack of insight into this thread so far I think you are just committing an act of mental masturbation in public simply because it gets you off Pot, kettle? No need to be so hyper aggressive, I provided a link to a resource of further information. You obviously didn't feel it necessary to check it out, and instead decided it would be much better to attack someone who you (perhaps mistakenly!) believe you disagree with!
    102. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      You are changing your statement, then?


      No, my statement was made in context of this statement:

      Someone convicted of first degree murder won't be able to re-integrate to society after 25 years in prison. But the term of the prison sentence has nothing to do with that.


      Don't try to take quotes out of context to change my meaning.

      This is especially true because the definition of 'murder in the first degree' is solely a legal construct


      As is the difference between "lawful combat" and "murder". As is the difference between "statutory rape" and "consensual sex". I could do this all day, really.

      There is a distinct difference between someone who is guilty of murder in the first degree and someone who takes a life; the two concepts may overlap at various points but they are in no way synonymous.


      Yes, and that's my point. An individual guilty of murder in the first degree is beyond help. They have proven they have the capability to purposely deprive another person of their life in a situation where a reasonable person would have have "cooled off" or reconsidered. That is what sets them apart from those guilty of second degree murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide. All four classes of individual have taken a life, but only one has done it in a premeditated manner.

      It appears you are mixing two dissimilar concepts (taking a life and first degree murder) and then comparing them through two different lenses (societal reintegration and the law) and coming up with necessarily muddled and indistinct answers.


      No, the only muddling here is where you take an entire argument and pick select quotes out of context in an attempt to change the meaning of the argument.

      Moreover, you seem to be taking the ground that societal integration is a static concept that does not take into account the society one is integrating into.


      Yes, I am guilty of making the assumption that any civilized society recognizes an individual's right to exist. If one is being re-integrated to a society where this is not the case, then my entire argument does fall apart, admittedly.
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    103. Re:Am I missing something or by Darby · · Score: 1

      Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican.

      So you're a coward and a fool.
      All Republicans fall into one or more of "coward" "fool" or "traitor".

      You're 2 out of 3 on one stupid bit of "reasoning".

    104. Re:Am I missing something or by Darby · · Score: 1

      Touchy, touchy--never understand why merely saying that one is a republican can warrant such scorn and hate--"voting illogically?" Seriously, let's not be so judgmental! Respect diversity of intellect as well as skin color and sexuality!

      Because there are no reasons to be a Republican that can't be easily categorized as making them a coward a fool or a traitor.
      It's not a question of diversity of intellect. It's the complete lack of any intellectual basis for supporting that party except for those who seek to get rich off of war and building a police state. Those would be traitors. The rest are cowards and fools.

      I defy you to attempt to provide a valid reason for voting Republican. I will easily show how it falls into one or more of the three.

    105. Re:Am I missing something or by Darby · · Score: 1



      Let's play a game. You come up with examples of murderers who were put to death and killed again afterwards and I'll come up with examples of murderers who were paroled/escaped/served their time and killed again. You can go first.


      Freddy Krueger.

    106. Re:Am I missing something or by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Thing is he might have done it, he might not. Without a body you only have 'suspicious behavior' which is not the same as 'cold, hard evidence' in my book. That's not the way the law works. You don't need a body. This point has been made numerous times in these stories. Even a body isn't proof of Reiser's guilt. What everybody would like is video tape from a God-like observer showing what happened. Sorry, instead what you get is a bunch of circumstantial evidence that, when taken as a whole, points to Reiser committing murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Anyway, last thing I'm saying in this case because even just trying to prove my point (media reports rule the public opinion in such a 'big' case) I start to sound like a Reiser nutcase. You are here passing judgment along with everybody else -- stating that the guilty verdict was incorrect because there was reasonable doubt.
    107. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      And Ad Hominems! Well done :-) Touchy, touchy you were first. Why are you in the kitchen?

      Except he didn't say any such thing! What part of, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party." Is supporting substantiation? Eh? That's ALL he wrote.

      I don't have a thesis, I'm not by any means an expert on crime and imprisonment, and I'm not going to armchair quarterback it here. Ah, so you are posting just to see your words on the screen. I guess I was right about that mental masturbation.

      I'd be delighted to help you out. Apparently not since a website is not a link to a specific discussion on that website. Again, if you wanted to do more than crap in public you would actually post a link to the specific discussion on the website. Why do you bother posting, TWICE now, if you can't be bothered to actually say something useful? Do you get off on playing the, "I know something you have to dig through google to find out" card?

      I provided a link to a resource of further information. You bviously didn't feel it necessary to check it out, Jeesuz chreeist! You posted a couple of words with no meaningful content, no explanation of why anyone should make the effort to check it out. Extremely solipsistic of you.

      If you actually cared about posting coherently there is a lot you could learn. There's a guest blogger over on the Asimbonanga right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look.

      No need to be so hyper aggressive, No need to be so smug and passive aggressive.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    108. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Because there are no reasons to be a Republican that can't be easily categorized as making them a coward a fool or a traitor. That's kind of rough, I guess to quote GW "you're either with us or against us"! I really would like to discuss this with you, but since you've boiled it down to an opinion issue (which it of course is), it's hard to do. Must be nice to see the world so black and white though--much like a certain president ;-)

      I defy you to attempt to provide a valid reason for voting Republican. I will easily show how it falls into one or more of the three. I typically have voted Republican at the national level. At the local level, there essentially is no Republican party (my area votes Democrat around 70+% though I'm in an allegedly "red state") and I often will vote for the Democrat candidates or Libertarian as a "meh" vote. Party policies don't really matter so much on a local level though, so I think we should rightfully focus on the national level.

      Actually, I really consider myself more of an anti-democrat than a republican... but anyway, there are some good things!

      I worked in the intelligence community for a couple of years, before I ultimately couldn't take it any longer. This made a large impression on me. I know Obama has backed down significantly from earlier claims that he will have us withdraw from Iraq immediately, which is good. I think an immediate withdrawal would be a very bad thing. I think Bush's policies had a great deal to do with Libya opening up, which is a good thing. In this case, I think McCain's stated policies are better than Obama's. So is that fool or coward? :-P

      Philosophically, the Republican party does not believe in punitive taxation. I don't believe in punitive taxation. See Obama's recent comments about the capital gains tax. Obama says he would raise capital gains tax even if it meant lower revenue, for a more just society. Most republicans say they want to lower taxes (and in some cases even have). I support a smaller government, so lower taxes are good, and budget shortfalls don't upset me that much either--shortfalls force cutbacks. I think this probably falls under "fool" again?

      I am torn on the issue of abortion, but I will play the devil's advocate here. I believe that the government has a responsibility to protect human life--and this includes the unborn. I am not against condoms, sex ed, or any of that good stuff, I merely think the government has a duty to protect living human beings. I'm assuming this will put me in the "fool" category again?

      I believe that free trade benefits everybody, and the Republican party (though with some protectionist elements) is more free trade than the Democratic party. Fool?

      I find Mccain's attitude and proposals dealing with subprime/mortgage issues/etc to be better than Obama's. Support a much more limited bailout. Fool?

      It really must be nice to be so certain in your righteousness :-)
    109. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Why are you in the kitchen? What kitchen?

      What part of, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party." Is supporting substantiation? Eh? That's ALL he wrote. Ok, to attempt to avoid selective quoting, YOU said "My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles." You already quoted above what he said...where does he say he votes against his principles? Do you 100% agree with every single policy of Obama, the Democrat Party, or whatever party or candidate you choose to vote for? I highly doubt it! If there is a candidate or party out there that I agree with 100%, I have yet to find it! That's the point. The assumption that voting for somebody or something that you don't 100% agree with means going against your principals is a rather simplistic and unrealistic view.

      Apparently not since a website is not a link to a specific discussion on that website. Again, if you wanted to do more than crap in public you would actually post a link to the specific discussion on the website. Why do you bother posting, TWICE now, if you can't be bothered to actually say something useful? Do you get off on playing the, "I know something you have to dig through google to find out" card? I didn't even know that was a card!! Whee, I can have fun with that ;-)

      If I offended you by just giving you the main link, I apologize. The way this--and many other academic blogs [and more general blogs to for that matter]--work is that a series of bloggers will often write on similar issues. Thus there are often a number of topical frontpage stories.

      It really is a very interesting blog too, if you're at all interested, but anyhow, I will gladly provide you the direct links you ask for:

      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212959006.shtml
      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212699333.shtml
      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213046433.shtml
      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213046814.shtml
      http://www.volokh.com/posts/1213047646.shtml

      There's a good bit of good information in there, and a lot of the comments are also by cj experts / workers. I enjoyed it, I hope you find it at all interesting.

      Jeesuz chreeist! You posted a couple of words with no meaningful content, no explanation of why anyone should make the effort to check it out. Extremely solipsistic of you. hold on a second ... You mean you're more than just words on a screen?

      If you actually cared about posting coherently there is a lot you could learn. There's a guest blogger over on the Asimbonanga right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look. I get your attempted -- humor, whatever --but it didn't really work. If you google for "Volokh Conspiracy" (or use the link I provided at your requests) it's right there.

      FWIW, I googled and was unable to find an Asimbonanga blog :-P

      No need to be so smug and passive aggressive. I'm really sorry my posts upset/irritate/whatevered you so much. If you don't want to go to the blog, don't! End of story, I'm happy with the thread ending at that! It hardly seems worthwhile to go profane and excoriate me over that!
    110. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      What kitchen? That would be the one that is too hot for you and is in the house made out of glass.

      Ok, to attempt to avoid selective quoting.... 100% ... 100% ... 100% Better than selective quoting, you are making up quotes now. I never said "100% against his principles" I said, "vote against his principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification." Again WHERE IS THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT? Where is the justification?

      If I offended you You offended me with the "touchy touchy" shit, you offended me with your trivializing accusation that I was criticizing the guy for claiming to vote republican rather than for just spouting off a meaningless flame. You offended me with your smug assertion that, "there's a lot [I] could learn" if I would just go off and google something I've never heard of and dig through a bunch of crap to get some point that you only felt was worth hinting at up front.

      Your original post was little better than noise, it took two more posts and a lot of brow-beating before you actually bothered to make a minimal contribution to the discussion. That was fucking rude of you. You should not have been surprised that your rudeness was returned. Don't fool yourself into thinking that being blunt is any worse than being smug and trivializing.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    111. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I said, "vote against his principles with nothing more than an unsupported statement as his justification." Again WHERE IS THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT? Where is the justification? I really don't know where the supporting statement is! That was my point--he never claimed to vote against his principles, and there have been what--5?--back and forth posts arguing about one sentence which we clearly interpret entirely differently! You see something illogical/inconsistent, I don't see it. I think we've hashed this one to death!

      You offended me with the "touchy touchy" shit, you offended me with your trivializing accusation that I was criticizing the guy for claiming to vote republican rather than for just spouting off a meaningless flame. I sincerely apologize for even considering that you might be a little touchy!

      It does seem to me that you were criticizing him for voting Republican, though you of course know what you meant better than I do.

      You offended me with your smug assertion that, "there's a lot [I] could learn" if I would just go off and google something I've never heard of and dig through a bunch of crap to get some point that you only felt was worth hinting at up front. I'm sorry you felt offended by that--it really is an excellent blog (the #1 blawg!), and I hope that you don't let your anger at me affect taking a look at it. I've learned a lot there, and there are some really interesting discussions (it also doesn't tend to devolve into profane flame fests!). I really am a little mystified about why referring you (and whoever else) to an interesting blog (even if I didn't link to a specific post) merits such wrath though... All my posts will be properly cited in the future, consider me chastised, I won't even THINK of referring to a blog by name without explicitly linking! ;-)

      That was fucking rude of you. You should not have been surprised that your rudeness was returned. Don't fool yourself into thinking that being blunt is any worse than being smug and trivializing. I'm very sorry you feel that way. As I have said multiple times, it was not my intention to make you upset as you clearly are.

      I think we're done here? Take it easy!
    112. Re:Am I missing something or by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      Don't try to take quotes out of context to change my meaning.

      I don't have to try to take quotes out of context. You aren't using them in context. You're mixing sociopolitics and the law where they shouldn't be mixed- someone's guilt or innocence before the law does not determine either their actions or their ability to integrate into society. Guilt or innocence before the law is purely a legal construct.

      As is the difference between "lawful combat" and "murder". As is the difference between "statutory rape" and "consensual sex". I could do this all day, really.

      Yes, indeed. Hence my point that one who is guilty of murder may, in fact, have killed no-one. The two are not directly linked concepts, and they're certainly not equivocal.

      Yes, and that's my point. An individual guilty of murder in the first degree is beyond help. They have proven they have the capability to purposely deprive another person of their life in a situation where a reasonable person would have have "cooled off" or reconsidered. That is what sets them apart from those guilty of second degree murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide. All four classes of individual have taken a life, but only one has done it in a premeditated manner.

      Again, you make the same errors in logic you made originally. A person guilty of first-degree murder has, in fact, proven or shown nothing of the sort. A person guilty of first-degree murder has had it shown beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact they committed a crime which was classified as first-degree murder.

      The distinction is obvious, because soldiers also have proven that they have the capability to purposefully and intentionally deprive another person of their life (I have no idea from where you drew the 'in a situation where a reasonable person would have 'cooled off' or reconsidered as that is not a part of the law in any jurisdiction I am aware of). However, as the law defines what constitutes a murder, soldiers are not guilty of first degree murder under the law. (Even, in fact, in situations where a reasonable person would have cooled off or reconsidered.)

      Yes, I am guilty of making the assumption that any civilized society recognizes an individual's right to exist. If one is being re-integrated to a society where this is not the case, then my entire argument does fall apart, admittedly.

      Civilized society does no such thing. Civilized society realizes an individual's right to exist balanced against numerous other rights, and realizes therefore that sometimes that right can be violated.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    113. Re:Am I missing something or by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I really don't know where the supporting statement is! That was my point--he never claimed to vote against his principles, Oh pishaw. Do you mean to say that you honestly believe that, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party," is at all a meaningful statement? You think that was a useful and worthwhile post that added to the discussion? A legitimate response to a logical argument with reasoned support?
      SERIOUSLY?

      It's clear to me that you don't believe that, that's why you keep arguing around the edges of it. Making up BS like the 100% baloney (with which you betrayed your understanding and then realized your claim was quite weak so you had to bolster it with a strawman argument). His post was pure tripe and I called him on it.

      I think that you are the one who is overly sensitive to the 'republican' thing, I never said a word about it. Its you who seems to think that "republican" == "voting illogically" despite the context of the rest of the sentence -- "people who can make a logical argument with supporting statements are the reason you vote illogically?"

      All my posts will be properly cited in the future, consider me chastised, I won't even THINK of referring to a blog by name without explicitly linking! ;-) The point is that if you are going to come in and essentially call someone names, you better have your ducks in a row. Just like the first guy's post was pure invective with nothing meaningful to say, so too was yours. You just tried to cover it up by pinning it all on an obscure reference.

      If you had sincerely wanted to contribute to the discussion, you would have left all that crap out and simply said - "There have been some interesting discussion about this stuff with actual numbers at the Volokh Conspiracy website. You guys ought to take a look." Instead you tried to slyly "armchair quarterback" while denying it at the same time.

      The difference is intent. You get slack for good intentions, you don't get slack for being a jerk.

      I think we're done here? Take it easy! Yeah, yeah. Your smarmy and conceited apologies have been soo authentic.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    114. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Oh pishaw. Do you mean to say that you honestly believe that, "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party," is at all a meaningful statement? You think that was a useful and worthwhile post that added to the discussion? A legitimate response to a logical argument with reasoned support?
      SERIOUSLY? I don't think I've ever once said it was meaningful? Or that it added to the discussion? Or that it was arguing, etc etc? I thought it was YOU claiming that that one sentence meant (in your words) "My response is all about him claiming to vote against his own principles " ... there was never any claim of voting against principle...that's all!

      It's clear to me that you don't believe that, that's why you keep arguing around the edges of it. Making up BS like the 100% baloney (with which you betrayed your understanding and then realized your claim was quite weak so you had to bolster it with a strawman argument). His post was pure tripe and I called him on it. I believe exactly what I said, and have said--the GGGGGGGGP never indicated he was voting against his principles. I was attempting to show you how your statement didn't make sense--as you rightly point out, all he said was "Wow....people like you are why I vote Republican. And there's much that I don't like about that party." .. that's it .. nothing about "claiming to vote against his own principles."

      I'm unsure what the strawman you're referring to is? You claim that the original poster is "voting against his own principles" because he says "there's much [he doesn't] like about that party." I responded by pointing out that nobody (or at least very few people!) agree with everything of a party or candidate, therefore, there's nothing inconsistent voting for a party even if there are things you don't like!

      Thus, when you said "people who can make a logical argument with supporting statements are the reason you vote illogically?" still does not make sense to me as I (and the original poster) do not understand your logic in determining his illogic. Unfortunately, I replied, and he did not :-P

      Talk about a mountain out of a molehill!

      You just tried to cover it up by pinning it all on an obscure reference. Sir, with all due respect, the #1 (#2 depending on who you as) blawg can hardly be considered obscure! This is slashdot after all, not digg!

      Yeah, yeah. Your smarmy and conceited apologies have been soo authentic. You want to think I'm being "smarmy," "conceited," "mentally masturbating," "smug," "rude," "passive aggressive," "stupid, stupid," "not giving a shat," "a jerk," etc, be my guest (anything else you want to toss out there while you're at it? This is definitely a personal record for being slandered on slashdot :-P). I am sorry that my posts angered you, though you are of course able to take it or leave it, believe it or not. I've attempted to respond to just about everything you've said, though once again it's obvious you're unhappy with the quality of my reply.

      Cheers, take it easy!
    115. Re:Am I missing something or by Splab · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      But also remember being a vegan for adult is less of a problem than forcing a child to be so. While adults still will be subject to deficiencies the consequences will be far greater for a child. I've been raised with quite a lot of knowledge about diet and what the body needs - but this is by no means common knowledge, it is a very real possibility that the parents in those cases did what they thought was the best for their child.

    116. Re:Am I missing something or by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Even IF what you say is true (and I dispute that--feel free to provide some backing evidence), for what you say to have any relevance at all, there would have to be collusion between all lawyers
      (defense+prosecuting), judges, police, and Big Prison Co. Is that really what you're claiming? You're disputing the existence of private for-profit prisons in the USA? Yes, they exist. No, I'm not going to give you a link. Use Google. Is your question whether or not they lobby the government? The answer again, is yes. Look up donor lists.Are prosecutors, police and prison industry colluding? Yes. The police and prison guard unions lobby heavily for longer sentences, more prisons, etc. in part because the private prison industry generally pays guards better and give the unions money. For many DAs their largest campaign donors are the police unions and prison industry. Are defense attorneys and judges collaborating with the prison industry? NO! They have generally lobbied against such laws, usually represented by the local Bar. Are you disputing that prisons make more money the longer a person is locked up? That's obvious.

      So here's the question: Does the prison industry lobby specifically for longer sentences? YES. The prison industry here in California campaigned heavily for the so-called "3 strikes" law that drastically increased prison sentences and prison population in California.

      So to be precise I am claiming that prison companies lobby state legislatures, Congress, and promote ballot initiatives that increase prison sentences. Not just in general, but also for specific crimes, like sex crimes. The only conceivable reason they are doing this is to make more money. You're the only person I've ever talked to that seriously questioned this.

    117. Re:Am I missing something or by rtechie · · Score: 1

      By definition they decided--having taken reasonable time to cool off and think things through--that they could take away someone else's right to live. ... And once someone has shown they are capable of such an act, it is society's responsibility to ensure they do not get another chance. Like soldiers, right? They spend YEARS training to kill people. Clearly, we can't allow ex-soldiers back into society, they're deranged. I suggest island colonies (don't laugh, I just described Australia).

      Let's be clear about your reasoning: You are saying that execution (implied in your post) is NECESSARY to prevent recidivism. Not because of moral outrage over the specific crime. You are NOT saying that "murder is bad and we should kill murderers" but "Criminals can not EVER be trusted not to re-offend, so we should kill them."

      Your reasoning could be extended to any crime: armed robbery, rape, shoplifting, etc. Why not kill all the shoplifters? As I said earlier, why not kill EVERYONE? EVERYONE is a "potential criminal".

      This is a premeditated act. So? If your children were being taken away to Russia forever and you would never see them again, how would you react? That was pretty clearly Reiser's motivation. Simply because you lack the imagination to come up with a scenario under which you would commit murder, doesn't mean that "reasonable" people cannot come up with such an scenario. What if someone raped and murdered your wife/mother/sister, was not punished by the law (for whatever reason), and you then stalked and killed the rapist (obvious 1st degree murder)? Should you be executed?

    118. Re:Am I missing something or by Darby · · Score: 1

      That's kind of rough,

      Rough?!? Not at all. It's amazing, given the actions of your party over the last 30 years or so that you would have the audacity to whine about me being "rough". That is exactly the typical never take any personal responsibility for yourself attitude and whine like a little bitch when called on it attitude which leads to the situation I originally pointed out.
      Selling crack to schoolkids to illegally buy weapons for terrorists is "rough". Pointing out that those like yourself who support such activities are lacking in any moral high ground, or even basic human decency, is a simple assessment of the facts. But, please don't let facts get in the way of your whining about how I'm mean.

      I guess to quote GW "you're either with us or against us"!

      Projection.

