UCLA Shooter Accused Victim Of Stealing His Computer Code

The gunman who shot and killed a UCLA professor on Wednesday has been identified as Mainak Sarkar, said Los Angeles police. Sarkar, a former doctoral student accused the vicitim William Klug, 39, of stealing his computer code and giving it to someone else. According to reports, Sarkar used a 9mm semiautomatic pistol to shoot the professor, and then turned the gun on himself. A March 10 blog post by Sarkar, now archived reads: William Klug, UCLA professor is not the kind of person when you think of a professor. He is a very sick person. I urge every new student coming to UCLA to stay away from this guy. [...] My name is Mainak Sarkar. I was this guy's PhD student. We had personal differences. He cleverly stole all my code and gave it another student. He made me really sick. Your enemy is your enemy. But your friend can do a lot more harm. Be careful about whom you trust.

Comments

Stole his code?

[TechyImmigrant]

They should teach software licensing to psychotic students.
If he had GPLed it first then his professor couldn't steal it.

the dark side of arduino

[TheGratefulNet]

https://arduinohistory.github....

worth a read. I had no idea massimo stole the idea from his student.

I think a lot less of massimo now, sad to say. yeah, he messed up the top .1 spaced headers (a crime in itself) but taking a student's work and calling it your own, that's really something to be publicly shamed over.

and yet, massimo does world tours claiming he's the arduino inventor guy.

just read the student's post about how HE came up with the concepts and had it stolen from him. I feel for him and I can imagine that happening, too.

Re:Wow, a page from the Valery Fabrikant

[quantaman]

Not really a coincidence. Islam demands men seek retribution for their honor. It's one thing Muslim men take seriously.

So do Texans, you don't see calls to build a wall around Texas every time someone gets killed in a bar fight.

Look at the number of girls killed by their own fathers because of perceived honor.

And in those cases there is a clear religious/cultural motive.

This is nothing new. We in America are only now really seeing what Islam really is. I was in and around the US military for 26 years. One thing I know for absolute certain that is not being discussed is that Islam is not really a religion--it's a political system with a religious element. Islam and its adherents base their actions on Sharia Law. Full stop. The media is very, very reluctant to point this out.

Isn't the US having a big debate about gay marriage? There seems to be a lot of arguments popping up based on Christian law.

Sure most Islamic nations take it a bit further, as do many Muslims. There's also a lot of Muslims trying to go the other way as well.

Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings? Do you honestly think that this line of action would even be considered? There answer is no.

Those activists are trying to change laws and establish new norms. You do that by confronting the majority, not by picking fights with a small politically irrelevant minority.

For those not believing what I said above about Islam being a political system with a religious element need to look at this for themselves. You will come to see I am correct. The military used to operate under this understanding, but the current administration has forbidden this. Why? We all know why. This administration does nothing but coddle Islam, refuses to use the term "Islamic terrorism", allows a known terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood into the WH, the list goes on.

They're trying to end fights, not start them.

You're basing this whole idea on speculation around the shooter's specific beliefs and motives, truthfully we have no idea of his specific motives or beliefs aside from the fact he probably agreed that the label "Muslim" described some of them.

Of course having that label "Muslim" I'm certain that a particular political candidate won't be able to keep their mouth shut.

Re:Wow, a page from the Valery Fabrikant

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Notice the difference between how Islam and Christianity are treated today in the US. Ask yourself this question: What do you think homosexual activists are not asking Muslim bakers to bake them a cake for their weddings?

You know who else they're not asking? Jews. Hindus. Buddhists. Sikhs. Taoists. Jains. Zoroastrians. Satanists. Wiccans.

Clearly it's not Muslims that are getting some special treatment here, it's Christians. But is it because of some hypothesized 'War on Christianity'?

Or is it the fact that 70.6% of the US population is some form of Christian, and another 22.8% is unaffiliated with any religion. That leaves 6.6% of the US population split across all of the world's various other religions. Indeed, only 0.9% of the US population adheres to Islam. We should expect 1 in every 111 targets of homosexual-activists-asking-people-to-bake-them-gay-cakes to be Muslim. Are you suggesting that you're aware of this many such events, as well as the religious leanings of every baker targeted this way?

Of course, these estimates assume uniform distribution of religious minorities, gay activists, and homophobic bakers. If you actually had the demographic data to not rely on such a simplistic assumption, I wouldn't be surprised if the odds of targeting a Muslim baker were even lower-still (as I suspect that religious minorities are more well-represented in areas that are more tolerant, and that gay activists would be attempting this baking schtick in areas that are less tolerant).

But this is all conjecture. I fully grant that it's entirely possible that you're right and no gay rights activists are targeting Muslim bakers because Muslim bakers inspire such a profoundly deep fear in their enemies.