      You're defending the party which runs on such quotes. You might note that everything Bush was saying at that time were lies designed to sell a war which was part of some hare brained scheme for world domination. The people who weren't with him included every good American. Yes, you have a responsibility to pay attention to what your government is doing and call them on their bullshit. So to point out that people who support the type of treasonous scum that would spout such hatred of America are themselves necessarily sleazy is simple basic honesty.
      To try and claim that pointing out those basic facts makes me somehow a bad person on the level of the monsters you're supporting is deeply dishonest and disgusting.

      I really would like to discuss this with you, but since you've boiled it down to an opinion issue (which it of course is),

      Actually, it's not a question of opinion at all. You can say that you think that what the Republicans have been doing for the last 30 years is "cool" or whatever and that's an opinion. That's meaningless though. Not all opinions are equal, and some are just wrong.
      That Bush is a traitor isn't an opinion, it's a rock solid fact backed up by every scrap of evidence. Why do you think the fools who support him are stuck with nothing but lies and fear mongering about the overblown threat of "OMFGWTFBBQ terrorists are everywhere waaaa mommy". Because there was never anything legitimate behind his actions. The fact the Republicans as a class are too cowardly to admit that they were fooled and learn from it is why we currently have Bush.
      So, facts are facts and all the facts prove my position. Opine about how reality is biased against the poor innocent Republicans all you like, but it only proves you ever more the fool.

      Must be nice to see the world so black and white though--much like a certain president ;-)

      Not at all in any way even similar. We are talking about the scum who elected said president. That is a very damning fact about a person. I knew Bush was wrong. The whole Iraq thing was an obvious scam from the start. If you're so out of touch with reality, so ignorant of basic human nature and so ignorant of history in general, and the specific history of the people involved in that scam as to not have clued into that, then youare a fool by definition.
      Bush's contention was that I, by noticing the obvious fact of his "Big Lie", was a traitor and a terrorist supporter.

      Do you see how the facts are all on one side? How any "opinion" that involves Bush being in the right quite obviously and inevitably could only be held by a fool since it would directly contradict reality?

      So, since you're the one supporting the Republicans, please be man enough to step up and take responsibility for that shit attitude and quit trying to blame the good, decent people who pay attention for your failures as a citizen.

      Party policies don't really matter so much on a local level though, so I think we should rightfully focus on the national level.

      That is the result of the actions of the parties themselves which is a bad thing, but I certainly can't dispute the truth of that.


      Actually,

    119. Re:Am I missing something or by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Like soldiers, right? They spend YEARS training to kill people. Clearly, we can't allow ex-soldiers back into society, they're deranged. I suggest island colonies (don't laugh, I just described Australia).


      Soldiers who commit first degree murder are generally dealt with more harshly by military justice than civilians in the same predicament.

      Let's be clear about your reasoning: You are saying that execution (implied in your post) is NECESSARY to prevent recidivism.


      No, I'm implying it's the only way to be sure a killer does not kill again. That you can't argue with.

      Not because of moral outrage over the specific crime. You are NOT saying that "murder is bad and we should kill murderers"


      Obviously murder is bad, and murderers should be punished. However killing a murderer does nothing to "make right" the wrong he or she has committed. The death penalty's viability as a deterrent is debatable, and I don't think we should be in the revenge business. Likewise, someone who has made a mistake due to negligence, accident, or just acting out in a state of unusual duress doesn't deserve to die for being human. But someone guilty of first degree murder does not fit that mold.

      but "Criminals can not EVER be trusted not to re-offend, so we should kill them."


      You're the one saying that, not me. I'm referring to a very narrowly defined category of individuals.

      So? If your children were being taken away to Russia forever and you would never see them again, how would you react?


      I'd react in accordance of law to prevent that from happening. Failing that, other people have had good luck with hiring people to recover their children from foreign countries. Killing my wife does not solve any of these problems.

      That was pretty clearly Reiser's motivation.


      Considering he hasn't admitted to the crime and explained why he did it, you can't make that claim.

      Simply because you lack the imagination to come up with a scenario under which you would commit murder, doesn't mean that "reasonable" people cannot come up with such an scenario.


      Oh I can very easily imagine scenarios where I would commit murder.

      What if someone raped and murdered your wife/mother/sister, was not punished by the law (for whatever reason), and you then stalked and killed the rapist (obvious 1st degree murder)?


      That's a good one there.

      Should you be executed?


      Yes. It astounds (and frightens) me that you would seriously ask that question.
      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    120. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      any moral high ground, or even basic human decency

      I don't think I ever claimed any moral high ground! IF you're talking about the parties, they of course ALL claim the moral high ground. I don't really understand how people like you can talk about things like "human decency" while flaming, insulting, attacking, denigrating, etc another human being. It goes both ways.

      Projection.

      You're defending the party which runs on such quotes.

      See, the ironic thing is that the INESCAPABLE conclusion of this thread is that it's you who see the world as black and white. Everything I've said where you disagree makes me a fool, a coward or whatever. There's no middleground for you. It's so very partisan, it's bothering! You can see the confusion in your reply as you mention "your party." Well, I told you about how I vote, and I'm an unaffiliated voter. Yes, I tend to vote Republican, and I make no bones about that. Your "us against them" attitude is just so ... overbeearing though! Really, time for some introspection on this one.

      I'm not going to try and claim that the Democrats are "good" in any way shape or form, but compared to the Republicans, they're just not as good at being scum and they're not organized so tightly around that goal.

      At the moment that very well may be true. I'm actually fairly excited for Obama presidency and overwhelmingly Democratic senate+house which I fully expect we'll have. Mostly to see what happens. It's possible we'll get some good out of it, but I'm not holding my breath.

      Well, your narrow ignorant worldview would obviously lead you to that conclusion while ignoring the relevant fact.
      No matter when we withdraw it's going to be a bloodbath. Iraq isn't a nation in any coherent sense and never has been. It's a geographical area set up by the British containing many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other

      I disagree with you, and I wrote my thesis on Ottoman history, so I hopefully no a little bit about this! Boiling the situation down to "many different ethnic and religious groups who largely despise each other" is IMHO the "narrow ignorant worldview" in your words. I disagree about the bloodbath, the situation in Iraq has stabilized remarkably over the past 2 years, and political reconciliation is on the rise.

      d complete contempt for intelligence that characterizes the Republican party is why we're in Iraq

      I also disagree with this. I blame the intel community IN PART for Iraq. Saying it was all Bush is not factual and ignores the role of the CIA, screwball, etc.

      They are the biggest big government party, and have been since 1980. The Democrats are the small big government party.

      I agree both are big government parties, but there are still some (like Ron Paul) in the republican party who have their heads on straight. We still got tax cuts out of Bush, etc. If Democrats are the party of small government, let's reconvene this discussion in 4 years :-)

      Then add in the fact that it's not a question of one "person's" rights. Your position is that if a person ends up pregnant then you, and big daddy government knows far more about what it best for them than they do.

      It's a difficult issue, no doubt.

      Holding a gun to a woman's face and forcing her to bear and raise a child for your benefit is slavery pure and simple.

      If that's what happened, sure it would be slavery. Nobody forces women to raise children though.

      No, the "righteousness" is one of the major problems with the side you chose to defend.

      Righteousness -- that which everyone lacks except the faithful? Let's see, "faithful" is Democrat (or however you like to classify your black and white world view) and if you're a republican you cannot be a good person, because you are a) coward b) fool c)traitor d) all of the above. I think someone has

    121. Re:Am I missing something or by Darby · · Score: 1

      I don't think I ever claimed any moral high ground! IF you're talking about the parties, they of course ALL claim the moral high ground. I don't really understand how people like you can talk about things like "human decency" while flaming, insulting, attacking, denigrating, etc another human being. It goes both ways.

      I'm talking about the policies of the Republican party specifically. Attempting to enact a gay hatred amendment using no rational arguments whatsoever and only claims of moral superiority. Sorry, but if you keep trying to ignore reality and pretend that somehow, magically the gross abuses and assaults on the constitution carried out by the Republican party specifically using explicitly religious arguments as the sole basis of their moral standing, are just supposed to be ignored in favor of pretending both parties are equal, then you will continue to be treated as a fool because you have demonstrated that you will accept nothing else.

      I can talk about human decency perfectly well. I don't vote for people who have completely rejected it. You do not magically deserve to be treated with either courtesy or respect as long as you are defending a political party that treats people who disagree with them *especially in cases when the disagreeers are proven completely correct* far worse than you've been treated here. You do not get to roll around with such scum and then pretend that you magically didn't get any on you. I asked you to provide a valid reason for you choices which have been proven disastrous and all you could do was lie and spout idiotic buzzwords. So, if you want to be treated with respect or courtesy, then you might look at doing that to other people first. Instead of fucking over massive amounts of people through your refusal to pay attention and then whining like a little bitch when your disgusting actions are called for what they are.
      Seriously, you no longer get to play those cards when you gave a big fuck you in the first place.

      See, the ironic thing is that the INESCAPABLE conclusion of this thread is that it's you who see the world as black and white.

      Nope. That is not at all true. It is a fact that to be a Republican still in this day and age after all of their crimes against humanity and this nation requires one to be a traitor a coward or a fool. I offered you a chance to provide a counter example and you completely failed to do it. So has every other Republican whose ever attempted to address that. That is a conclusion based on all of the available evidence.
      That no more demonstrates that my world view is black and white than if I were to state that 2+2 is 4 and that people who believe 2+2=5 are flat out wrong. I'm perfectly willing to help turn this country's political discourse back to reasoned debate, but until the party *you* are defending gives up their policy of turning every debate into a flame war, that's not going to happen.
      You see, you whining to me about calling you and your party out on their real, actual actions does nothing to help that. You need to start talking to other Republicans about it and stop voting for the shitbags who have worked so hard to reduce our political discourse to that.

      You're part of the cause of that problem. I'm already not voting for those scumbags, until you step up and do the same you have no basis to make any such accusations. You keep trotting out Bush's "you're with us or against us", without ever addressing the issue that *you* fucking voted for that. You are still at this moment defending that attitude. That is the type of doublethinking deeply dishonest idiocy which is the root of the problem.

      Everything I've said where you disagree makes me a fool, a coward or whatever. There's no middleground for you. It's so very partisan, it's bothering!

      No, I demonstrated the cowardice and/or foolishness of your positions. There's plenty of middleground for me. It is a fact that the Republican party is completely out of control and working to completely destroy all of the

    122. Re:Am I missing something or by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the policies of the Republican party specifically. Attempting to enact a gay hatred amendment using no rational arguments whatsoever and only claims of moral superiority. Sorry, but if you keep trying to ignore reality and pretend that somehow, magically the gross abuses and assaults on the constitution carried out by the Republican party specifically using explicitly religious arguments as the sole basis of their moral standing, are just supposed to be ignored in favor of pretending both parties are equal, then you will continue to be treated as a fool because you have demonstrated that you will accept nothing else. I'm confused--I don't think I said both parties are equal? I said both parties claim the moral high ground, and they do. Google "Obama Moral High Ground" if you don't believe me :-P

      I asked you to provide a valid reason for you choices which have been proven disastrous and all you could do was lie and spout idiotic buzzwords. So, if you want to be treated with respect or courtesy, then you might look at doing that to other people first. please point out to me where I "lied" ? Don't go off on tangents about how I am a fool, a traitor, a coward, whatever, just be short, to the point, and show me where I lied.

      That is not at all true. It is a fact that to be a Republican still in this day and age after all of their crimes against humanity and this nation requires one to be a traitor a coward or a fool. Whereby it's yet again apparent that I'm being trolled and you didn't read my previous post....

      It's good you're not holding your breath, but if you really think it's possible, then you're still far too pie in the sky and desperately need a reality check. There is no realistic possibility that that will occur. You might want to consider proposing a mechanism by which such a thing would even be possible. Good luck with that. Now you're just being crazy--even a broken clock is right twice a day and sometimes inaction is the best. It's always possible something good will happen by accident! I would also hope the Republican party gets back its balls and can cause a good stalemate. As far as I'm concerned, if the government is NOT doing anything, it's going well.

      That wasn't the definition of intelligence I was using. However, the intel community is largely blameless. The CIA told Bush it was bad unconfirmed intel and not to run with it. I don't agree with this, and I think your facts are incorrect.

      Ron Paul is a Libertarian although he runs Republican. Not according to him... nice of you to put words in his mouth though.

      OK, so I'm perfectly ok to enslave you at gunpoint for 9 months and alter your body at my discretion? If so, no thanks. If no, then your argument just vanished. No, you can't. But you're perfectly able to go on birth control, use a condom, not have sex, and/or use a morning after pill. Coincidentally, most of those things are free. Nobody in this country FORCES anybody to get pregnant.

      It's completely insane and delusional. So let's see, I'm a coward, traitor, fool, and also insane and delusional. I feel the love :-)

      But to completely ignore the actions that people pay and force others to pay to have done when assessing their character as you've chosen to do, is again complete nonsense. This is why I say your worldview is black and white. When have I ever claimed the Republicans are perfect? Have I attempted to defend everything they have done? Absolutely not, I don't agree with many things they have done. You've made the decision that the democrats are the better of the two. I've made the opposite decision.

      Well, you weren't and you've yet to refute any of my points It's pretty hard to refute anything when the invariable response is "I'm right, you're a fool/coward/traitor"
    123. Re:Am I missing something or by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Soldiers who commit first degree murder are generally dealt with more harshly by military justice than civilians in the same predicament. Soldiers, by definition, have committed planned, organized murders and trained extensively to commit more. By your reasoning, every soldier should be executed as soon as they muster out because that is the only way to keep society safe from these trained killers. There is plenty of evidence to support this position. On average soldiers and veterans commit many more violent crimes than non-soldiers.

      Likewise, someone who has made a mistake due to negligence, accident, or just acting out in a state of unusual duress doesn't deserve to die for being human. But someone guilty of first degree murder does not fit that mold. This is incorrect and I think is a very key misconception. Many people convicted of 1st degree murder committed unplanned murders or NO MURDER AT ALL. For example, in the state of California every killing committed at the same time as another crime is considered 1st degree murder. Example, a guy attempts to rob a drug dealer in the street at gunpoint. The drug dealer and the robber get into a gun battle (as both are armed) and the drug dealer shoots the robber in SELF DEFENSE. Under California law, that is considered a 1st degree murder. Had the robber shot the dealer it would also be 1st degree murder. If a stray bullet of either one had killed a bystander it would ALSO be 1st degree murder. If either had somehow accidentally shot and killed themselves, the OTHER ONE would be charged with 1st degree murder. If one of them ran away and in the course of running away they tripped and knocked someone else down and their skill split on the pavement and that person died, it would ALSO be 1st degree murder.

      In most states the law is: If you're committing a crime, and in the course of that crime someone, somehow, dies, your are guilty of 1st degree murder.

      There are other circumstances. In many states, killing a peace officer/police officer under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, including self defense, is considered 1st degree murder.

      Considering he hasn't admitted to the crime and explained why he did it, you can't make that claim. That's what prosecutors believed and it seems the likely motivation base on press account I have read. Besides, You don't make allowance for exigent circumstances, so it really doesn't matter what his motivation is. You've made it clear that you think every person convicted of 1st degree murder should be executed, period.

      BTW, What is your response to the numerous prisoners released from death row recently due to false convictions? This led to a moratorium on execution in many states. Does the notion that many innocent people could be executed under your model upset you?

  9. Got any Line? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great comic strip who didnt believe him HERE.

    Got any lime?

    --
    1. Re:Got any Line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best part of that strip is the tshirt in the last frame (look closely)

  10. Great. by thyrf · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm using the file system of a murderer.

    1. Re:Great. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Wow, because anything that is done/developed/discovered by someone who turns out to be a felon should be purged from society - nevermind the actual merits of the work.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:Great. by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      McKusick is gay, I guess UFS is the filesystem of a fag then, huh?

      Picaso was a Communist and Dali was a fascist, I guess they're art is the art of totalitarians, then, huh?

      Pick technology and art on the technological and artistic merit of the work. If you try and restrict yourself based on philosophy or how you feel about the artist/author, then you're going to have a much lonelier, less fulfilled life.

    3. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I concur - in fact, I know and had worked closely with another programmer that is currently in jail on felony charges. I certainly don't want my product and contribution slandered because that guy was an idiot when he was not at the office.

  11. The Anastasia mail order bride ad by edittard · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone else consider the Anastasia advert to be in bad taste, given the context of the story?

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by 4D6963 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Anyone else consider the Anastasia advert to be in bad taste, given the context of the story? In Soviet Slashdot, Russian bribe adverts consider you to be in bad taste.
      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by nfk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I have always felt insulted by the Anastasia ad, given the geekiness of the Slashdot crowd. We don't order them, we build our own.

    3. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      We don't order them, we build our own.

      It's unlike almost anything else.

      1. You need to already have one to make one.
      2. Any one you make you have to give to someone else*.

      * Not in a underage polygamous way. Just in general, not for you. They'll choose to whom you eventually give them. Just say no to incest.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When reading articles on news sites, I often see similarly inappropriate ads. News story with the death of a parent or child = life insurance ad with a child.

    5. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by sqldr · · Score: 1

      Too right. Someone should adust it to include the blood splats and spade sticking out of her head.

      --
      I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
    6. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by u38cg · · Score: 1

      So it's like those 3D printers we keep hearing about?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    7. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Off Topic - but if anyone was watching the Germany/Poland football game this morning, there was a play where the Germans were controlling the ball down the field, and the announcer came up with this gem.

      "Here comes the March of the Germans on Poland". I wouldn't say that was the most tactful way to say that.

    8. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Funny

      So it's like those 3D printers we keep hearing about?

      Nah, these really exist and can completely reproduce. Just most /.'ers will find it easier to aquire a 3D printer.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:The Anastasia mail order bride ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else consider the Anastasia advert to be in bad taste, given the context of the story? Surely you jest. "In bad taste" is far too mild.

      The Anastasia advert is always in bad taste anyway. In this context it is difficult to put into words the vastness of its bad taste. It asymptotically approaches the ideal Platonic form of bad taste.

      It's like... like black fly in your chardonnay.
  12. Huh?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I thought he was just an innocent dork.

  13. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by JonathanR · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but by now, I reckon they'll only find a few bits.

  14. Here it comes by kericr · · Score: 1

    Hans is about to have the world experience more chaos.

  15. Hans who? by objekt · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    "The story of Hans Reiser is well known to all Slashdotters by now."

    No.

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:Hans who? by mh1997 · · Score: 1

      "The story of Hans Reiser is well known to all Slashdotters by now."

      No.

      The parent was modded for flamebait - Why?

      I think the person made an unfunny joke.

      For what it's worth, I regularly read slashdot, but have completely missed the Hans Reiser stories. I was familiar with his work, but not his personal/legal troubles. I had to look it up on wikipedia and God forbid, RTFA just prior to this posting.

    2. Re:Hans who? by objekt · · Score: 1

      I regularly read /. and do not use linux so I didn't know who he was until I RTFA. My point was: why did the summary not have a link instead of assuming we all know who he is? Wasn't meant as a flame.

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
  16. I would really like to know by Scholasticus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean that some time soon Richard Stallman is going to tell us where the HURD kernel is?

    1. Re:I would really like to know by nitio · · Score: 1
      --
      http://stoploudness.org/
    2. Re:I would really like to know by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      Next to Jimmy Hoffa.

    3. Re:I would really like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He left it next to his deodorant. Now if ony he could remember....

    4. Re:I would really like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's around and useable (for some values of useable). Anyway, the Hurd is no longer a high priority project for the reason of the existance of numerous free kernels. The FSF have changed their direction to more important free software replacements such as .Net, Flash, BIOS, and fully fuctional graphic card drivers.

  17. Let's wait until he does cough it up. by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've got the troll points for arguing that he was guilty from the get-go, and I think that he is. But, in this case, I think before those people who supported him jump off of a mental cliff, let's let the DA actually deliver the body and the proof of Hans's cooperation. The story is believable enough, but, let's let the DA PROVE it first.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Let's wait until he does cough it up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hans did everything he could to make himself look guilty from day 1.

      Every time the cops or media tried to talk to him after his family disappeared, he would cover his face and run, thinking the KGB was after him.

      Brilliant, Einstein.

  18. reasonable doubt by nguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow I feel like a moron for have ever attempted to defend Hans online at all.

    You shouldn't. To most people, even people who "defended" him, it was more likely than not that he was guilty. But the legal criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think based on the publicly released evidence, there was still a reasonable doubt.

    I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there. And there are, indeed, lots of wrongful convictions, so it's not like the system is working perfectly.

    Still, it looks like the jurors were right on this one.

    1. Re:reasonable doubt by alcmaeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes"

      Frankly, that bothers me a whole hell of a lot less than the fact that he was convicted of murder without any significant evidence his wife was dead as opposed to simply missing.

    2. Re:reasonable doubt by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I agree. Most of the evidence was circumstantial, but it doesn't mean that he was innocent. It only meant that there was not any direct evidence he killed her or had anything to do with her disappearance. His behavior and the the indirect evidence really cast suspicions on him. His conflicting testimony also raised some doubts about whether he was telling the truth.

      In a way, this mirrors the Scott Peterson case in California except there was a body. There was some evidence that Scott was involved but nothing definitive. His behavior and his affair raised suspicions. But like this case, the juror saw a defendant who was deceptive.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:reasonable doubt by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Frankly, that bothers me a whole hell of a lot less than the fact that he was convicted of murder without any significant evidence his wife was dead as opposed to simply missing.

      Other her blood in the house and his car, you mean.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:reasonable doubt by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0

      Other than the blood in the house, car and sleeping bag? (And of course, no endometrial cells, indicating menstration.) It has long been held that a body is not necessary to convict someone of murder, and short of that, what other evidence would you require.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:reasonable doubt by Atlantis-Rising · · Score: 1

      If conviction for murder required that they have actually found a body, getting away with murder would be trivial.

      --
      "It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
    6. Re:reasonable doubt by Firehed · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't. To most people, even people who "defended" him, it was more likely than not that he was guilty. But the legal criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I think based on the publicly released evidence, there was still a reasonable doubt.

      So what you're really saying is that we shouldn't feel bad for following the established process that is (was once) associated with the US Justice System. Especially given the general attitude of the open source community, I'd say that's pretty fair.
      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    7. Re:reasonable doubt by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Circumstantial...You can find my blood stains in my house and my car(a lot of it there on the carpet from when I was barefoot and tore a big hole in my heel via a raised screw), yet I'm still alive. According to your reasoning, if I was to go missing I must have committed suicide.

      I think the point here is that while it seems the majority of us here think he's guilty, some would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man's life taken away.

      OJ hasn't had the highest standard of living since his trial, so one can't really argue they completely escape punishment, guilty or innocent, in the court of public opinion.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    8. Re:reasonable doubt by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying; given how many people believe in astrology, mind reading, new age, and other supernatural stuff, I think there there's a lot of potential for bad decision making there.

      I totally agree. Mainly because it's way too easy to deceive. A while ago Tomorrow's World (the BBC's pop-science show) did a series of experiments called "megalab". One of them involved getting a someone to tell the truth and a lie on TV, radio and in print and see in which medium the public were most likely to be able to distinguish. People were worst with TV, better with radio and best with print. Here's a link to a paper refencing it

    9. Re:reasonable doubt by Rallion · · Score: 1

      You can't make a body a requirement for a murder conviction. There are ways to make sure that the body is never found at all -- primarily, by destroying it.

    10. Re:reasonable doubt by jandrese · · Score: 1

      The evidence was circumstantial, but it was pretty damming. If you could never convict someone for murder if you never found the body, then murder becomes a game of hide the body (which it already is to a degree). At some point you have to just weigh the other evidence (nobody has heard from her (not even the family), she hasn't touched any of her bank accounts, she made no preparations for travel, etc..., Hans highly suspicious behavior w.r.t. his car and activites) and use your best judgment. Justice is not perfect, and there is a chance (slim though it may be at this point), that Hans is innocent, but the odds are slim enough that the jury is willing to bet it is not locking up an innocent man.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    11. Re:reasonable doubt by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that beyond reasonable doubt does not imply mathematical certainty.

      In one criminal trial I participated in as a juror the judge had a very good explanation. Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would lead somebody to not make a serious decision, like purchasing a house or car, or starting a business, or whatever. When I bought my home I didn't have a $20k engineering report stating that the home was free of defects, but I did do due-diligence and wouldn't have gone through with the purchase if I had reason to suspect the sellers were dishonest or that there was a possible major flaw.

      Hans is either guilty as sin, or he at least deserves a Darwin award for doing everything he could possibly do to make himself look guilty. His behavior after the crime was extremely suspicious, and his supplied reasons strained any level of credulity. The jurors probably felt that they'd have to be idiots to buy it, and the fact that they probably perceived that Hans considered them dumb enough to buy it didn't help.

    12. Re:reasonable doubt by flibuste · · Score: 1

      If you forensic my computer, you may find out it has attempted to kill me multiple times and left my blood all around his dirty, nasty, sharp metallic edges...

    13. Re:reasonable doubt by penguin_dance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a way, this mirrors the Scott Peterson case in California except there was a body. There was some evidence that Scott was involved but nothing definitive. His behavior and his affair raised suspicions. But like this case, the juror saw a defendant who was deceptive.

      I would say that placing himself 80 miles away in the bay the day she disappeared and where his wife and child's bodies washed up a few months later was pretty definitive. Just the fact that his alibi was that he went fishing on Christmas Eve and having an 8-month pregnant wife about to deliver their first child made me suspect him early on. NO woman in that state is going to just let hubby go fishing 80 miles away while she prepares for company over Christmas.

      I'm not that familiar with this case, but it's not uncommon for the husband to claim the woman abandoned their children for another life. But when examining the wife's character, it turns out extremely unlikely. There's another case, this time a Drew Peterson (a former cop) who's 3rd wife's manner of death has recently been change from accidental to homicide and who's 4th wife has disappeared. He's claiming she ran off with another man. Most, including police, have there doubts. But unless they find the body, they'll probably only be able to charge him with the 3rd wife's death. His manner is also cocky, so I have no doubt he'll trip himself up eventually.

      From what I know of this case, Hans Reiser was the last known person to see Nina Reiser. It seems very doubtful that she not only would abandon her children to her ex-husband, but travel to Russia and then never contact her parents. Motive (divorce), means and opportunity were certainly all there along with forensic evidence of her blood. Defense lawyers love to disdain evidence as "circumstantial" but circumstantial evidence simply means there wasn't an eye-witness to the murder and is the type of evidence that makes up most cases.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    14. Re:reasonable doubt by Creepy · · Score: 1

      There was a lot of convincing evidence. Aside from the crazy friend who had claimed to have done it (and other murders), I was convinced only someone very close to Hans or Hans himself could have done it.

      Her boyfriend called in the missing persons report and then she didn't show up to pick up her kids at school - then Hans (and Hans alone) said she had secretly gone back to Russia.
      The back seat of Hans' car was missing and the floor had been flooded. He'd been driving a different car after she disappeared.
      Some of her blood was found at his residence.
      He bought a book about committing the perfect murder (I think right after he became a suspect).
      He had a large amount of cash on him when he was arrested (like he was about to flee the country).

    15. Re:reasonable doubt by cliveholloway · · Score: 1

      And the ripped out car seat? And the inch of water on the floor of his car that he slept in? What about picking up his kids from school on a day when it was his wife's turn, with no recorded phone call between them to indicate this was arranged? Why would he do that when he'd never done it before?

      There's circumstantial, and then there's circumstantial *wink*

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    16. Re:reasonable doubt by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to bet that there is a nontrivial amount of trace blood belonging to both myself and my closest friend at my home, in his home, in his car, and at our place of work, as well as in at least one company vehicle. We're both well and alive, thank you. I'd think a body, a weapon (with some trace showing it was used on the alleged victim), or some other direct evidence a murder has occured (large enough blood spill that can be determined to be from one occasion of sufficient volume to necessarily kill a human being, or something. I though the result was that there was a small-to-moderate amount of blood in some places inconvenient to Hans, but insufficient to cover a volume necessary to bleed to death, and not necessarily verifiable as being from even the right approximate time.

    17. Re:reasonable doubt by antibryce · · Score: 1

      it bothers me he was convicted without ever being able to tell the jury about his wife's lover being a serial killer.

    18. Re:reasonable doubt by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I didn't say there wasn't evidence but it was indirect. All of the evidence could be reasonably explained away but he didn't give them reasonable explanations. The totality of the evidence was more convincing.

      She didn't pick up her kids but that only meant she was missing. Everyone who knew her said she would have never left her kids so it was not likely a voluntary absence. But that didn't necessarily mean she was dead or that the had anything to do with it. But his story about her going back to Russia (without her kids) was BS.

      Her blood was found at his residence, buying a book about murder, replacing his car seat, having a large amount of cash. Each of these is highly suspicious but not definitive proof. The totality of everything is what is convincing.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:reasonable doubt by jandrese · · Score: 1

      No, but the fact that he cleaned and hosed out the inside of his car and lost the front passenger seat right before the cops showed up was very very odd. His explanation that he was going to turn his tiny car into the worlds least comfortable one person camper didn't exactly help his case either.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    20. Re:reasonable doubt by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Do you even understand hat "circumstantial" is? If they found her body, and found the murder weapon in his house, that'd be circumstantial evidence.

    21. Re:reasonable doubt by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      he was convicted without ever being able to tell the jury about his wife's lover being a serial killer.

      Which was the right decision, considering that there is no evidence that Sturgeon actually killed anybody. That his "confession" never resulted in charges should tell you something.

    22. Re:reasonable doubt by prockcore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      because his wife's lover wasn't a serial killer. He was mentally ill.

      One of the people he claimed to have murdered is still alive.

    23. Re:reasonable doubt by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Apart from the blood mentioned in a sister post, the prosecutor's main argument was that everybody who knew Nina Reiser agreed that she wasn't the kind of woman who would leave her kids and run away. The items left behind at the scene are also at odds with the idea that Nina was planning to leave - many of them were perishables, for instance. Life for Nina was reasonably good at the moment - there might have been other times when she would have been tempted to leave, but at that time she was on her way to become a licensed nurse, she was in a relationship, Hans and her had worked most of their problems out (except for Namesys, IIRC, which I probably don't). So: if she suddenly vanished off the face of the earth, it is more likely than not that she did not intend to vanish.

      Atleast, that was the argument. I found the ran-away-to-Russia theory very convincing when I first heard it, and Hans really seemed like another geek with problems; after going through the live blogs of the trial (not in a great amount of detail, I admit), I'm more open to the idea that something bad happened to Nina, and that Hans knows more about it than he's admitted. As to whether he killed her, I don't know, and I wouldn't have convicted him - but then I didn't spend several months listening to all the evidence on both sides.

    24. Re:reasonable doubt by cleatsupkeep · · Score: 1

      The paper is an interesting read, but your results from it were wrong.

      According to page 109, radio listeners had the best detection with 73.4, then print with 64.2, finally television with 51.8 (just better than chance).

    25. Re:reasonable doubt by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1
      I wish you "you must have a body and a murder weapon to prove murder" people would crawl back under a rock somewhere. You need neither. Contrary to the popular use of "circumstantial evidence", it allows one to reduce probabilities that someone didn't commit a murder to a low enough number to say it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". For example [not specifically Reiser case, but similar example]:

      Person X's wife goes missing. Big swath of cleaned up blood found in bathroom (luminol). OK, maybe she cut herself. But she's missing..hmm. OK, then we have a life insurance policy taken out by husband 2 months before. OK, nothing illegal about that.. but...hmmmmm. Then, turns out husband has no alibi. Well, OK, he wouldn't have an alibi (or need one) if she's only missing. but...hmmmmmmm. Oh, and also - he has been having an affair with another woman and has huge gambling debts. Neither proves he murdered anyone, but...hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, also it turns out she never mentioned leaving to any friends, and nobody has seen her for months. Oh, and the husband put in new carpet 5 days after she went missing. Well, surely nothing wrong with someone wanting to put in new carpet right/ but....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

      But wait, no murder weapon! No body! Shit, he must be innocent!!!! Give me a break, and please find an excuse to get out of jury duty if ever called, because you aren't fit to serve.

    26. Re:reasonable doubt by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Ooops. Thanks.. Should have rad it rather than relying on my memory from so long ago.

    27. Re:reasonable doubt by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Except then all you have to do is destroy the body to get away with murder as many people have said.
      The funny thing is that in the case the system really did seem to work.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    28. Re:reasonable doubt by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He murdered 8 people, and possibly a 9th; though when he left the 9th that one was still barely alive, and he was unsure if he had done sufficient damage to cause later death.

    29. Re:reasonable doubt by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Luminol destroys blood, you can't tell whose blood it is anymore. Bad idea.

    30. Re:reasonable doubt by tiqui · · Score: 1

      I still don't feel really comfortable with jurors making decisions based on "looking into people's eyes", as one of the jurors was saying;

      You have a point, but there is a good reason why we want juries and we trust them to "look into people's eyes" as part of making decisions; human beings, while imperfect and capable of bigotry and such are still the better judge of the behaviors, expressions, etc of other human beings. We learn to notice very subtle things in the faces and postures of others starting at a very young age. It will be a long time before any computer gets good at this. For now, people have the superior (though admittedly imperfect) BS-o-meters

    31. Re:reasonable doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops! Looks like you got nailed with "-1: Must luv teh Resierfs".

    32. Re:reasonable doubt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > any significant evidence his wife was dead

      You mean aside from the hosed down car, the sleeping bag with blood on it, the books on murder investigation, the her blood on the pillar in the house, the hosed down driveway and Reiser's complete inability to give any other believable explanation for his behaviors? Yeah, there's really very little evidence that his wife is dead.

  19. ReiserFS Undelete Option Shown by cryptodan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reiser shows off his new methods of undeleting a file and recovering it.

    1. Re:ReiserFS Undelete Option Shown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be duly impressed if his new methods do more than point out where the deleted file was kept.

  20. State sponsored open source by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, look on the bright side, he will have 20 to life to contribute to his open source initiative project.

    --
    Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    1. Re:State sponsored open source by domatic · · Score: 1

      Like they're going to allow the level of outside communication necessary to participate in an open source project much less run a corporation.....

    2. Re:State sponsored open source by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe this could set some kind of a precedent. Reiser would certainly be more productive to society coding than making number plates. Why punish everybody for his crimes?

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    3. Re:State sponsored open source by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      News just in, ReiserFS to be rewritten in Whitespace

    4. Re:State sponsored open source by Software · · Score: 1

      20 to life without a computer or an Internet connection, that is. He could write specifications and code in longhand, maybe even a find a typewriter, but that's not going to allow him to be a productive member of an open-source project.

    5. Re:State sponsored open source by dwye · · Score: 1
      Carbine Williams could design and manufacture gun parts in prison, first, for the wardens, then for Remington and Winchester. Unless the prison, itself, doesn't have a broadband link, the warden has the power to allow him special access to it (after all, his kernel work had nothing to do with his killing her). I doubt that the warden has any reason to allow this, of course.

      He could not run any company set up to support development of or to "market" the ReiserFS, in any case.

  21. Russia! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    I betcha he tells them the body is in Russia. In Soviet Russia, dead bodies make you disappear!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  22. Hubris by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reiser's hubris has sentenced him to what will almost certainly be more minimum 25 (or 15 if he gives up the body) than the 11 year sentenced that he was offered before trial. And of course as a murder, he deserves it.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Hubris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reiser's hubris has sentenced him to what will almost certainly be more minimum 25 (or 15 if he gives up the body) than the 11 year sentenced that he was offered before trial. And of course as a murder, he deserves it. Yes. Anyone who is a murder deserves no better.
  23. Obligatory awful pun: by jockeys · · Score: 2, Funny

    hopefully he journaled the location of the body.

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
  24. this reminds me of oj simpson by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty

    the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson. had this guy not authored a file system,

    1. no one would care about this case
    2. most would assume his guilt

    a lot pof people here think of themselves as intelligent and unbiased. if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Paralizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror
      Everyone should be assumed innocent until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. I don't need to look in the mirror to know that...
    2. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      A lot of users here were able to look at the evidence available and make decisions from that. There was a lot of weird stuff going on in this trial, from his hosing out his car to his wife's crazy friend who said he had killed people before. I can see armchair jurors latching on to either side just with stuff like that. Yes, I'm sure bias did play in here but don't a lot of us just want a happy ending? As in the wife was just hiding out in Russia and Hans was innocent (of murder at least). I personally thought he was guilty but I have no experience with Reiser and his file system. It's a sad story though.

    3. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins

      Yup. I think that such biases are actually stronger in support of someone for irrational tribal reasons than they are, these days, when it comes to being irrationally against someone who's not in your tribe. Classic examples these days would be the small number of people who poll saying they'd vote against Obama because he's black, compared to the huge number who will (and say they will!) vote for him because he's (to whatever degree) black. The folks who completely tossed their reason out the window over Reiser because he's a fellow nerd really do get a chance to stop and think, now. It's very similar to those that tolerate script kiddies and web site defacers because they feel some kinship to them, despite the fact that if the same kids did something similar in meat space (to their car, with spray paint) they'd get all upset.

      It was fair to assume Reiser's innocence until the testimony and his behavior started stacking up.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by zerojoker · · Score: 1

      I think most people here on slashdot had the feeling that he did. However the evidence was poor and that was critized. And still now where it's pretty clear that he did it, I still think the evidence was very poor for a conviction. There was nothing substiantial delivered by the prosecutor.

    5. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe given the entire criminal system is based upon presumption of innocence, those who "assumed reiser's innocence" are just not prejudiced, biased, jump-to-the-conclusion-and-throw-away-the-key idiots?

      And possibly the reason people care about the case is like all the stupid celebrity gossip, they had actually heard of this guy before, possibly used some of his code, maybe sent him an email, etc. The closest most people have come to a murder trial. Same reason as the local paper will have a front page story about the small town council budget vote, but it's not going to be on CNN (wihout some other hook existing).

    6. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by domatic · · Score: 1

      He also ignored his lawyer's advice and insisted on a testifying at his trial. He made a REALLY bad impression doing it too. Since Hans had a fool for a client, I'm not inclined to use this as a data point for Geek Persecution.

    7. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by samkass · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone should be assumed innocent... by the justice system and the jury. I'm allowed to think whatever I want as a private citizen.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    8. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, most of us just wanted to see him get a fair trial. I'm still not sure I like the idea of murder convictions purely based on circumstantial evidence, but in this case I think the jury made the right call.

    9. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by myzz · · Score: 1


      Are you going to tell, that some bitch is more important than a great filesystem?
      </cynical sarcasm>

    10. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Some of us simply take the position that we don't know, and only people present at the complete trial are closest to knowing (besides Reiser himself, and his wife if alive, who both know for sure).

    11. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always assumed that you are innocent until proven guilty. I admit, the case and evidence did look bad, however, many people here still tried, from what I saw, to say that they will not judge him as guilty until the verdict is returned.

      It is true though that many people in the nerd community would say: "Reiser is smart. Smart people know that murder is stupid. Smart people don't want to do stupid things. Ergo, Reiser did not commit murder."

    12. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by drew · · Score: 1

      ...presumed innocent. They are not necessarily interchangeable. If everyone assumed he was innocent there wouldn't be any point in looking for evidence, right?

      Assume: To take for granted; accept without verification or proof; "I assume his train was late"
      Presume: To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: "We presumed she was innocent."

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    13. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 1

      So you're saying there was reasonable doubt?

      --

      ----
      Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    14. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty

      That's a massive understatement. It was probably 95+% in both camps. And it wasn't just a matter of thinking he was guilty/not-guilty either.

      Among whites, the sense was not only was he guilty but you'd have to be an idiot to think he wasn't. It was just SO obvious!

      Among blacks, the sense was not only was he innocent, but you'd have to be a complete bigot to not realize he was framed. It was just SO obvious!

      There is a good Frontline episode on the trial that goes beyond the actual trial itself and looks at the social issues surrounding it. It can be watched via flv on the pbs website...

    15. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. Not to be patriotic about it, but if you assume Reiser's innocence, isn't that in keeping with the US cultural agreement of "innocent until proven guilty"?

      If he's proven guilty, fine. Until then, no harm presuming his innocence.
    16. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by jgalun · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I think it's safe to say that after a conviction and then Reiser providing the body, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet some people on Slashdot continue to assume Reiser's innocence! Take, for example, a post above, currently modded 5, which says, "Glad I'm not in the US, getting life in prison for something that has way too many loose ends, just isn't right."

      Way too many loose ends? Reiser said he had nothing to do with the murder, now he's saying he knows where the body is. Sorry folks, but if he hadn't killed her, he wouldn't have any idea where the body is.

      The fact that such a post was modded up shows exactly the grandparents' point, which is that Slashdot (and all we geeks who think so highly of our intelligence) is just as tribal as everyone else.

    17. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assumed Reiser's innocence. "Innocent until proven otherwise" is a requirement for a fair judicial system. It has nothing to do with prejudice.

    18. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Alomex · · Score: 1

      the hans reiser case reveals that techies suffer this same sort of prejudice as black people concerning oj simpson.

      Blacks overlook the fact that he was clearly guilty, whites overlook the undisputed fact that a non-neglible amount of the evidence seemed planted, and so the country goes, divided by color refusing to listen to each other.

    19. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I always presume that someone is innocent until proven guilty. OJ is NOT GUILTY. A jury of his peers voted on it. He was not convicted, but most whites still assume that he's a guilty scumbag. He may still be a scumbag, but legally, he is an innocent free man. However, he is still being treated as guilty. He is still being punished through a civil court order.

      Prosecutors have to presume that defendents are guilty, how else can they go about prosecuting a case. If a prosecutor honestly believes that a defentdent is not guilty from all the evidence he has gathered, then he is commiting perjury in continuing a case. Those kinds of prosecutors have no business as prosecutors. They should be locked up for falsely bringing up cases. We've had many sentenced murderers proven innocent from DNA tests in recent years. Those prosecutors that withhold evidence to get convictions should be strung up for manipulating the system and destroying an innocent person's life. It's wrong; it's malicious; it's unnecessary. We have enough criminals in society.

      If OJ really was guilty, the prosecution should have done a better job at proving beyond a resonable doubt that OJ did it. Hans Reiser deserves the same. Unfortunately, Hans wanted to defend himself. If he had left it up to a capable lawyer to defend him, he might have gotten a not guilty verdict. Now, he just looks like an ass. He had sufficient evidence to prove reasonable doubt, but he chose to defend himself and take the stand. He provided the evidence to the jury to remove reasonable doubt in their minds. People will assume that intelligence and aloofness are criminal traits. I've met Hans years ago, and he struck me as an ass and a scumbag. If his personality was part of the evidence, I'd probably assume he's guilty. He should have just STFU and sat quietly while a lawyer defended him.

      If he can provide his wife's body, then he obviously is guilty. This idea of plea bargaining at this stage just to reduce a sentence is retarded. Plea bargains should be done at the beginning, not after the fact.

      Captcha = acquit

    20. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      RTFA. He did NOT say that he knows where the body is; he is merely being offered the opportunity to reveal it. Slashdot's bad summary doesn't help.

    21. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Because patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

    22. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      whites overlook the undisputed fact that a non-neglible amount of the evidence seemed planted...

      Name ONE piece of evidence that is "undisputed fact" that it was planted. Just one.

      I don't blame black people for feeling like it was *possible* that evidence is planted (since that *is* done in poor communities on occasion), but you seriously have to turn off your brain to think OJ was innocent and it was just LAPD framing him. I mean, if they wanted frame someone, they wouldn't frame a superstar with huge money to fight it!

      and so the country goes, divided by color refusing to listen to each other.

      I refuse to listen to stupidity. I will (and have) listen to the idea that justice isn't given out fairly. But they did themselves no favors by embracing OJ. All that did was fuel the fires of racism and convince people on the fence that the racists have a point.

      In other words, black people need to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating racism.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    23. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think it's more along the lines of "smart people commit smart murders". Hans seemed to spend a lot of time thinking he was outsmarting the cops, when all he was really doing was drawing even more attention to himself and putting it more firmly in investigators' eyes that he had killed his wife.

      Hans was an arrogant asshole who really thought he was something. As a coder, he certainly is a talented guy, but we must all remember that brilliance doesn't often cover multiple fields of inquiry. Just because he was a hot damn programmer doesn't mean he could fool guys who, within their own particular trade (catching criminals) were likely his equivalent. Despite what many people seem to think about this case, detectives aren't morons who can be overawed by some brilliant Silicon Valley Linux kernel programmer. First of all, spouses are always at the top of the list of suspects when someone is found murdered, simply because so many people are killed by those close to them. Secondly, they determined the Big Three; means, motive and opportunity. His behavior after she went missing would have set the alarms off even for a street beat cop, let alone an experienced investigator.

      I think the fact is that, as with any community where some bad apple has been revealed, people tend to go into denial. "A cop would never do such a thing" "A priest would never do such a thing" "A teacher would never do such a thing" and now "A skilled computer programmer would never do such a thing". But the reality is that the evidence, while not complete, was pretty goddamned compelling, and I suspect that if I were sitting on a jury, I'd have voted to convict.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by tkid · · Score: 1

      oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty

      I don't know what part of the country you live in but at the time of the trial, all the African Americans I knew thought he was guilty. I knew more white people who thought he was innocent than black. I'm white but it wasn't his race that gave away his guilt, it was his actions and the evidence I read about.

    25. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Alomex · · Score: 3, Informative

      Name ONE piece of evidence that is "undisputed fact" that it was planted. Just one.

      There's plenty: the blood on the sock that had (i) police anticoagulant on it and (ii) left the exact mark and shape of an essay tube being applied against a folded sock.

      The blood on the ford bronco, which was so clearly planted the prosecutors did not even mention in the trial, and the list goes on and on.

      but you seriously have to turn off your brain to think OJ was innocent

      What was I saying about people divided by color refusing to listen to each other? If you read my posting again you'll see that it claims he's clearly guilty. You seem to miss the fact that it is perfectly possible to be guilty and have evidence planted on you. Lazy policemen do that all the time to shorten the investigation time. In this case they got caught, that is the only difference.

      But they did themselves no favors by embracing OJ.

      Oh, I agree. By the same token whites did themselves no favors by refusing to acknowledge that the LAPD is a corrupt and racist police department that got caught planting evidence on a black person, which in this particular case happened to be both famous and guilty.

      In other words, black people need to take responsibility for their part in perpetuating racism.

      How about you: are you willing to take responsibility for your part in tolerating racism within the LAPD, which has been repeatedly caught planting evidence and doing other racist actions?

    26. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How about you: are you willing to take responsibility for your part in tolerating racism within the LAPD...

      Personally, no, because I have nothing to do with it. On behalf of white people, then I say, "to some extent". White people have already embraced more than enough guilt for past crimes. At this point, the black community and black leadership perpetuate the vast majority of racism. LAPD is mostly racist *because* the black community is so out of control and black leaders are so unwilling to hold people accountable. There's no physical law of the universe that black people should be persecuted by police. But when so many black people (and black leaders!) have embraced cultures of violence, then that's going to have an effect.

      The police should not be racist. But they are human. When they are dealing everyday with a ingrained culture of violence, then they're going to go into a "bunker mentality". Which, of course, creates a circle of mistrust. Someone has to break the circle. And it has to begin with the diseased part of black culture and black leadership. Their used to be a white culture of violence in the south against blacks. That culture is pretty much dead (of course, it still happens, but it's not culturally acceptable like it once was). Now, things have been pretty much reversed. Black culture needs to heal itself before we can finally move forward.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    27. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      "...if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins"

      There's a third option in your false dichotomy:

      If you assumed Reiser's innocence, then you were adhering to the principles set in the U.S. Constitution: the pre-trial, publicly disclosed evidence was too minute to support a finding of guilt, so the defendant was automatically assumed to be not guilty.

      The evidence presented at trial, however, painted a more compelling picture of guilt. Those of you who jumped to a conclusion of guilty before seeing the evidence (regardless of the outcome of the trial) should be ashamed of yourselves. The willingness to send someone to prison on a gut instinct, or from a cursory glance at a small fragment of evidence (which is all we had until the trial was over), is repugnant.

      The ability to withhold judgment until all the evidence is considered is an exercise in unbiased intelligence.

    28. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone in this country is racist white or black. I am white and I don't know if he did it or not. I do however think because of his status he got treated much better then non rich and famous people would have. The evidence didn't come out and point to his guilt but then again it did not eliminate him from guilt either. The only people who know the real truth is OJ, the victims and GOD.

      On this case for Hans... I don't know he if he guilty or not as we haven't been able to get all the information on this case. We know there was some issues in the past that may make it look incriminating but it may turn out to be an accident and eventually she will be found and the truth will come out. I agree with the other posts. Let the DA PROVE IT.

      We are not judge and jury and we only get spoon fed the very basic facts by the media.

    29. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins


      Yeah, so? I'm going to try and presume everybody is innocent until proven guilty, and I'm especially going to push for both my family and my extended family - my "tribe" - to receive the full protection of the law, every possible ounce of presumed innocence, every bit of public sympathy, of published support, of all the help we can provide.

      I'm counting on my "tribe" to support me, when I need help. I'm sure Reiser (if innocent, which I still suspect he is) was glad that so many of us geeks were giving him a chance, that we weren't writing him off without some level of support. As far as I'm concerned, tribalism is great, and this is exactly why it is so.
    30. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly the case. I thought and still think OJ is not guilty.

      Proof is what counts and if noone can pin anything on the convicted, that person shouldn't go to prison.

      You sir/maam are part of the problem. I assumed everyone was innocent because they are until PROVEN guilty. Typically though most people think what they will when they see someone, and hence you have cases like these where there is no convincing and pinpoint evidence that Hans is guilty, let alone even close to dismantling reasonable doubt.

      The first thing about OJ and his case was you assuming it was skewered by race. It was not even the fact, it was by money, power and popularity. OJ could talk and has talked and is very clear and concise when he does. He's convincing. Hans is not convincing because he is not clear and concise.

      You sir are part of the problem. You are considering everyone thinks alike when it comes to race or culture. Your assumptions of everything make you a good candidate for jury for the DA. You assume everyone is guilty no matter what, even if they are proven innocent.

      If you can be unbias and wait until the facts are laid out, then you would be respectable.

      But until then, bugger off you pessimistic mite.

      He is innocent until PROVEN guilty. He is not and this should be appealed quickly.

      Signing off
      Fraudulant Home Shopping Network, Inc.

    31. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      In Simpson's case, they had a body, and they had a mountain of damning DNA evidence. The jury was persuaded to set all that aside and acquit to stick it to the white man and the system. They rendered a judgment not on OJ, but on the bias that still existed in, for instance, the person of Mark Fuhrman.

      You're saying that the Reiser case is solved, that there's no doubt that he did it. I disagree. It does seem likely he did murder her, but if she is in fact dead, WHERE IS THE BODY? I think you're allowing yourself to be brainwashed by law enforcement tactics. The way this "deal" was pitched makes it sound as if they know he's a murderer, but that's not true. They're real sure of themselves, but they still don't have all they should have to prove their case. I've read of too many cases where the DA believed that quantity of convictions was the metric he'd be judged by, and so was more interested in getting convictions than in being right. Recently, quite a few cases dating to the 1980's tenure of an overzealous DA in Dallas have been overturned on new DNA evidence. And I've read of times when the jury could just tell, or thought they could, but they were wrong. The more the accused protested innocence, the worse he looked, subjectively. People are good judges of others' character, but I think tend to be overconfident and think they're even better than they really are. It's dangerous when people rely heavily on such subjective impressions. They get it wrong uncomfortably often. People are always being taken in by con artists. That's why we have the standards we do, standards which I think have not been adhered to in Reiser's case.

      Suppose Reiser is actually innocent. He cannot accept the deal because he has no information to trade; he does not know her whereabouts. So he must refuse it. If he refuses the deal, it would be helpful if people like yourself would not take the mere fact such a deal was offered as just more evidence that he's guilty, and refusal as just more evidence he's unrepentant. He certainly did himself no favors with all the rope he was handed to hang himself with. In one respect, this is like the OJ trial. It has a lot of the hallmarks of a circus trial.

      It may well be that Reiser is guilty, and this deal will persuade him to 'fess up. We'll see.

      You suggest that anyone who does harbor doubts is just blinded by prejudice, or perhaps dumb. So what're you saying here? You're not even going to listen to anything anyone has to say in defense, you're just going to dismiss such persons out of hand as lunatics? Serious egg on your face if Reiser should turn out to be innocent after all.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    32. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 0
      You are exactly right. I'm actually a little stunned when I read this ridiculous crap about Reiser maybe being innocent. People have actually resorted to "if there is no body, you must acquit!". Granted, it doesn't rhyme as well as Cochran made his, but it's just about as silly.

      In the OJ case, they basically just ignored the evidence and pretended it wasn't there. In this case, people are at least trying to make it seem like they're impartial but it's quite clear they aren't. If this case were about some random man killing his wife they'd be explaining that circumstantial evidence isn't "bad" evidence, and that in this case it's been used effectively to eliminate all rational explanations other than his having murdered his wife. It's the process of elimination. Like DNA. They may not tell you "this DNA matches exactly this person", but instead "the likelihood of this DNA belonging to someone other than the suspect is 1 in 6 billion". Gee, maybe it's not his!!! Oh, but he was known to be within 20 feet of the spot, and all this other evidence points to him.

      In this case, they're doing the opposite. They have an emotional need (for some reason) to think Reiser is just a misunderstood malcontent dweeb like they are. So they are manufacturing doubt and pretending circumstantial evidence is "bad" evidence. There's huge bias here, some psychologist could write his dissertation on this whole situation using SlashDot as a case study.

    33. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by daveime · · Score: 1

      WHERE IS THE BODY INDEED.

      So what you are saying is without a body, there cannot be a conclusive murder conviction. So now all any murderer has to do is make sure he disposes of the body REALLY WELL, and he'll never serve time ?

    34. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by jgalun · · Score: 1

      Actually, I did RTFA. The headline is "Hans Reiser Offers To Lead Cops to Nina's Body." And if Reiser said to the DA that he couldn't do it, they wouldn't be having these negotiations. The only way these negotiations can exist is if he can provide a body.

      Why don't you show me where it says in the article that they are offering it to him - it actually sounds like he is offering that to them. Or please stop being so high and mighty about suggesting that others RTFA.

    35. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Ykant · · Score: 1

      oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race. that is, more black people tended to think of oj as innocent, and more white people thought of him as guilty
      That's a massive understatement. It was probably 95+% in both camps. And it wasn't just a matter of thinking he was guilty/not-guilty either.


      I don't know what circles either of you travel in, but of the black people I've spoken with on the topic (and I assure you, there were many), I can only think of one who sincerely thought he didn't do it. Oh, sure a couple said he was framed, but they never said he was innocent - just an example of making the evidence fit the crime. I reject your "probably 95%" statement as an absurd generalization. If you genuinely believe that 95% of all black people thought OJ Simpson didn't kill his ex-wife, then you must also believe that an extreme majority of black people are blind to the point of utter stupidity.

      --
      Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
    36. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins Or we apply the principles of modern justice: UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

      One of the two.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    37. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by rtechie · · Score: 1

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror Um, no. The spin I get from most of the posts is: "I don't trust the police, in general." Police tend to pick their suspects and run with them, statistics show that 90% of people are killed by close relatives, and Hans Reiser is a jerk. If you read most of the posts, most readers believed (rightly or wrongly) that the police quickly targeted Hans and didn't seriously consider any other suspects. Nor did they investigate the possibility that Nina was alive and well in Russia. Of course, there was no evidence that Nina had left the country or that anyone else was involved.

      I don't know the details of the trial. Maybe these possibilities were throughly explored. In the case of Russia I very seriously doubt it.

    38. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It was not my intention to stereotype - only to point out how dramatically different this case has been viewed from various racial perspectives.

      Watch the Frontline episode (Frontline is generally considered a very reputable news program - and if anything it has a slightly liberal lean but not much of one). Blacks were cheering in the streets when the news broke. I'm willing to admit that those who actually assembled to hear the verdict in front of cameras are probably not representative, but your circle of friends may not be either.

      And the sheep mentality is hardly a racial thing. I'm sure that the current US president got most of his support from lighter-hued voters.

    39. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Juries are made up of private citizens.

    40. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by dwye · · Score: 1

      > then you were adhering to the principles set in the U.S. Constitution

      No, English and then American Common Law. Thus, in US Tax Court, you are presumed guilty, because positive law created by the Congress has overridden the presumptions in the Common Law, in that court, only.

      Presumption of Innoncence until proven guilty is not part of the Constitution, it preceded the Constitution by at least 600 years, and probably more. It underlies the Constitution on as unexamined a level as did the meaning of "well-regulated militia" when they passed the Second Amendment; fortunately, language change haven't screwed it up as much as the 2nd Amendment, or "Thou shalt not kill" have.

    41. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by LionMage · · Score: 1

      You know, I was tempted to rag on you for your mis-use of "skewered" -- the word you're probably looking for is "skewed" -- but I think you're reaching a bit trying to equate racial bias to other forms of bias that have to do with other group affiliations. And to me, that's even more egregious than choosing the wrong word.

      It's funny you bring up the OJ trial. I had an interesting discussion once with one of my doctors about that trial. My doctor stated unequivocally that it was clear that evidence was tampered with -- some blood samples from the crime scene and OJ's vehicle contained a substance that is used in vials of blood to prevent coagulation. My doctor put it thus: "It's possible that OJ did the crimes, and it's possible that he is innocent. But what likely happened is that the LAPD thought they had a good case, but not a great case, so they felt tempted to 'fortify' the evidence... and now because of that tampering, we'll never know what really happened."

      If anything, the OJ trial was more about the racism endemic in the LAPD than it was about the racism of white people in general, or the "tribal prejudice" (there's a loaded, cringe-worthy term for ya!) of black people and white people.

      I don't think nerds see themselves as a cohesive social group with a "common struggle" the way African-Americans do, so I'm skeptical of any attempt to draw parallels. While the United States has a long tradition of anti-intellectualism, I don't think you can make the case that nerds and geeks have suffered the way other racial minorities have suffered.

      It's true that Slashdot would not have covered Reiser's trial if not for ReiserFS and the Linux connection. Where I disagree with you is the statement that most "of us" would assume Hans' guilt. That's quite a bit of presumption. I have no hard evidence or models to suggest what the average Slashdot reader's reaction would or would not be under different circumstances, but I think it's a given that nerds aren't that unlike other people -- some will take an agnostic standpoint (i.e., they have no knowledge of whether he "did" or "didn't," and won't speculate), some will assume Hans' guilt, and some will insist he's innocent.

      Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system. Before the conclusion of the trial, I think anyone espousing the viewpoint that Reiser was innocent could be forgiven simply on those grounds alone. But even if someone still holds that viewpoint, or at the very least styles themselves a skeptic on the grounds that no body was ever produced (and the evidence is largely circumstantial), I don't think that gives you the right to accuse that person of being racially or "tribally" prejudiced.

      As if nerds really see themselves as part of some tribe. I sure as hell don't, and I wouldn't give special treatment to some other nerd just because s/he is a kindred spirit.

      FWIW, count me among the "he probably did it" crowd. I just find the lack of a body to be troubling.

    42. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be assumed innocent until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. I don't need to look in the mirror to know that...

      That's a pretty poor way to run through life. You'll end up one of the broke old people living in a state home because you were taken by everyone. He offered you $100,000 in two years for a small investment of $10,000 now? And, since we should only ever assume everyone is 100% innocent until proven otherwise, you should believe him until he gets your check and stops returning your calls.

      Or are you saying that you don't believe everyone is 100% innocent of all possible suspicion?

      And what do you do about someone acquitted of a charge who later confesses? Are they "innocent" because they were found not guilty? Or, do you think that it might be possible that "innocent" "guilty" and "found guilty" might not always line up the way one might hope?

    43. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins My bad. I always thought "innocent until proven guilty" kinda meant the same thing as "assumed [his] innocence."
    44. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Ykant · · Score: 1

      Let's spin it a different way - maybe the OJ verdict was a great milestone in racial equality. Why? Because for the first time, we have televised evidence that our society has evolved to the point where, given enough money, even a black man can get away with murder. Money really is an equalizer.

      (I am so not endorsing that idea, just throwing it out there as a possible alternative viewpoint, a little twisted as it may be)

      I did once know a fellow whose college was visited by a television crew on the day of the verdict. He was a journalism student at the time, and later said that when he saw himself on television that night, he learned more about the trade in that moment than he had all semester.

      Anyway, interesting discussion, if maybe a bit offtopic.

      --
      Spelling, grammar, punctuation? We need something that checks logic.
    45. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is that we should all assume someone is guilty from the get-go having never seen any evidence?

      Suppose I accused you of murdering someone. There is no evidence, but you're pretty weird -- just take a look at your Slashdot post history! I should assume you are guilty?

    46. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Another example would be the Duke Lacrosse Rape case...

    47. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      There's plenty: the blood on the sock that had (i) police anticoagulant on it and (ii) left the exact mark and shape of an essay tube being applied against a folded sock. Do you have any links to any (hopefully reputable, mainline, etc) sources about this--wikipedia didn't turn much up? I have not heard about the "essay" tube thing. Also what evidence that the blood in the Bronco was placed?
    48. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you assumed reiser's innocence, take a good har dlook in the mirror. tribal-level prejudice flows in your veins Excuse me, but presumption of innocence is not "tribal-level prejudice."

      (Yes, Hans is probably guilty. We know now that he's probably guilty because of the evidence, but that wasn't always true.)
    49. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Alomex · · Score: 1

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns25.htm

      Bloody socks:

      Pair of dark, crumpled socks found at the foot of Simpson's bed; DNA tests found the genetic markers of Simpson and his ex-wife.

      Prosecution: contended this directly linked a victim to Simpson.

      Defense: suggested socks were planted at house by police, then blood was put on socks later at the police lab to frame Simpson; most compelling evidence of tampering is that some blood soaked all the way through one sock to other side, which it shouldn't have done if a foot was in it.
      Bloody Bronco:

      Small spot of blood found near driver's outside door handle of Simpson's Ford Bronco; other blood found smeared inside on console, door, steering wheel and carpeting; DNA tests showed some of the blood apparently a mixture with genetic markers of Simpson and the victims.

      Prosecution: said Simpson drove Bronco to and from crime scene.

      Defense: challenged interpretation of DNA tests, particularly those suggesting a genetic match to Goldman in a mixture; noted that the genetic material of an unknown person was found in the steering wheel blood; suggested police planted some of the blood; elicited testimony that the Bronco was entered at least twice by unauthorized people while it sat in a police impound yard.

      WILLIE FORD, police videographer: Filmed items inside Simpson's house day after the killings; saw no socks at foot of bed.

      FREDRIC RIEDERS, founder of National Medical Services laboratory in Willow Grove, Pa.: Detected EDTA, chemical used by laboratories to preserve blood samples, on samples from sock and back gate. Jan. 8, 1997:

      As I said before, planting of evidence is quite common in certain police forces. It makes the investigation simpler. The way it works is that the police picks evidence from the crime scene and places it in a way that connects their main suspect to the crime.

      Personally, I think he is absolutely 100% guilty, but the theory and timeline proposed by police is not quite right in that he might have had help from a third person, and that he must have washed up in a place other than his home, since very little blood was found in his house, while he was supposed to be soaked on it

    50. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Interesting, thanks for the link, I didn't know all of that.

    51. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      As if it's so easy to dispose of a body. It isn't, or so I've heard. Perhaps I've read too much fiction, but the gold standard for a murder conviction has always been the existence of a corpse, and the trial has always waited a good while on the discovery of this crucial evidence. It should be possible to convict without that, yes, because it is possible a body will never be found. And part of the rush to trial was Reiser's demand for the right to a speedy trial. Whether the DA also wanted it soon, who knows?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    52. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      its possible that OJ killed his wife and her dude AND the LAPD was a racist organization. but just because the LAPD was racist, doesn't mean OJ is innocent. the parent poster is right, you really have to turn off your brain to somehow conclude OJ is innocent

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    53. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Both of my posts claim that he is guilty, that evidence was planted and more importantly that when it comes to OJ people do not listen to each other.

      The fact that you and the parent post missed those "details" proves my point that people are not listening to each other.

    54. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I'm allowed to think whatever I want as a private citizen.


      On the contrary... it is citizens like you that skewer the jury system and force prosecutors and juries to hand out guilty verdicts in cases that upon later review are clearly innocent of the charges that were brought against them.

      A great many people have their verdicts overturn, or in the case of the Duke University Men's Lacrosse team, the prosecutor was even brought before the state bar to have his license revoked due to prosecutorial misconduct on a gross scale, even to have those charged be "officially" pronounced innocent... something quite rare in the judicial community.

      In judicial systems of the past, notably the French during the 1st Republic (aka right after the French Revolution) there was a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof was upon the charged to demonstrate their innocence before the court. Under such a system it becomes nearly impossible for ordinary people to fight against a judicial system that has millions of dollars at its disposal and the authority of government to pry into every detail of your life.

      I believe it is not only useful but incumbent upon all citizens to presume innocence on the part of those who have been charged with crimes and demand strong and convincing proof from our government if those charges are to prevail.

      So help me, I hope you never get to sit on a jury with that sort of attitude. Journalists with your attitude are part of why court reporting is so awful at the moment as well.
    55. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Both of my posts claim that he is guilty, that evidence was planted and more importantly that when it comes to OJ people do not listen to each other.

      Granted, but really, how can you claim he was innocent?

      I kid, I kid. But I will point out that I've thought for twenty years now that debate, rhetoric and logic need to be mandatory fields in public school. Oh, and Latin, but that's not germaine to this particular discussion.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    56. Re:this reminds me of oj simpson by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, to a certain extent, you're right; it's within living memory that a black man would have been executed (be it through the legal system or in a more, shall we say, informal manner) in many areas simply for taking up with a white woman, let alone for killing her.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  25. Hmph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Note the absence of Hans Reiser's actual statements. For the moment, this may as well be just speculative spin doctoring by Orloff.

  26. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are known known bodies, known unknown bodies and unknown known bodies. But there are no old bold pilots.

  27. That's Not Funny, That's sick by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Though I am laughing pretty hard.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:That's Not Funny, That's sick by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      It's both!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  28. Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Poor Hans.

    We nerds and geeks have real issues with interpersonal relationships. We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope.

    If the stated facts are true, she was having an affair and embezzled money from the company. People have killed and have been killed for less.

    What makes it hard is that Hans didn't watch enough CSI or Columbo to get away with it. The two kids losing their mom is tragic. I can't say the woman had it coming, but everyone knows that sort of behavior triggers primal and violent reactions. How enraged would you be?

    Its certainly murder, but not 1st degree.

    1. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she deserved to be murdered?

    2. Re:Nerds and Geeks by SpinyNorman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Being 1st degree or 2nd degree isn't a matter of whether you have any sympathy for him - it's a matter of whether it was premeditated (planned) - 1st degree - or unplanned in the heat of the moment (2nd degree).

      The evidence one hears in the press of her blood in the car, the front seat mysteriously gone missing with no explanation, and the car hosed down inside, all might tend to point to something that was perhaps unplanned (you'd think a nerd could plan it better), but OTOH we didn't hear all the evidence, and the jury that did hear it apparently thought it was planned (maybe for the exact reasons you suggest).

    3. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Capitalist+Piggy · · Score: 1

      If the stated facts are true, she Do what? Since when is the accused person's testimony considered "stated facts"? Even if she had been up to all that, he should have just beat the tar out of her, and shot her boyfriend. That way the kids keep a mom, he serves 3-5 years in the pen, and she'll know not to ever pull any shit again. It's typically a no-no to kill a woman in the US, as inmates will tend to extend their own punishment in the backsides of those who commit such crimes, not to mention the lack of remorse a jury tends to feel towards men who kill women for whatever reason.

      In other news, my neighbor shot her husband to death and spent 3 days in county lockup before getting bailed out, then no charges were pressed after the initial investigation concluded she and her children were "abused repeatedly". I never saw any bruises on her or her kids (which I went to school with). Neatly enough, they sold their house and moved away within a month, never to be heard from by locals again.
    4. Re:Nerds and Geeks by gustgr · · Score: 1

      He is a murderer, a sociopath and must be imprisoned for life. The fact that he, with others, wrote a decent FS does not shade this ignominious and repulsive crime. I respect his professional work, as most people here do, but I abominate him as a person and in my opinion he must not be allowed to live amongst a civilized society for any longer. You talk about primal and violent reactions, but above all we are rational begins who are aware of what is right and wrong. Maybe we all do have issues regarding social relationship as you state, but this has nothing to do with taking the life of another human being. Nonetheless, I feel very sorrow for him, for his children and for his wife's family.

      Oh, and if you do include yourself amongst those who might even consider killing someone over a spurt of fury or over a great disappointment, then you have serious issues my friend. I recommend a group of good mental health professionals.

    5. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And still his fans make excuse for him. You really are pathetic.

      Had it coming? Nobody ever has murder coming. The guy is a murderer. He also tried to get away with it by destroying evidence. He should rot in jail until the end of his natural life whether he gives up the body or not.

      Poor fucking Hans indeed.

    6. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      What part of "I can't say the woman had it coming" wasn't clear?

      A crime of passion is a troubling thing. It has nothing to do with intellect. In the case of a woman having an affair, that has always been a dangerous thing in human history.

      Understanding what happened and being sympathetic to a man for infidelity and betrayal by his wife is not the same thing as excusing murder.

    7. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      And still his fans make excuse for him. You really are pathetic.

      Actually, I don't even like ReiserFS or care about Hans at all.

      Had it coming?

      I didn't say that.

      Nobody ever has murder coming.
      In a dry historical sense, a wife who cheats on her husband has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries.

      Listen, if you want to be impassioned or enraged, good for you. Personally, I don't care. This is just a "thought experiment," sometimes it is useful to think about things, in a purely scientific manner, that most people get emotional about.

      A cheating wife and a husband who kills is not news. It happens every day. It is sad and tragic and one can not help thinking about the kids, but, right or wrong, we consider the state of mind of the killer for sentencing.

      To me, a guy who kills a specific person because of an egregious injury, i.e. cheating spouse, out of anger or fear is less of a danger to society than a person who will shoot a complete stranger for mere money.

      That being said, every human being is capable of murder given the right circumstances. At issue is the circumstances.

    8. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He is a murderer
      No disagreement there.

      a sociopath
      That is a scientific term with specific meaning. I have seen no evidence that he is.

      must be imprisoned for life
      Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder.

      Oh, and if you do include yourself amongst those who might even consider killing someone over a spurt of fury or over a great disappointment, then you have serious issues my friend. I recommend a group of good mental health professionals.

      Sorry to say it dude, crimes of passion are in the human genome and there is nothing you can do about it. Want proof? Ask any parent if they could kill someone who harms their children. I know I could. If anyone touched my son or daughter, there wouldn't be enough left to identify.

      I used to be afraid of big dogs, I was bitten by a german sheppard when I was a kid. So, I generally avoided them. One day, I was with my son in the park and a couple loose dogs were growling, fighting, and coming toward us. Instinctively I put myself between my son and the dogs, I had to kick one in the mouth before they ran away.

      This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill.

      Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer.

    9. Re:Nerds and Geeks by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Nobody deserves to be murdered, but the motive was there.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:Nerds and Geeks by flibuste · · Score: 1
      >>a sociopath
      >That is a scientific term with specific meaning. I have seen no evidence that he is.

      He wrote a filesystem for Linux. That in itself is a good indication of social difficulties.

    11. Re:Nerds and Geeks by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a crime a passion, it *was* a cold blooded murder. A crime of passion is when you walk in on your wife in bed with your best friend, grab your gun and kill them while the sheets are still wet. Reiser planned her murder over days at least and then went to some lengths to hide the body. Crucial to 'crime of passion' defense is *not* trying to cover it up--that speaks to being so enraged that you weren't thinking of the consequences.

      It's possible that kidnapping was some bizarre effort on his part to talk her into reconciling, and things went wrong. If he'd tried that as a defense, he might have gotten a shorter sentence. But the fact of the matter is that he stalked her like prey and tried to get away with it. It was about as premeditated as it gets.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    12. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And from the details I've read it sounds like theirs was the most toxic of all possible relationships: a 40-something geek, probably with not too many successful romantic experiences under his belt, meets a young Russian golddigger looking to move onwards and upwards by landing an American green card. The fact that she stayed around long enough to bear two children shows their relationship wasn't completely mercenary, and perhaps his kindness won her love for a while, but in the end their relationship was doomed and the mail-order Russian bride was bound to leave the emotionally-underdeveloped, totally-preoccupied-with-his-work geek for a more manly (i.e. one who would brutalize her just the way she liked it) lover while taking everything not nailed down with her.

    13. Re:Nerds and Geeks by RicardoGCE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this is Slashdot, but can we get off the "we nerds - a breed apart" pony, please? IF the guy did it, he is a murderer, period. He is not a pitiable tragic figure driven to madness by a duplicitous spouse and the supposed "nerd traits" some here like to pretend are not only ingrained in all so-called "nerds" or "geeks" (wouldn't want to piss anyone off pretending they are the same damn thing, would we?), but also wear as a badge of honor.

      If he did it, he's a murderer. End of story.

      How enraged would I be? Plenty. And if my rage ended in murder, I'd be a murderer too.

    14. Re:Nerds and Geeks by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We spend so much intellectual focus on concrete matters that the ambiguities and unsolvable problems of relationships seem almost alien and impossible with which to cope."

      Speak for yourself. I'm good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

    15. Re:Nerds and Geeks by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      "I can't say the woman had it coming, but everyone knows that sort of behavior triggers primal and violent reactions. How enraged would you be?"
      That's pretty ridiculous. We like to think of ourselves as not animals, for good reason.

      "That being said, every human being is capable of murder given the right circumstances. At issue is the circumstances."
      If we define murder to include self-defence, accident and unpremeditated violence, then you are right. If we exclude these categories, and almost all laws do, then no, many or most people will not commit murder under any circumstances. Many others will have their breaking-points, and these can too be dangerous to society.

    16. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Many others will have their breaking-points, and these can too be dangerous to society.

      That is probably the most profound part of this discussion. Thanks. The "breaking point" excellent. That the perfect phrase to describe what Hans hit.

      People like to create a "for" and "against" in a discussion. I am not "for" Hans at all. I can't even say I can empathize. I can, however, understand what happened. The emotional stress of a cheating wife who embezzles money, and trying to start your own company will drive a lot of people to the breaking point.

      That is neither forgiveness nor approval, it is understanding what happened. I hope that is still socially acceptable these days.

    17. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor Hans.

      This is what I'm hearing "Poor cold blooded murderer... he got caught."

      He should be locked away to rot. I don't care if he invented a cure for cancer. He murdered someone and you're just a douche bag.

    18. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1


      He should be locked away to rot. I don't care if he invented a cure for cancer. He murdered someone and you're just a douche bag.


      You read a seriousness to my comment that was not there. It was more ironic than serious.

      Never the less, if he's so smart, he should have been able to get away with it. I mean, come on, the police? I don't know about you, but I have police in my family and I've met my share. Not the sharpest tools in the shed.

      I mean come on, just how intellectually challenging is standing around drinking coffee and watching construction workers?

    19. Re:Nerds and Geeks by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Certainly. I think some people just got angry because the style of your posts seemed to read like you were supporting Reiser between the lines.

      This sort of criticism is often unfair; but it's also not unreasonable. It's rare for people to be entirely open-minded and not actually be taking a position with the pretence of arguing fairly. I'm sorry you were misunderstood.

    20. Re:Nerds and Geeks by The_Quinn · · Score: 1

      Since we all have the capability of murder, we have to gear our prosecution on the motivations. Self defense, perfectly understandable. Actually, killing self-defense is not murder. Murder is both intentional and premeditated. Therefore your argument does not apply

      A person's state of mind should be irrelevant in the application of the law. What a person thinks should never be a legal issue, only their actions. (Whether a person has the capacity to think is a separate issue)

    21. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Moridineas · · Score: 1
      I hope you have as much sympathy for the misunderstood alcoholic who beats his wife and the drug addict who steals for a fix. Everybody has problems, you are not a unique snowflake, get over yourself :-P

      How enraged would you be? If I was mad enough that I killed my wife in the heat of the moment, I would deserve to be thrown in jail.
    22. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder. Back that up with anything. Oh wait...you can't, just more useless hyperbole.

      This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill. You seem to have missed the point of your own story?
      1) You DIDN'T kill the dog.
      2) You were under attack and defended yourself and your family.

      how is that at all analagous to the situation you're alleging Reiser was in where

      1) He gets real, real mad at his wife
      2) Kills her and elaborately covers up the crime

      Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer. Agreed, maybe we're on the same page after all. I have failed to see any evidence that this WAS a crime of passion. Additionally, the lengths it seems Reiser went to to cover up a crime tend to toss the "passion" thing out the window.
    23. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Back that up
      Google for the "Weldon Angelos" case.

      I have failed to see any evidence that this WAS a crime of passion.
      This wasn't a random act of violence against an innocent. The wife was cheating on him and embezzled money from his company. You can't cay it wasn't provoked. I'm not saying it is justified, but surely you can see how it is a very old recipe for murder. Half of the mystery novels in the library play on some form of that scenario.

      When a person is in a situation in which they feel trapped, and I'm sure he did. Being in a bad marriage screws with your head. On top of that, kids, money, etc. As another poster put in a different thread, he reached his breaking point.

      I can understand what happened, and I think he is less of a danger to society than some ass who does a drive by shooting.

    24. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      In a dry historical sense, a wife who cheats on her husband has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries.

      In a dry historical sense, denying the existense of the god that happened to be popular at that place and time has pretty much been a death sentence in many cultures for centuries. Can we now agree that while what you wrote is technically correct, it is also 100% irrelevant to how things are today?
    25. Re:Nerds and Geeks by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Can we now agree that while what you wrote is technically correct, it is also 100% irrelevant to how things are today?

      I am frequently frustrated by people's parochial attitudes toward an intellectual discussion. Trying to understand what happened is not condoning it or approval of it. I can analyze and try to understand Ted Bundy without approving or condoning his actions.

      For centuries and in many cultures men have been killing their wives for cheating. The point I was trying to make was that it is an old story with old passions and motives. It is an emotional action no matter how intellectually planned and executed. Being in a bad marriage screws with your head. A cheating lover doubly so.

      To bring it back to nerds and geeks, it is just that, typically speaking, they are not the most emotionally developed people. Being one of them, it took me to my later 30s, a divorce, and several bad relationships to get a good grip.

      People are jumping to the conclusion that I feel sorry for Hans, I don't. My "Poor Hans" was more of an ironic comment. I guess it was misunderstood.

    26. Re:Nerds and Geeks by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Google for the "Weldon Angelos" case. Not quite the same thing. I agree that his case is absolutely ridiculous. Even the judge--a conservative and republican appointee agrees too. The sentencing was due to being charged with multiple counts of having weapons while being a drug dealer (and being caught selling with weapons mutiple times).\

      I can understand what happened, and I think he is less of a danger to society than some ass who does a drive by shooting. THis is very possible, and he certainly would have "given back" more in the form of ReiserFS, etc.
  29. Don't feed the computers! by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 0, Troll

    ReiserFS is created by mad men...mad men I tell yah. Next thing you know every computer with ReiserFS is going to becomes alive and go on a murderous rampage. Watch for the hail of CDs and floppy diskettes (yes linux computer still have those :P).

    They are even coming out with a secret weapon...the ZIP DISK, tun tun tuuuun.

    Remmber guys

    "Hold your hat and hang on to your soul
    Something's coming to eat the world whole"

    WATEVER THEY OFFER YOU....though it sounds really awesome and effient

    DONT INSTALL REISERFSSSSSS

    1. Re:Don't feed the computers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time you hear the zip-disk click it is already to late. You are already dead, you just haven't realized it yet.

    2. Re:Don't feed the computers! by aceofspades1217 · · Score: 1

      By the time you hear the zip-disk click it is already to late. You are already dead, you just haven't realized it yet.

      Thats when you life flashes before your eyes :P

  30. Not cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story tag "linuxbusiness" was unnecessary.

    Show some professionalism.

  31. He's Got a Backup by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    That doesn't prove he did it. He's just restoring a copy of her body from the journal.

    Maybe the real story here is about a bizarre lab failure during experiments to back up his girlfriend, every geek's dream.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  32. terrible seek time by m0llusk · · Score: 1

    It has been quite a while since this block of data was requested. If only there were some way to speed up the recall of stored information.

  33. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We call "known unknown"s NULLs here.

  34. interesting insight on possible outcomes by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    from the provided article, I spotted one very interesting comment:

    Conclusion: Either he is guilty and gets 15 years or he is innocent and gets 25 years.

    For that reason I think the whole idea of "making deals" should be tossed out. Criminals should not be allowed to trade aspects of their crime to reduce their sentence. All that seems to do is encourage them to plan their crime more carefully so they have more "bargaining power" if caught. If he did it, and hadn't hid the body as well, and they found it, he wouldn't be offered this option to reduce his sentence.

    Although someone else said that recently no governor has granted parole for anyone convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder, so it may not matter either way. The "to life" probably will be applied.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making deals with murderers is certainly unpleasant, but isn't it better to allow a plea bargain (as long as it can be determined to be genuine) to put other criminals/murderers in jail rather than to let them walk free?

      In this case Hans turned down an plea-bargain offer of a 11 year sentence if he plead guilty, so a reduction from 25-to-life to 15-to-life if he now changes his mind doesn't seem like any bargain. Assuming he's guilty he'd have been better off being honest about it up front and taking the 11 year sentence.

    2. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by v1 · · Score: 1

      That's been discussed quite a bit. The popular theory going seems to be he thought he'd done a good enough job covering things up to dodge the guilty verdict. A missing front seat, blood in the vehicle, and an unexplained road trip into the wilderness appear to have done it for him though. With that sort of circumstantial evidence, I don't know what was going through his head to think that wasn't enough. He bet unwisely against the house and lost.

      But then we start to explore the decision-making abilities of someone that commits this sort of crime in the first place. You cannot attempt to use logic and probability of sensible decisions to predict such a person's actions.

      In other words, lets say he was mentally stable and didn't do it. (those two go together right?) Then an idealistic person would have turned down the deal, expecting truth to somehow win out. But then lets say he was not mentally-stable, and resulted in his doing it. (an equally acceptable combination?) Then such a person would also be less likely to take the deal, thinking he can't possibly get caught, justifying his actions, hoping to "get away with it", etc etc.

      So the fact that he turned down the initial deal means nothing, it applies to both scenarios equally well.

      Isn't there a plea for an innocent person to make in a case where they're pretty certain they're going to get convicted anyway? "no contest" or something like that?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by Hatta · · Score: 1

      isn't it better to allow a plea bargain (as long as it can be determined to be genuine) to put other criminals/murderers in jail rather than to let them walk free?

      If you can't prove your case, why do you assume that you're letting a guilty man walk free? It's just as valid to infer that you'd be pressuring an innocent man into taking a deal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You're quite right. Plea bargaining leads to a situation where you are punished for exercising your right to a trial. This is wrong. I don't see how anyone can justify that.

      I'd like to see every case go to a trial. Every single one. That would make the state a lot more careful about what they prosecute. Each case would take a lot more work, so that would force the state to consider which crimes are most important to prosecute. Frankly, if the state isn't willing to pay for a full jury trial, then the crime in question must not have been that bad in the first place. You'd also get fewer people bullied into taking a "good deal" when they're innocent.

      Such an action would go a long way to relieving the strain on our prison system. Do you realize that the US imprisons more people (by number and by percent) than any other country in the world? Land of the free my ass.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Land of the free my ass.

      Having freedom doesn't give you the right to be an asshat (on a legal level that is).

      There are a ton of solutions to our prison systems but most of them have to do with massive overhauls that we're simply not going to see. These changes must be gradual simply for the sake of culture shock. It's unfortunate that we often get carried away with fighting an entire system instead of working to improve our backyard.

      The solutions to so many problems start on the local level. People not only have more say but should have more interest in who gets elected to their local and state governments over the federal simply for the fact that it's more likely to cause the most effects on one's life.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by twizmer · · Score: 1

      That seems to be a pretty hasty conclusion. For one thing, as far as the punishing the innocent bit goes, I think you're looking at it wrong. Consider it this way:

      Without plea bargains, he gets 25 whether he's innocent or guilty. With plea bargains, he gets 25 if he's innocent, and get gets 15 and the state gets the body if he's innocent. So if he's innocent, the presence or absence of plea bargains is irrelevant. He's not any worse off because of the bargain. Of course if he's guilty, he does better (even than an innocent guy) with plea bargains, but so does the state (since they get the body in return). Whether the particular bargain is a reasonable one is a different question, but doesn't really affect the guilt/innocence issue.

      To address the real issue more directly, it's a basic and necessary asumption of the justice system that the rate of incorrect convictions is very low. If it isn't, we're already completely screwed anyway. If it is, then these sorts of calculations need to take that into account. He gets 15 if he's guilty and 25 if he's innocent, but he's probably not innocent.

    7. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by v1 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see every case go to a trial. Every single one.

      Agreed. Both times I've done jury duty, the case was "settled" before we started. In both cases, the court representative told us that we were not wasting our time, because the mere threat of us appearing before the accused made him accept a plea bargain. Yes, we did waste our time. I wonder how many priors this person had? Maybe if we made it sting a little more by taking 'em to trial and find guilty and let the judge dish out a good sentencing, this wouldn't be such a repeat issue.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:interesting insight on possible outcomes by angrykeyboarder · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way. You (as a taxpayer) were saved the cost of the trial (and any possible appeals).

      --
      Scott

      ©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
  35. I know where it is! by Pienjo · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's in /lost+found.

  36. By your reasoning... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

    I am sure that as soon as owners of Volkswagens are made aware of the origin of the company they will immediately abandon their vehicles at the roadside.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  37. My guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he hanged her on a tree to restore the trees balance.

  38. People are so cliquish by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    It amazes me how many people assert someone's innocence, based on their (real or imaginary) self-identification with the victim AND ALMOST NO OTHER FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. "He's a linux guy, he can't have done this."

    Why? Is it so impossible to conceive that someone who in generally similar to oneself in one or more categories, somehow has a wire crossed and goes nuts? Is it that self-reference? That we fear we could do such a thing, or deny it entirely?

    We really are mostly cavemen with a teeny-tiny veneer of intellect and civilization over a superstitions, animalistic core.

    --
    -Styopa
  39. Yup: "as sure as it gets" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what a trial gets you. Not proof. Just a huge weight on the side of "probably guilty" and little on the side "probably innocent".

    Hans Reiser, Nina and her murderer (which may be Hans too) know what happened, though if Nina still knows, either there IS an afterlife or she wasn't murdered.

  40. Why did they have to ask him? by Evangelion · · Score: 0, Redundant


    I figured it would be in his journal.

  41. My guess is by LM741N · · Score: 1

    that he will reveal the body is in Egvekinot, Russia. (check Google maps for this hospitable "resort" location, lol)

  42. I told you so by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, I am going to say "I told you so". I posted in just about all of the Reiser threads that I was sure he killed his wife. Why? I had a fiancee (we did not marry though) in Ukraine a few years ago and I know American men who married women from Ukraine and Russia. One thing that is just a 100% constant with these women is that they are always devoted to their children. The idea that a Russian woman would simply abandon her children is just ludicrous in the extreme. A Russian mother would NEVER abandon her children. When Reiser claimed she had done this, I knew he killed her. Since 99% or more of you have never had relationships with women in this part of the world, I can only tell you that they simply do NOT under any circumstances abandon their children. Fathers over there do this all the time, but not mothers.

    Another issue is that the women over there are vindictive to an extent that Americans (and probably any man not from there) just cannot comprehend. I found it impossible to believe as well that she would return to Russia simply because any woman I've ever met from that part of the world would instead fight her husband in court just to stick it to him as much as possible. The idea that Nina Reiser would abandon her kids and a possible chance to stick it to Hans in the legal system just to live a footloose life in Russia is impossible to believe for anyone who's had any real experience with these women.

    1. Re:I told you so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      ...except that her children went back to Russia to live with grandma. So if she's there too, she didn't "abandon" them.

    2. Re:I told you so by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      A Russian mother would NEVER abandon her children


      That's generalization, and as most generalizations it is also incorrect. It's disproven by existence of orphanages in Russia (and Ukraine).

      BTW, I'm Russian currently living in Ukraine.
    3. Re:I told you so by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      The idea that Nina Reiser would abandon her kids and a possible chance to stick it to Hans in the legal system just to live a footloose life in Russia
      How could she possibly have stuck it to him in the legal system worse than a first degree murder conviction? And her kids *are* in Russia.

      Hans may very well have killed her, but you're just pointing out arguments against it.

    4. Re:I told you so by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Russian mother would NEVER abandon her children. When Reiser claimed she had done this, I knew he killed her. Since 99% or more of you have never had relationships with women in this part of the world, I can only tell you that they simply do NOT under any circumstances abandon their children.

      I for one am glad that the standard of proof has moved from "innocent until proven guilty" to "innocence doesn't jive with my 100% accurate stereotypes." Well, I suppose back to that. It used to be you could tell the guilt of a person just by looking at them.

      Also, having her husband convicted of murder, and her children sent to live with her mother is sticking it to him in a nasty way.

      I thought he was guilty when he started attempting to explain why he had hosed off the car, personally.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:I told you so by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      impossible - Reiser <3 linux therefore Reiser = infalliable!

      Who would have thought that eventually even Paul > Hans?

    6. Re:I told you so by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      How could she possibly have stuck it to him in the legal system worse than a first degree murder conviction? And her kids *are* in Russia. She couldn't have possibly planned that he would remove his car seat, thrown it away, and washed out the car so that the interior was completely under water. She couldn't have planned many other things. It is certainly possible for a woman to disappear and leave damning evidence of her murder behind, but the things that made Hans Reiser look guilty were produced by him only.
    7. Re:I told you so by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Not so specifically, but she would know the guy's a first class weirdo and would probably react in all sorts of suspicious ways when she came up missing. Of course, that also means he could have decided killing her was the right thing to do.

    8. Re:I told you so by cleatsupkeep · · Score: 1

      A Russian mother would NEVER abandon her children


      That's generalization, and as most generalizations it is also incorrect. It's disproven by existence of orphanages in Russia (and Ukraine).

      BTW, I'm Russian currently living in Ukraine. Not necessarily, as the mother could have died, but it was a generalization.
  43. you got peanut butter in my regex by Bootle · · Score: 1

    Besides, I think there are many CEO's or CFO's or any C.O's out there that have comitted far worse than a single murder There, fixed that for ya!
    1. Re:you got peanut butter in my regex by kiehlster · · Score: 1

      Besides, I think there are many CEO's or CFO's or any C[A-Z]O's out there that have comitted far worse than a single murder
      There, fixed that for ya!
  44. Premeditation? by twistah · · Score: 1

    They're saying the deal is off if the autopsy can prove its was premeditated. Didn't they find books on how to commit murder and other similar material? Doesn't that alone show premeditation?

    1. Re:Premeditation? by zebslash · · Score: 1

      The books were bought after Nina's disappearance, not before. Admitting he did it, that does not show premeditation, on the contrary. Anyway, being convinced of murder on the basis you bought some books distresses me.

  45. messed up? by mevets · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > 15 years alone is going to mess him even up..

    Like make him so crazy he might kill the mother of his children?

  46. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, a NULL implies zero.

    An "unknown unknown" is more like a NaN.

  47. Where is the Corpus Delicti? by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The story is believable enough, but, let's let the DA PROVE it first.

    IANAL, but in all the Perry Mason stories I read, the trial always start with proving Corpus Delicti which, as Perry Mason always explains, is not the body of the victim, but a proof that a crime was committed.


    In this case, I wonder: wasn't Reiser committed wrongfully? Because if finding the body could turn the conviction from first degree to second degree murder it clearly means that first degree murder hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt. At least, "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't seem like something that could be dispelled by examining a body that has been hidden for several years.


    And what if, after examining the body, evidence is found that death could have had a natural cause, or be a suicide? With that reasonable doubt, would the conviction be reversed?


    Finally, the juror mentioned in this article that made his decision based on the accused's eyes really scares me. What if I had been tried? Would a crazy schoolteacher send me to prison for life because he didn't like the look in my eyes? There's so much debate on lie detectors in general, experts cannot agree on which subtle body signals will tell if someone is lying or not. If trained police agents, people with vast experience in interrogation practices, using advanced equipment for evaluating stress, cannot tell for sure if someone is lying or not, how come a fifth-grade schoolteacher is able to tell just by a glance at the eyes?...


    I'm not saying Reiser is either guilty or not. But that juror's statements make me hope I never stand trial, not under that system, unless there's at least one honest man in the jury to restrain the crazy old schoolteachers.

    1. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case, I wonder: wasn't Reiser committed wrongfully? Because if finding the body could turn the conviction from first degree to second degree murder it clearly means that first degree murder hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

      I think Reiser is guilty. The evidence was overwhelming, I thought. The reason the DA would be willing to cop some sort of a deal would be to bring closure to the victim's family. They would be able to bury Nina and try and move on with their lives, and Hans is still going to be behind bars for a good, long time.

      Finally, the juror mentioned in this article [wired.com] that made his decision based on the accused's eyes really scares me. What if I had been tried? Would a crazy schoolteacher send me to prison for life because he didn't like the look in my eyes?

      I think you voice the fears of someone who is younger. As you get older, you get a better sense of who is sincere and who has something to hide and I would probably think the juror's judgement is ok. The human mind is a pretty darned good judge of character, if you listen to it.

      And besides, that's why there's more than one juror.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by mangu · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you voice the fears of someone who is younger. As you get older, you get a better sense of who is sincere and who has something to hide and I would probably think the juror's judgement is ok. The human mind is a pretty darned good judge of character, if you listen to it.

      Just to show you how faulty that judgement can be, I'm 51 years old. I have enough experience to know that very often those people who think themselves a "pretty darned good judge of character" aren't that good as they think.

    3. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by tjstork · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I have enough experience to know that very often those people who think themselves a "pretty darned good judge of character" aren't that good as they think.


      Fair enough. A lot of people on this board thought that Hans was innocent.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by burris · · Score: 1

      Finally, the juror mentioned in this article that made his decision based on the accused's eyes really scares me.

      He didn't say he made the decision based on Reiser's eyes, he merely said that you could tell by his eyes that he was lying. The same juror also said they spent two days deliberating whether he was guilty or not. I would bet that more than Mr. Reiser's eyes was discussed.

      In any event, it doesn't matter if Reiser's eyes revealed that he was lying or not. Reiser volunteered on the stand that he was lying. The Prosecutor even asked him if he had willfully and deliberately misled the jury and Reiser said yes and that he was sorry about it. In California, juries are given instructions that if a witness lies then they can disregard any of the rest of the same witness' testimony.
    5. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, in this case it's been widely speculated that Reiser has Asberger's. One common symptom of Asberger's is difficulty making and maintaining eye contact. To a layperson on a jury that's unfamiliar with Asberger's, this can easily be mistaken for insincerity.

    6. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would a crazy schoolteacher send me to prison for life because he didn't like the look in my eyes? Yes. With the above normal rate of high-functioning autism among geeks it would seem very possible as one of the most common traits is a reluctance to meet other people's eyes which is often interpreted as being 'shifty eyed' and a sign of guilt.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting point, but I wonder how common it is among people in general? In my experience it seems like most people in general don't like making eye contact or seem uncomfortable when I actually look at them when a conversation is going on.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    8. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by twizmer · · Score: 1

      In this case, I wonder: wasn't Reiser committed wrongfully? Because if finding the body could turn the conviction from first degree to second degree murder it clearly means that first degree murder hasn't been proved beyond reasonable doubt. At least, "beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't seem like something that could be dispelled by examining a body that has been hidden for several years.

      I don't think you understand the nature of prosecutorial deals. First degree murder was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and as a matter of fact the body is not likely to change that (unless there's some overwhelming evidence that e.g. she died of natural causes). The DA is simply contemplating reducing the sentence (effectively, by reducing the charges) in return for Reiser cooperating (by giving them the body, which they'd really like). They don't need the body to prove things one way or the other, they just want to find it (to give the family closure and so on) and are willing to cut deals to get it.

      And what if, after examining the body, evidence is found that death could have had a natural cause, or be a suicide? With that reasonable doubt, would the conviction be reversed?

      Depending on the circumstances, new evidence could be considered. (Actually, I think that if he knew where the body was the whole time, he might not be permitted to present the new evidence because it was his fault for not disclosing the location at the original trial. Not sure how that would turn out). If he were permitted to present the evidence on appeal, and the court found it established a reasonable doubt, he would be acquitted.

    9. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Not sure how that would turn out). If he were permitted
      > to present the evidence on appeal, and the court found
      > it established a reasonable doubt, he would be acquitted.

      No, an Appeals Court cannot give him an acquittal, as that requires a finding of fact, not law. It can find that sufficient new exculpatory evidence exists that he should be retried, and then the lower courts handle it. Then, if the body indicates that he didn't do it, the DA can decline to refile charges.

      More likely, the body will not provide any such evidence, of course, or he would have turned over the location far earlier. If there is enough question raised (and remember, as convicted, he now has to meet a higher level of proof than he did when presumed legally innocent) for the judges to order a retrial, the DA will refile, and probably reconvict. After all, no one can say, then, that the body hadn't been found, and she had just disappeared.

    10. Re:Where is the Corpus Delicti? by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Yes. With the above normal rate of high-functioning autism among geeks it would seem very possible as one of the most common traits is a reluctance to meet other people's eyes which is often interpreted as being 'shifty eyed' and a sign of guilt. I see this as a reduction to the absurdly simple. For whatever reason a significant portion of slashdotters (perhaps nerd empathy) have defended Reiser from day 1, regardless of his actions and the ever growing mound of evidence. As it became more and more clear that Reiser was probably guitlty, I don't know, it's like some form of cognitive dissonance kicked in, and so Reiser wasn't being challenged for his probably murdering his wife, but for being different, possibly having aspergers, etc.

      I have not read anywhere that has claimed that had Reiser not been a weird asshole, he would have been declared innocent. Nobody said "I thought he was innocent, but he wouldn't look me in the eye, so he's guilty." It's just not there. These threads of discussion are all pointless!

      If the evidence hadn't been there, I highly doubt Reiser would have been declared guilty. I'm not saying the justice system is perfect by any means, but of all the cases to complain about, I don't see it here..
  48. Think of it as a "Hack" and not a "Murder" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at this so-called "crime" more as a "hack" than a "murder" it seems a lot cooler.

    I mean, here's a guy who didn't like his relationship and simply "scratch an itch". He did what many of us do in more mundane situations.

    1. Re:Think of it as a "Hack" and not a "Murder" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Troll

  49. Name change by ericspinder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about renaming it for the woman he killed? NinaFS, perhaps?

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    1. Re:Name change by OzRoy · · Score: 1

      I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately I can't mod you up as I already posted.

    2. Re:Name change by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      That would be a bit creepy, at least for some people.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:Name change by Se7enLC · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention the usage:

      mount /dev/hda1 -t nina
      fsck.nina /dev/hda1

      the joke goes on and on...

    4. Re:Name change by Prien715 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I didn't know you were into necrophilia;)

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    5. Re:Name change by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Or, may be, KidsnatcherFS...

      Cue to downmodding, 3,2,1...

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    6. Re:Name change by Minwee · · Score: 1

      How about renaming it for the woman he killed?

      Isn't ReiserFS already named after Nina Reiser?

    7. Re:Name change by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Nina Doesn't go down on anyone!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Name change by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      That is one of the greatest comment on Slashdot ever.

    9. Re:Name change by nthwaver · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Why is the name nina more fsckable and mountable than reiser? Because she's dead, or because she's a woman? I was told in a previous thread that slashdot is free of sexual and gender bias, so that can't be it. Plz help a confused girl understand why this is +5 Funny.

  50. Well... by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    At least now people will stop trying to defend him - not because they know anything about the case, but just as some sort of metaphoric internet war against haters...

  51. Missing possibility by Icarium · · Score: 1

    Why are there only 2 conclusions?

    If he tells them where the body is, he's probably guilty.
    If he doesn't, it may be because he's innocent -or- it would make a serious dent in any appeal he thinks about lodging.

    Not being cooperative isn't by default a sign of innocence.

    Heck, depending on how (and if) the deed was done, he may simply be incapable of pointing out the body's location ("Now where'd that durn dumptruck get itself to?")

  52. Bad Summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Its almost like the person writing the summary didn't even read the article, but then the article itself has a badly written headline. The D.A. said that Reiser *might* disclose the location of the body for a reduced sentence. So this is nothing more than speculation at this point.

    1. Re:Bad Summary! by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Reiser's own lawyer said he would be open to such a move.

      After the verdict, someone asked whether or not Reiser might seek a lesser sentence by revealing the location of the body. The lawyer said (and I'm quoting here):
      "We'll have to talk to the prosecution about that".

  53. No correction here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the point of prison was to punish and correct the guilty and get them back into working order

    The point of prison here in the USA is pretty much pure punishment only. Nothing else.

  54. What a waste of talent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a shame

  55. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he's guilty, why would they be willing to let him off more easily just because he showed them the body? I don't know what the difference between first and second degree murder is, but "hiding the body" doesn't seem likely to be the main distinction.

    1. Re:Why? by Bud+Dickman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's not the distinction. The point would be that it's a good faith gesture that would help a case for leniency. Convicts are rewarded with early parole for good behavior; just think of this action as rewarding good behavior.

      I get all my legal knowledge from Law and Order so this could be all wrong.

    2. Re:Why? by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Because leniency is all they can offer him in exchange for 1) retrieving her body so that the family can bury it, 2) ending his appeals, and 3) having it enter the public record that he really is guilty, not just guilty at trial. That's worth a couple years off his sentence. Note that reducing the sentence doesn't alter the charge under which he was convicted--that's still first degree murder.

      From Reiser's perspective, it's a good deal. He didn't have any good grounds for appeal, so it was very unlikely that he'd get a new trial or have the verdict overturned. This way, in ten years or so when he applies for parole, he can say that he admitted his guilt, was very sorry, and even helped them find the body. Convicts who don't admit they're guilty don't ever, ever get parole.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  56. You've got it backwards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Mandatory sentencing is a result of _citizens_ getting up in arms when some convicted rapist on early release molests and murders an eight-year-old girl. It's the result of judges exercising complete stupidity in sentencing violent offenders to ridiculously short periods of incarceration (or none) and then having them commit the same (or worse) crimes again.

  57. Huh? Troll much? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Huh? Having actually read all the threads about him, including this one, I see:

    1. That about as many people argued that he's guilty, as people argued that he's innocent.

    2. People guilt-tripping themselves by association for using his filesystem. (By comparison, I don't think many people burned their copy of Naked Gun just because OJ was in it.)

    3. In true nerdy tradition, the argument mostly centered around the semantics of "beyond reasonable doubt." Which some people seemed to believe means "beyond all possible doubt, no matter how unrealistic or far fetched."

    I don't think even #3 it had as much to do with wanting to believe Hans was innocent, as with generally defining that term. We're nerds, we need exact definitions, not vague concepts. And it doesn't help that some (but not all) of those involved seem have a certain mind frame that reduces everything to black and white.

    You can see that kind of OCPD in lots of discussions about anything else. If program X isn't perfect, then it's complete crap. If company Y isn't saintly, then it's the spawn of Satan. If business decision Z isn't the absolute best in some aspect, far from realizing it's just a debatable compromise among many other possible compromises, it's painted as utter idiocy and as taken by a bunch of drooling morons who can't even tie their own shoes in less than 3 tries. Etc.

    And here we saw the same thing: _some_ (but not all) of the people were just arguing whether it's acceptable to convict _anyone_ of first degree murder with less evidence than him doing the murder in the middle of a stadium and showing the the body to everyone. And, mind you, although I probably sound critical of them, the discussion itself does have some philosophical merit. Exactly where do you draw the threshhold of "reasonable doubt"?

    Some seem to have a born aversion and distrust of any kind of authority or institution of the State, including the courts of law. Hence, they'll side with anyone who's being picked on by the State.

    And some of us just engaged in some idle speculations, basically to the effect of whether facts A, B and C support the conclusion D. Just because it's the kind of intellectual exercise that makes us nerdy in the first place.

    So basically if you looked at all this, and all you saw was "tribal-level prejudice", then you're either seriously lacking perception or are just trolling.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Huh? Troll much? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      (By comparison, I don't think many people burned their copy of Naked Gun just because OJ was in it.)

      A lot can be done with video editing software and footage of Natalie Portman.

    2. Re:Huh? Troll much? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly where do you draw the threshhold of "reasonable doubt"?
      Well, 'reasonable doubt' means just that -- some amount of uncertainty that exists because a person of average intelligence could be lead to believe in that uncertainty for various reasons.

      Not having a body doesn't count much these days as 'reasonable doubt,' as plenty of jurors can imagine scenarios in which the body would not be found.

      A lack of strong evidence could represent a reasonable doubt. While they found blood in Reiser's vehicle, it was only trace amounts and those trace amounts could be explained by circumstances other than 'he murdered her and dragged the body around in his car'.

      However, I think what probably did him in was the eyewitness testimony, particularly that of his son, who changed his story from 'Hans and Nina left separately' to 'Hans and Nina left together and only Hans came back'. In the minds of the jurors, that must have seemed particularly damning.

      OTOH, a different set of jurors might have seen it differently -- after all, the boy did change his story, so they might think "how do we know which time he told the truth?"

      I dunno. But I think he did it. So what do I know?
  58. Can't you see? by Mar_Garina · · Score: 1

    It's been all a plan, made by the ext3 developers. JFS/XFS wives: I'd be staying at home.

  59. Not dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's always FreeBSD.

  60. Location Is easy!! by jlebrech · · Score: 1

    Locate *.body | grep "nina"

  61. RTFA by macdaddy · · Score: 4, Informative

    You should RTFA. It doesn't say that he's confessed. Yet, at least. And it doesn't say that's he's offered to lead the DA to the body. Clearly the Wired reporter that wrote the story is used to writing technical articles, not articles about murder and the legal system.

    1. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it doesn't say that's he's offered to lead the DA to the body.

      Yes, from the standpoint of factual exposition, the article could have been better written. So, I e-mailed the author of the article about this question, and he said definitely that the defense made the offer described in the article.

    2. Re:RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I emailed Bush about whether he lied to get us into war with Iraq, and he said definitely that all the pretenses were false.

  62. Did they check under the tree? by aszaidi · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I heard he hides them bits under some kinda tree which makes it easier to finds them. Hell, he even wrote down all the details in his journal.

    Ain't that simple enough? Find the journal, find the body.

  63. Some offenders cannot be rehabilitated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To this end, another purpose of prison is to protect citizens by removing violent criminals from society.

    In any case, in rejecting the conservative koolaid you've apparently taking to smoking the liberal weed. Rehabilitation was not the original purpose of prison in the United States--pointed to by the fact that we _used_ to say that a criminal was released "when they had repaid their debt to society." You'll note that this is not the same as "You're fixed now--go forth and commit murder no more!"

    The idea that someone can be rehabilitated is an interesting one, but evaluation of a prisoner's state of mind and character _while in prison_ is pretty much impossible--leaving us with the option of incarceration for the protection of society or freeing violent criminals to prey on new victims. And every some judge lets rapist out who proceds to molest and murder a little girl, the citizens (rightfully) get up in arms and want "mandatory" sentencing.

    The system is broken on both ends--a few bad decisions by a few bad judges and people start thinking "I don't want them letting some serial killer loose in my neighborhood" (never mind how statistically unlikely this is) and then: poof! Mandatory Sentencing Law 1243b.

    A better solution might be to push for rehabilitation in cases where the crimes were non-violent (or perhaps to use creative sentencing to avoid prison terms for some things) and to find some other alternative for violent criminals.

    Unfortunately, the nuances don't lend themselves to sound bites as well as "Convicted rapist molests three-year-old" or "Man unjustly sentenced released after 20 year in jail." And rational discussion is right out these days, in any case.

    1. Re:Some offenders cannot be rehabilitated by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 1

      Rehabilitation was not the original purpose of prison in the United States--pointed to by the fact that we _used_ to say that a criminal was released "when they had repaid their debt to society."

      You fail at history. Please, go look into the first prisons in the US, in particular those established in PA by the Quakers (who originated the modern practice of solitary confinement). Rehabilitation was the PRIMARY goal of prisons in the US when they were first established, both for the good of society and for the good of the prisoner's soul.

      And saying that I'm "smoking the liberal weed" and supporting your point about the purpose of prisons with an unsourced cliche? Classic debating tactics. Quality stuff.

    2. Re:Some offenders cannot be rehabilitated by oclawgeek · · Score: 1
      Of course, the modern purpose is something quite different now. For example, in California, we get Penal Code Section 1170(a) which says, in part:

      The Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of imprisonment for crime is punishment. This purpose is best served by terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances.

      Whether this sort of thing has any tendency whatsoever to reduce crime is subject to debate.

      --
      News Flash: Godzilla hates infrastructure.
  64. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that was truly awful. I loved it!

  65. I don't think so by troon · · Score: 1

    Linus would have some trouble murdering his wife: Tove is a six-time Finnish national karate champion.

    --
    Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    1. Re:I don't think so by drharris · · Score: 1

      Do you think she can roundhouse kick a bullet in-flight?

    2. Re:I don't think so by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Guns kill six-time Finnish national karate champions dead just like everybody else. As does poison, cut brake lines in the car, fires, etc.

      He might have a hard time killing her in a fair fight, but I'm guessing that most premeditated murders don't involve a fair fight.

      Either way, I think she's safe.

    3. Re:I don't think so by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      She must be able to, she studied under Chuck Norris*

      * This is probably not true.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  66. Serious question: by bondjamesbond · · Score: 0

    Can Hans have a computer(s) in prison and continue to work on the file system?

  67. Yay! A russian brides ad! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Classy.

    Thank you Anastasia international.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  68. Still a frightening conviction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scary part isn't that he might have been innocent it's that they didn't prove he was guilty or that a crime had been committed. I don't give a crap what happens to Hans (especially if he is as guilty as it appeared all along) but I'm terrified of a system that can convict you with the tiny amount of physical evidence they had. The system is severely broken and this trial proves it even if the greater good won out through a horrible perversion of due process.

  69. Did anyone read.... by Overkill+Nbuta · · Score: 1

    The info on http://slashdot.org/~hansreiser his slashdot account?

    I love his comment in his Foes section. hansreiser (6963) loves everyone or plays their cards very close to their chest.

  70. Did it include comments like... by rmdyer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... "All work and no play makes Hans a dull boy" ?

  71. Right feeling wrong reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hans hasn't "fessed up" to anything. He is going to be given an offer. That doesn't mean he is guilty (nor does it mean he is innocent). He very well may be guilty, but the evidence just isn't there (not that such a detail would prevent a conviction), and no confession has come yet.

    If you want to feel like a moron, do it for jumping to conclusions again.

    1. Re:Right feeling wrong reason by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Jumping to conclusions? A jury found him guilty for goodness sakes. Now maybe they're wrong, but if he knows where the location of the body is, then I'd say that's the, how shall we put it, last nail in the coffin.

      The guy is a murderer, and a fucking nutcase to boot. I have no idea why so many in the tech community have such a hard time coming to grips with that.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Right feeling wrong reason by jythie · · Score: 1

      Because the prosecution and judge openly mocked him for being 'weird' and several people on the jury admitted they convicted him by simply 'looking into his eyes'.

      Guilty or not, this is scary stuff for people with significant social disorders. To many it really appears he was not convicted on evidence but on personality. "He acted guilty" seems to be the dominant reasoning.

      It is esp disconcerting because, trait by trait, many people know at least one or two peeps who have individual traits that were mocked. The looking people in the eye thing is a common example.. lots of aspies and such really have trouble with that, but average people (this is a big problem with police esp) read it as hiding something or guilt.

  72. Depends who he murders by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

    For example, if he murders ME, I can verify I will stop using the kernel. ;)

  73. Tom, take me out Hans Reiser style by afabbro · · Score: 1

    There's at least ten Google Maps/GPS jokes in this discussion, but they would be tasteless...though funny, which are usually the best kind of jokes.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  74. 1st Degree Murder in California by burris · · Score: 1

    Its certainly murder, but not 1st degree.
    In California at least, premeditation simply means that you thought about killing someone, had time to reflect on that, then subsequently killed them. That's all you need for 1st degree murder in California. You don't need to provide evidence of a plan or evidence that the plan was carried out. The jury believed that Hans thought about killing Nina, had time to reflect on that, then subsequently killed her. The evidence included the e-mails to Nina in the months leading up to the murder, Reiser's complete and utter disregard for Nina's well being, his expressed relief to his mother that Nina was permanently out of the picture, his hatred of Nina that he expressed during his testimony on the stand, and on and on.
  75. A little compassion, perhaps? by swordgeek · · Score: 0, Troll

    Today /. is hitting a new low.

    I read about 15 posts here, every one of them a joke about Reiser, ReiserFS, the missing body, or Unix in general.

    Is there anyone here who remembers that a woman is missing and presumably murdered? There are two children who have done nothing wrong, but are now effectively parentless, living with their grandmother.

    Yeah, I know this is /., and no I'm not new here (check the number). It still galls me that there is NOTHING BUT jokes about this case.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by quag7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many thousands upon thousands of people died today?

      How many people here know Hans or Nina Reiser?

      Every time something like this happens, the tissue brigade (not that one, the other one) comes out berating others for not being all solemn about it. I don't know Hans or Nina Reiser, or their kids. If I could have intervened to stop the murder of this complete stranger, I would have, but pretending that this emotionally affects me in any way, shape, or form, is just being a drama queen.

      It reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to drive out to my grandparents house for Easter on Good Friday and between 12 and 3 - the hours we'd be traveling - my mother would insist that there be no music or discussion in the car, because, you know, Jesus suffered on the cross two thousand years ago during those hours (supposedly). And she's screw on this phony bullshit look of solemnity and I'd just want to ask my father, "Is she REALLY serious?"

      I wasn't listen to my Walkman, couldn't play electronic games - nothing. I had to sit there in the car in the fucking purgatory of the Poconos and pretend to be really upset about Jesus dying (which is particularly stupid if you already know the end of the story), but lucky me, I had several days, and several hours, of *church* in front of me to look forward to. Hooray.

      This particular case is of interest only because many of us use MurderFS (sorry, sorry, shouldn't make light of this), and if we didn't, this murder really wouldn't make a damn bit of difference any more than the thousands of other deaths happening around the world right now.

      As for joking about death, murder, mayhem, genocide - as far as I am concerned, the worst atrocities our species are capable of are definitely worth humor. Humor may be the only thing that even comes close to standing up to the very real and unpleasant reality of our own mortality. There is a big difference between joking about this or any other serious event, and somehow taking pleasure in other peoples' loss. Humor takes a little of the wind out of tragedy. Or it's supposed to, anyway.

      I don't know Hans or Nina Reiser, nor the guy on his deathbed in Swaziland who is about to expire right now, and I'm not going to sit here and pretend I am in any way emotionally invested in this enough to alter my behavior. This is how the human psyche works, thank god, or we'd do nothing but sob ourselves to death - what matters is what happens to our respective tribes. Everything outside of that is merely fodder for the rest of humanity to go into phony mourning in a display to everyone of how sensitive they are.

      Fuck that shit.

    2. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there anyone here who remembers that a woman is missing and presumably murdered? Yes, we just don't pretend that there's anything notable or exceptional about that. Just another Missing White Woman(tm) used to grab ratings.
    3. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is denying the gravity of the situation, mainly from the children's point of view (Strange how people don't seem to be sympathetic towards the murderer who, most religions and professionals would posit, is just as deserving of help as the others involved). However, this is human nature. A LOT of people, many of whom are appalled by such (alleged?) acts, will still make light of it. It's how people work. Go to any comedy club on the night after a terrible event - there will be jokes about it and there will be laughter about the jokes.

      September 11th? I know any number of extremely sick jokes about it that other people have told me, who they have heard from friends, who heard from friends, who heard from friends. If people were that appalled by the fact that jokes existed, it wouldn't get passed on. Guantanamo Bay? People being held indefinitely without a proper court, without charge and in some cases even without evidence? I would say that was much, much more appalling purely because it affects so many more people, potentially. World Wars I & II were absolutely appalling events but we have entire comedy series designed to poke fun at them (Blackadder, for instance). Michael Jackson jokes... are they as appalling because they suggest a man is a paedophile when little evidence exists to back that up?

      But human nature demands that we find the humour in all situations in order to be able to bother to survive disaster itself. Maybe it's being British? It's often referred to as "trench humour", or "spirit of the blitz" but it all boils down to the same thing. Laughing in the face of adversity. Seeing the funny side. Keeping your humour when you lose everything else. I don't know, but I'd be infinitely more worried if people *weren't* making jokes. That suggests a "joke police" somewhere, which smells of brainwashing to me.

      Nobody should forget the seriousness of such things but to sit around moping? Life goes on, even for those two children. This is an open Internet forum - people are able to express their true feelings here, and to hide behind jokes, just as much as in any other circumstance. And this being an international site, the majority of people probably don't even know/care about the fate of a single man in a foreign country (the fact that he may possibly face execution is APPALLING in many people's eyes), so he easily becomes an object of ridicule.

      And depending on how you look at it, the children are now in a much better situation, where people aren't fighting over them, they are not forced to be in the custody of a murderous character (if, indeed, it's all been proved and convicted as the article suggests, but which I find highly doubtful based on the fact that this article is almost entirley rumour from anonymous third-parties) even if only for a few days a week. And from the very poorly-reported and overly-senstational articles I've seen, that may not just apply to Reiser himself but the other man involved with his wife.

      And the children, too, will have to live their life rather than moping and blaming everything on their childhood. When they get older, I hope they are able to crack a joke with their friends rather than use an event as the excuse to go off the rails.

      As AC because of the inevitable flames...

    4. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      Nobody is expecting you to cry for the thousands of people that die every day. You can't grieve for all of them. But it's quite another thing to crack jokes about it, isn't it?

      And don't give me your "humor is the best medicine bullshit". Most of the "+5 funny" remarks aren't using humor to work through grief -- they are making fun of somebody who died. Shame on you.

    5. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


      As for joking about death, murder, mayhem, genocide - as far as I am concerned, the worst atrocities our species are capable of are definitely worth humor. Humor may be the only thing that even comes close to standing up to the very real and unpleasant reality of our own mortality. There is a big difference between joking about this or any other serious event, and somehow taking pleasure in other peoples' loss. Humor takes a little of the wind out of tragedy. Or it's supposed to, anyway.

      Humor is also a way that a lot of people, myself included, deal with tragedy. Even when it affects us. Sometimes some shit happens, and it's really hard to grasp the gravity or understand the reason behind it - there's just no way you can wrap your head around some of the things that happen in the world.

      Case in point; I was a mile from the Va Tech shootings last April. I was friends with one of the victims, and as an alumnus and employee of the University (at the time) was second-hand connected to many of the people involved. My department was one of the ones that scrambled to provide equipment and space to the people displaced by the closure of the building after it happened. And yet, I chuckled after seeing some of the 4chan "new high score!" or "rule34vatech" pics. Sometimes, the situation begs an emotional response, and morbid laughter is one of the only things standing between you and emotional meltdown.

      In the end, there's not a whole lot we can do about the worldwide epidemic of tragic events; might as well laugh about them. It keeps you sane, where dwelling on it would wreck most people.

      ~W

      --
      sig?
    6. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by quag7 · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

    7. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Nobody is expecting you to cry for the thousands of people that die every day. You can't grieve for all of them. But it's quite another thing to crack jokes about it, isn't it? You fail to understand humor.
      All jokes are about someone's misfortune. Its only the unfunny ones like knock-knock jokes that aren't necessarily about laughing at someone else's problems. Since we all die sooner or later it would be inhumane to make jokes about death verboten.
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Norwell+Bob · · Score: 0

      I wish I had points so I could mod this up. Well said, sir.

    9. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Pretty accurate -- I hate wetness too -- although I would add a minor modification. Many people actively resist this tribal mindset, and many other people will work to improve the lot of unfortunate people they don't know, not through sentiment or sympathy, but through rational compassion.

    10. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      This is how the human psyche works, thank god, or we'd do nothing but sob ourselves to death - what matters is what happens to our respective tribes. Everything outside of that is merely fodder for the rest of humanity to go into phony mourning in a display to everyone of how sensitive they are.
      Have you considered that those instincts to care about those genetically similar to ourselves (our tribe) vary in magnitude and focus quite a bit? Some people extend them to caring about all humans, some to their race, some to fellow geeks, and others to only themselves. So it's not necessarily a phony display - they are just following their instincts like you are.
    11. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many of us use MurderFS

      I prefer "Two timing cunt that got what she deserved FS"

    12. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to drive out to my grandparents house for Easter on Good Friday and between 12 and 3 - the hours we'd be traveling - my mother would insist that there be no music or discussion in the car, because, you know, Jesus suffered on the cross two thousand years ago during those hours (supposedly). And she's screw on this phony bullshit look of solemnity and I'd just want to ask my father, "Is she REALLY serious?"

      Yes, really. He did. In *every time zone at once*. Do not question Jesus' mighty powers of parallel suffering.

    13. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by quag7 · · Score: 1

      Considered and rejected. They're being drama queens.

    14. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That you Hans?

    15. Re:A little compassion, perhaps? by angrykeyboarder · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the mods overlooked this one.

      So here's my vote.:

      +5, Insightful

      --
      Scott

      ©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
  76. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Postgresql

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  77. Oblig. User Friendly by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hope this finally serves as a "wake up call" for Linux lickers and lovers that using Linux does increase chances of violence and murder. Linux is bad juju
    1. Re:Oblig. User Friendly by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      The only thing that increases the potential for violence and murder is the awful ReiserFS when it trashes all your data.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  78. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by BJH · · Score: 1

    Depends on what language you're using, or even the implementation of the language.
    There's plenty that distinguish NULL from a zero value.

  79. Care for a bath ? by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  80. GHynson by GHynson · · Score: 0

    Start cutting off fingers,.. He'll confess the whereabouts of Nina. I'll take bets he'll cave after the second finger.

  81. Just one thing I didn't understand, Inspector... by Tim+Browse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was kind of on the fence about all this, as you never get a true/complete picture from the reporting.

    Until I read, however, that he had removed the front passenger seat from his car so he 'could sleep in the car', and then claimed that he threw away the seat (or was unable to produce it).

    That goes against the instinct of every geek-like person I've met - they'd all keep the seat, so they could replace it later if they needed to use it, or wanted to sell the car, etc. "I'll keep it just in case."

    That was the bit of his story that made me think "uh oh".

    Good job I wasn't on the jury, eh? :)

  82. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    And no error correction or backup.

  83. No way! by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Funny

    They should at least rename it to try to distance the software as much as possible from its creator....

    Nah. I may be a dorky white guy who's never been in a real fight, but now that I'm using a murderer's filesystem I feel, like, totally gangsta.

    Don't take that away from me.

  84. you arent the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's only doing this because the body will eventually be found anyway

    He is only doing what? According to the article (no I am not new here, yes you should have read it anyway), he is meely being offered the opportunity. He hasn't admitted to squat.

    Incidentally, you are not the first person to say "I told you so." And even if it turns out that Hans is guilty, the fact remains that during the trial, there wasn't enough evidence to believe that he was guilty (not that a lack of evidence would ever stop a typical set of jurors from convicting someone they thought was weird).

    1. Re:you arent the first by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

      There definitely WAS enough evidence. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt." It is solely up to a jury to decide whether the standard has been met.

    2. Re:you arent the first by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      the fact remains that during the trial, there wasn't enough evidence to believe that he was guilty Sure, if you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears while shouting "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" repeatedly.
  85. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by arth1 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this was his first attempt at implementing the missing "dump".

    (Honestly, the lack of dump/restore equivalents in reiserfs was just one of the many elements that marked is as an amateurish effort that should never have been hyped up to the level it was. Yeah, it was fast for certain things, but fast in the way of a rice cooker with nitrous injection, and while useful for impressing the kids on the block, it had no place racing at Le Mans.)

  86. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Ioldanach · · Score: 2, Informative
    I can't think of any language or system offhand in which NULL implies zero. What are you referring to?

    NULL, zero, NaN, and undef are all distinct constructs which are not completely interchangable, though some computing languages allow you to interchange some of them.

    As far as I'm aware:

    • zero is a value, none. None is not the same as nothing.
    • NaN is a theoretical value, there's a value out there but because the conditions that got you to this point in the calculation are the result of taking an unknown to an unknown level, you can't define what it is, let alone that it is a number.
    • NULL is valueless, empty, nothing. It might be used in the context of a null set, in which case the set is empty, but this isn't the same as a set which contains a single entry that is a zero, it is simply outright empty. If you ask if 0 == 0, the result is true, if you ask if NULL == 0, the answer is false, because the NULL is nothingness. If you ask if NULL == NULL, the answer is still false, because neither value can match anything.
    • undef is a placeholder of something that will probably get a value at some point, but currently doesn't have one. Until it does, its value can probably be considered NULL.
  87. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

    I can't think of any language or system offhand in which NULL implies zero.

    Synon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synon). <Shudder>

  88. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or not if he encrypts the body.

  89. Re:Still a frightening conviction... (NOT). by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Man, you freakin' me out! You say: " . . . even if the greater good won out through a horrible perversion of due process." Do you really mean to imply that a disconnect between the "greater good" and "due process" is a desirable thing? Looks to me like the jurors were smart and worthy of the public's trust. There was TONS of evidence presented to convince a REASONABLE person beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the man killed his wife.

  90. Now this is scary by spectro · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this guy was right... we will know if they describe the place the body is found o.O

    --
    HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
  91. Ad on the /. page... by hiryuu · · Score: 4, Funny


    Am I the only one who got the inline Flash ad image for a Russian dating service on this /. comments page, and who found it somewhere between distasteful and darkly humorous?

    --
    Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.
    1. Re:Ad on the /. page... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who found it somewhere between distasteful and darkly humorous? Well as long as it didn't say: "Looking for a *new* wife?"
  92. WRONG BITCH! by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't think of any language or system offhand in which NULL implies zero. What are you referring to?

    #ifdef __cplusplus
    #define NULL 0
    #else
    #define NULL ((void *)0)
    #endif

    More about NULL
  93. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by wezeldog · · Score: 1

    Thanks, V.I.N.CENT...

  94. Let's just finally admit that Hans Reiser is evil. by elucido · · Score: 0


    Just because he's an evil genius it does not change the fact that he's evil. It's the OJ Simpson of our community.

  95. Rename reiserFS to evilFS. by elucido · · Score: 1


    I don't see why we should name a filesystem after this guy.

  96. C and C++, ever heard of em? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't think of any language or system offhand in which NULL implies zero. What are you referring to?

    C and C++, for starters. In what system where "NULL" (as distinct from "null") is actually a defined term does it not mean zero*?

    NULL is valueless, empty, nothing. It might be used in the context of a null set, in which case the set is empty, but this isn't the same as a set which contains a single entry that is a zero, it is simply outright empty. If you ask if 0 == 0, the result is true, if you ask if NULL == 0, the answer is false, because the NULL is nothingness. If you ask if NULL == NULL, the answer is still false, because neither value can match anything.

    No, NULL is a pointer, and a pointer is an unsigned integer. You can't assign the value of "valueless" to an integer. You can assign zero. In the vast majority of systems, the comparison of "NULL == 0" is true, and thus of course "NULL == NULL" is also true.

    Hell, even in java, "null == null" would return true. That's the whole point of having a 'null' value; being able to compare other pointers and references to this value, to see if they are valid.

    * Of course since it's just a #define value in C, it can be different and there are always exceptions. In fact I worked on a system at IBM where they defined NULL as some non-zero 64-bit value, simply because they wanted to force programmers to use if (pointer != NULL) instead of the lazier (but usually equally correct) if (pointer). Personally I think this created as many bugs as it prevented.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by Ioldanach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, NULL is a pointer, and a pointer is an unsigned integer. You can't assign the value of "valueless" to an integer. You can assign zero. In the vast majority of systems, the comparison of "NULL == 0" is true, and thus of course "NULL == NULL" is also true.
      Null can be implemented as a pointer, but doesn't have to be. In SQL the expected behavior of NULL is to match nothing, except statements like 'WHERE x IS NULL' or IFNULL().
    2. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 3, Informative

      Curiously, in C++, that definition would be invalid, even if the underlying implementation of NULL was in fact not 0.

      C++ has several rather odd requirements for NULL that basically come down to the following:

      NULL is defined as 0, no discussion.
      0, as a constant, has special behavior allowing it to be implicitly cast to any pointer type, where it will be a "NULL value" that is distinct from any valid pointer, but is not guaranteed to take any particular bit pattern.
      Testing a pointer in a conditional, or casting it to bool implicitly or explicitly, results in true if the pointer is not a "NULL value" or false if it is.

      The end result is that you can end up treating 0 as NULL, and treating a null pointer as 0, right up until you decide to muck about with direct memory access, at which point that all goes out the window.

      Essentially, int *x = NULL; if(x) fail(); is guaranteed to not fail, while int *x = NULL; int y; memcpy(&y, &x, sizeof(y)); if(y) fail(); is not guaranteed to not fail (even if x and y are the same size.) Also, NULL == 0 is always true, and int *x = NULL; x == 0 is also always true.

      As I understand it, C doesn't pin things down quite this firmly, but in the end it gives some of the same guarantees. I suspect that definition of NULL isn't technically conforming to the C language spec, though I wouldn't bet money on it - I don't know C minutiae as well as I do C++.

      Now you know more about NULL in C++ than you ever really wanted to. :D

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    3. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Curiously, in C++, that definition would be invalid, even if the underlying implementation of NULL was in fact not 0.

      IBM didn't really care; they would happily ignore the spec and do it what they considered "the right way".

      Another example that I recall was that their compiler disallowed catch(...). The logic was that your code should never throw an unexpected type of exception, so your catch() blocks should always specify exactly what they're expecting, such that if anything unexpected does happen, it will hit the uncaught exception handler and let you know something is busted. You'd think this could be a coding guideline (same with the "use if(pointer == NULL)" thing), but nope, they wanted to make sure it never happened.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is the point where you toss in a preprocessing step to turn that language construct into a warning or disableable error, and rig up something to yell at people if it ever ends up in the VCS . . . not where you break the language spec.

      Sigh.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    5. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1


      > NULL is defined as 0, no discussion.

      Well, GCC defines NULL as __null, and then let __null behave exactly like 0, except giving additional warnings in some contexts.

    6. Re:C and C++, ever heard of em? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      C and C++, for starters. In what system where "NULL" (as distinct from "null") is actually a defined term does it not mean zero*?

      How is "null" distinct from "NULL" in C ?

      --

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

  97. Just a minor correction: by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

    (I think it has been proven that having the victim and perpetrator meet along with counseling works better, than locking him up for umpteen years)

    Actually it might be less effective (Danish, can't be bothered to find an English version).
    --
    HAND.
  98. o_O by Mistah+Bunny · · Score: 1

    He DID do it! Nice to know the truth, I guess, horrible as it is. Will ReiserFS be able to continue?

  99. Ad at the top of slashdot right now... by iampiti · · Score: 1

    Anastasia International.com, Quality Russian Dating Service...
    Whoever chooses the ads really has a very dark humor

  100. The reason they are talking about it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Is because the defense brought it up. The prosecution isn't going to go bothering with someone after they have a conviction. Turns out prosecutors are rather busy, there's a lot of cases ranging from the petty to the severe and they have to spend time dealing with them.

    So what happens with something like this is the defense lawyer finally manages to get through to Hans that he's fucked and he is open to the idea of dealing. So the defense attorney contacts the prosecutor and says "Hypothetically, if my client could tell you where the body was, what could you do for him?" They then negotiate. The lawyer acts as a buffer so that there's never any admission of anything, should the deal not go through, but everyone knows what is really going on.

  101. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NULL is valueless, empty, nothing. It might be used in the context of a null set, in which case the set is empty, but this isn't the same as a set which contains a single entry that is a zero, it is simply outright empty. If you ask if 0 == 0, the result is true, if you ask if NULL == 0, the answer is false, because the NULL is nothingness. If you ask if NULL == NULL, the answer is still false, because neither value can match anything.

    I hate that reasoning. The empty set is unique: A set A and B are equal if both A is a subset of B and B is a subset of A. A is a subset of B in the case that each of its elements is also an element of B. Symbolically, (ForAll)x(A(x)->B(x)). It is, in fact, true that every element of an empty set is an element of another empty set. That is, if A is a null set, and B is another null set, every element of A is in B (since there are none, this is "vacuously true"). But the same reasoning implies that A is a subset of B, which means they are equal.

  102. Not quite true by warrax_666 · · Score: 1

    (I swear, I'm not following you around, I just happened upon two of your posts :)).

    The "special custody" is called "forvaring" (as I'm sure you know) and basically means that they are imprisoned indefinitely (without the possibility of parole) at the discretion of the court (iirc), but there is always a theoretical chance that they might be released. As you rightly say, this is usually reserved for extremely dangerous individuals and in practice very few (if any) people on "forvaring" are ever actually released.

    --
    HAND.
  103. Sigh by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    All the armchair lawyers with only a hazy notion of what's going on. No, finding the body DOESN'T mean that first degree murder wasn't proven. It means that he got a deal. This happens ALL the time in our legal system. Deals are made for lesser sentences and lesser charges in trade for cooperation. In this manner, most cases don't go to trial. So if he cooperates, they'll give him a lower sentence. Part of that would mean changing the charge in this case, since first degree murder is generally a "life with out parole" situation.

    Had they found the body, a first degree murder conviction would have been all that much easier. This is just a deal, nothing more.

  104. Assumption of innocence/guilt by xbytor · · Score: 1

    I never really assumed Hans was either guilty or innocence. Based on information in the press, it seemed as if The State had a circumstantial case but possibly with holes. I had always hoped he was innocent; he was making a positive contribution to a part of society of which I am a member. That contribution will be missed. But I do hope that just has been or will be served in this case.

  105. One thing to remember by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Is that premeditation doesn't need to be extensive. If you planned for even 5 minutes to kill someone before doing it, that's 1st degree murder. So it is plenty possible to have a 1st degree murder that was very poorly planned. It is just a question of did you kill them in the heat of a moment (like in an argument or something) or did you think about it first and decide it was a good idea.

    Also remember that some of this may have been planned way in advance. One of Hans' obvious problems is that he suffers from SMFU syndrome, Smartest MotherFucker in the Universe syndrome. He thinks he's WAAAAAY smarter than everyone else. Thus, he might very well plan things poorly because he's convinced that: 1) People are too stupid to notice anything wrong and 2) He can always explain it away since he's so smart.

    So this may have, in fact, been quite planned out, just poorly planned since Hans is a geek who's knowledge is in computers and not forensics. Remember that plenty of knowledge and intelligence is domain specific. A mafia hitman might not have as high an IQ as a computer programmer, but he probably understands the police and legal system a lot better, and people as well.

  106. It was more like, he stabbed her to death... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    oj simpson's case was skewered in this country by race

    No, it was more like, he stabbed the two to death, a jealous lover, and he obviously got away with it.

    --
    This is my sig.
  107. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by orangesquid · · Score: 1

    What's interesting to me is that, the whole time, the prosecution was playing these dramatic court-room antics (maybe that's standard in capital murder, I don't know) about how obviously guilty the defendant was. Now that guilt is presumed by verdict, they're bartering with the defendant for information, which is a dead giveaway that the prosecution wasn't really on sure footing. They apparently *need* a body (and all the details about how the murder was executed therein entailed) to make things tidy from an investigative standpoint, or why bother cutting the defendant a deal, especially if the criminal act is as egregious as the prosecution always made it out to be? Emotional closure for the children would be a nice added benefit, but I doubt that would be the primary motivation in doing this kind of thing. Of course, all of this is going on the premise that the prosecution really is solidly interested in finding a body, and that the defendant isn't bluffing or playing mind games. Side-note: it doesn't really matter whether this came about from the defendant offering a body in exchange for lessened charges or the prosecution offering lessened charges in hopes of getting more information; the key point is, either way, the prosecution is heavily interested in the body, or they wouldn't bother, since it otherwise wouldn't add much to the record if it were to be accidentally exhumed (for example, in land development).

    On a less serious note: always keeping an ace up the sleeve with a missing body... maybe that's the reason why reiserfs doesn't have a /lost+found?

    --
    --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
  108. TV by slapout · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else see this becoming an episode of Monk?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  109. Re:juror comp by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Informative
    Wow, the last time I went for jury duty (US, DC metro area, 2006) we got $15 per day compensation. Period. No meals, transportation, or parking expenses. I was there for about 6 hours, so the state values my time at less than $2.50 per hour. I understand exactly why folks in the US don't want to participate in jury duty.

    Here's an example from Baltimore County, Maryland.

    On a daily basis, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County compensates each juror $15 plus provides validated parking in a County garage. If you are empanelled on a petit jury for more than five days, starting on Day # 6, your compensation will increase to $50 per day. Maryland law does not state that your employer has to pay you while you serve as a juror; however, the court will provide you with certification of attendance.
  110. That cannot be true in a modern society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in a modern judicial system that cannot be the case. The reason is very simple: criminal proceedings must be evidence based. There is no evidence for the existence of a god or gods.

  111. Hans by infaustus · · Score: 1

    Fast on the heels of Ballmer's tantrums and chair throwing, the BSD community was today wracked again by the borderline personality disorders and rageaholics that permeate the open source movement. Theo De Raadt, founder of the Open BSD Brigade, in an apparent fit of anger, threw his fist through a wall as he was cussing out an acolyte of Chairman Richard Stallman, leader of the competing marxist organization, the Free Stalin Foundation. Hans Reiser, an open source maven who murdered his wife in cold blood, commented from prison that open source programmers had no abnormal personality problems, and were all "very smart people, very intelligent." Eric Raymon, fresh from a trip to the Paul Revere Institute Convention and Bondage Festival in Las Vegas, echoed these comments: "What the world doesn't understand, is that we are geniuses. There is nothing wrong with using strong language to intimidate idiotarians and freedom hating anti-gun liberazis". Steve Jobs, emerging from a meditation chamber in his northern california home, opined that "he would fire half his open source staff" that night, as they had failed to properly implement a bitwise portrait of the mona lisa on the back of the motherboard for the new Apple Yojimbo motherboard family, slated to debut this fall. The BeOS developers, currently washing dishes at a Sacramento Olive Garden, had the following comments: "Yeah, we are kinda bummed that we lost all that money. But frankly, I'm kind of glad to be done with those freaks. Apple, Microsoft, Lunix, what a bunch of creeps and sociopaths." Echoed his boss "Johnny called in sick so I need you to work late tonight, is that OK?"

    --
    Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
  112. Hmmm.. Now I'm convinced he's guilty by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    I had a hard time with the vanishing seat to his honda, and also with the testimony from his son that descibes to me his father carrying his wife's body rolled into a rug o the basement. Yet I was hoping that he was innocent and maybe his ex wife's former
    boyfriend did it. Well.. when the verdict was read he appeared guilty because it appeared that he said "I did it for the kids". well.. I'm sure now he sealed his fate. I bet the Russian mob will snuff him within a year.

  113. Shit sandwhich. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Looks like I won't have to be eating a shit sandwhich [can't find post]. I said I would if she was found alive in Russia when many of you nerds kept claiming she might be alive still. Seriously, I can't believe you people actually thought he was innocent. They should do a study on you all to see what motivated you all, psychologically, to cling to hope he was innocent when it was obvious he wasn't. Theoretically you're all smarter than an average jury member, but thank God you weren't on that jury.

    1. Re:Shit sandwhich. by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Someone else used the term of tribalism, group feeling--I gotta agree. It's like a lot of people projected aspects of themselves onto Reiser and it brought the murder case uncomfortably close to home (he didn't do it, he's just misunderstood, aspergers, etc--it could have been me!!)

      It's kind of interesting, because I doubt the same people feel the same way about the average street criminal...

    2. Re:Shit sandwhich. by angrykeyboarder · · Score: 1

      This is why I don't fit in anywhere.

      I read (and post to) /. and Digg.

      I spend most of my time at my computer.

      I install various Operating Systems (usually Linux of some sort) frequently (just for "fun").

      I live for beta software.

      But unlike most anyone reading this - Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Anime and Video Games bore the crap out of me.

      What I'm saying is...

      I could never imagine how anyone could have thought he was innocent. I guess I'm not quite geeky enough (even though I wrote this in my underwear at 4:20 AM).

      Maybe I'm martian.

      But I digress...

      There has always been too much circumstantial evidence for anyone to conclude that he was anything but guilty.

      Poor kids.

      Now the question is... should it now be KillerFS, KillaFS or MurderFS? :)

      --
      Scott

      ©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
  114. Re:Who said Reiser doesn't support robust recovery by dave420 · · Score: 1

    In PHP:

    0 == false == NULL

    but,

    0 !== false !== NULL

  115. Dumb move? by Dogun · · Score: 1

    OK, so apparently he's guilty in fact, not just in the eyes of 12 jurors.

    This sounds like a dumb move, legally. His case could have been appealed at some point.

    1. Re:Dumb move? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Nah, he just finally managed to have a PI track down his wife in Russia or something.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  116. Highly misleading by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't actually say that he offered to disclose the location of the body. Instead it uses a lot of weasel words to *imply* that he might have done such a thing, without saying it.

    The offer says that a "source" indicated that "overtures" had been made.

    Note all the things it *doesn't* say, like if the overtures were coming *from* Reiser's team, or going *to* it.

    >The source also cautioned that it remains to
    >be seen whether Reiser would follow through
    >with the proposal.

    Why would that be a question if the source was from Reiser's team, or if Reiser had made the overture?

    I think it's likely that he's guilty, but this is article uses so many weasel words that I can't take it seriously. It sounds like someone is trying to put a spin on a story.

    1. Re:Highly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article doesn't actually say that he offered to disclose the location of the body.

      I noticed that, and wrote to the author directly to ask about that. He replied that the offer was indeed made by Reiser's defense team.

  117. [citation needed] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Russian mother would ever leave her kids alone, no exceptions. Yeah right. Mothers in most societies are more or less devoted to their children with some spread around the mean. Maybe in some cultures the mother-kid relation is a bit stronger, I can accept that. But your absolutist view just sounds like its rooted in racist preconceptions. If you're going to make such strong statements about anyone or anything, you'd damn well back it up with strong evidence. Anecdotes don't count.

    Note: I'm not arguing any position in the court case, I'm arguing against your 'I told you so.' A statement containing an accidentally right answer based on a faulty rationale is still a wrong statement. That's why on tests you don't get points if you provide the 'right' answer when the calculation is faulty.

  118. Re:juror comp by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

    Comp was $90/day, transportation and parking, day care expenses, plus morning snacks, lunch, afternoon snacks, and if it was a really bad week, the judge would order that we be taken to a REAL restaurant for lunch (linen tableclothes, etc., not a "mac-meal"). This is completely tax-free, at both the provincial and federal levels. Its not like you have a choice to serve. People have even been grabbed off the street by the court sherrif (with the assistance of the police) when the jury pool was exhausted prematurely.

    Considering that a murder trial can easily cost over a quarter million, there's no reason to starve the jury or give them even more to worry about than they already have.

    Additionally, jurors can request up to 6 hours of psychological counseling each if they ask for it, from the professional psychologist or psychiatrist of their choice, after trials that are particularly stressful.

    It's reasonable, because of the burdens that some trials (murder, sex-related crimes) place on jurors. You can't ask someone to sit on a jury for a month and have them too distracted about how they're going to make their rent or pay for their kids' daycare, especially if they're a single parent. The defendent wouldn't be receiving a fair trial in such cases.

  119. Are you sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Heisenberg also worked for the Nazi's"

    Are you certain of that? I'm not.

  120. TIMTOWTDI by gwolf · · Score: 1

    $ perl -e 'print "Nyah-nyah\n" if undef == 0'
    Nyah-nyah

  121. Perjury? by Smurf · · Score: 1

    I have a question about the U.S. legal system.

    This guy testified under oath saying that as far as he knew his wife abandoned him and the kids and therefore had no idea about her whereabouts. (They didn't believe him and declared him guilty or whatever, but that's another issue.)

    But now it turns out that he does know where the body is (regardless of whether he killed her or not). That means that he previously lied under oath.

    Shouldn't he be liable for perjury?

    Or is this another symptom of a flawed system?

    1. Re:Perjury? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, technically, he's liable for perjury.

      To be honest, though, it's such a minor offense compared to murder that it's possible that nobody will care.

    2. Re:Perjury? by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      Why would you bother to prosecute him for perjury when he's already in jail for 25-to-life? Taxpayers didn't spend enough on him?

      Besides, if convicts revealing information like the location of the victim's body led to increases in sentences, it would severely curtail the motivations of convicts to reveal such things after the fact when there's actually a benefit to be achieved, like giving the family something to bury.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  122. FOSS serial killing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he believed her life force longed to be free.

  123. What about these three? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You left off the definitions for these three:

    • Zip
    • Zilch
    • Nada
  124. Let's reduce his sentence by wtansill · · Score: 1

    The current 25-to life is pretty harsh, and expensive to boot. Let's just bury him (alive) next to her and be done with it. Reduces his sentence pretty drastically, and saves society a shitload of $$$.

    --
    The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
  125. null IS zero ...in German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Null" is German for zero :-P

  126. Re:juror comp by LionMage · · Score: 1

    People have even been grabbed off the street by the court sherrif (with the assistance of the police) when the jury pool was exhausted prematurely.

    The same thing can and does periodically happen in Arizona (and I believe in California as well). There was a case that made local news in AZ a few years back -- a so-called "deadbeat dad" was in custody, but would have walked for lack of a jury. The judge felt that would be a miscarriage of justice, since the man in question was difficult to track down; the judge wanted to hold him responsible for child support payments he had been missing.
  127. We don't need to imagine. by jd · · Score: 1

    Tycho Brahms was murdered by Kepler by means of mercury poisoning. Yet we use Kepler's equations for planetary motions, calculating how get space probes exactly where they need to be, etc. It is very unlikely he was the first or last to kill in order to move up the scientific totem pole.

    --
    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)
    1. Re:We don't need to imagine. by RedOctober · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tycho Brahms? Are you sure it wasn't Johannes Brahe?

    2. Re:We don't need to imagine. by jd · · Score: 1

      This goes to show that typos are sheer murder.

      --
      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)
  128. Re:juror comp by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's actually a very reasonably policy. "We expect your undivided attention in this legal matter. We'll value your time accordingly."

    The last jury selection I attended, everyone in the room was concerned about being chosen for the multi-week domestic abuse case. Several single-parents tried to be excused, but all were denied because covering for their kids was considered "an inconvenience" and not a necessity. I saw exactly one person be excused from jury duty prior to the selection process - an elderly woman on oxygen and taking hallucinogenic meds. If you're not doped-up and can fog a mirror, you qualify for jury duty in the States.

    I did a little searching, and Maryland is par for the course on jury comp. The data is a little stale, but it's representative. Your employer can't legally fire you while you're on jury duty, but he can force you to burn all your leave and then take a leave-of-absence (i.e. no pay.) $15 per day won't cover beans. Minimum wage in the US is currently $5.85/hr, moving up to $6.55/hr in July. $15 is about 2.5 hours of minimum-wage labor. A full-time minimum-wage employee is earning $46.80/day. Basically, regardless of your employment status, jury duty in the States is "punishment."

  129. He's been found guilty by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    The DA has long since stopped worrying about "reasonable doubt".

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  130. Hang him ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hang the bastard !

  131. OJFS is taken by tepples · · Score: 1

    OJFS! Taken.
    1. Re:OJFS is taken by HisMother · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
  132. I know where she is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He cut her up and buried her under a b-tree

  133. Perhaps she deserved to die? by dvs01 · · Score: 1

    Maybe 'deserved' is too much of a problematic word to use. However, if someone did the same to me as what Hans' wife did to him, well, I'd love for them to die. Painfully.

  134. Re: Don't you have some one to kill? by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    And would EF be Edgar Friendly?

  135. Re: Not necessary to encrypt the whole body by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    All he had to do was sign it.

  136. Re: Often NULL is a pointer to a zero by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    In many C/C++ language runtimes, the fist few bytes of the data segment of the library are left empty, and that happens to be where a NULL pointer points sometimes. FWIW

  137. I am for the stars...but sometimes I hit London by igb · · Score: 1

    Actually, the issue of Braun's involvement in building weapons is neither here nor there: if you regarded involvement in the Manhattan Project (which clearly killed more people than the V2) as a moral crime sufficient to render people unemployable, the US and the UK have no physics for about thirty years after the war. But the use of slave labour in the Mittelwerk _is_ an issue, and something he should have been properly challenged over.

  138. Other Bodies by BinBoy · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they will find victims of other murderers stored in the same location.

  139. Re:juror comp by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

    Several single-parents tried to be excused, but all were denied because covering for their kids was considered "an inconvenience" and not a necessity.

    What would have happened if they had brought their kids along and said "sorry for the inconvenience." :-)

    Or if they had left their kids unattended, and when someone complains, tells child protective services that a judge has declared that child care is a convenience, and not a necessity?

  140. Right result, wrong starting point ... by trolltalk.com · · Score: 1

    You can get to the right result from the wrong starting point.

    ... guys know this - that's why they never stop and ask for directions ... :-)

  141. Re: Don't you have some one to kill? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

    Nah, its just me. I like to initial all my quotables.

    --
    Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
  142. how 'bout by bdrasin · · Score: 1

    OJFreeSoWhyNotMeFS?

  143. Obligatory xkcd by Miladinoski · · Score: 1

    No, they didn't !

    --
    [insert lame sig here]
  144. Werner Von Braun by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    His auto-biography was named "I aimed for the stars". It should have been subtitled "But I hit London".