Well, it just invites claims of impropriety when the Democrats brought down people form Cook County Illinois to help with the recount. I mean, seriously, with Chicago's brand of Democrat corruption, do you really think the Republicans should be the ones in the spotlight in that situation? Okay, probably both should be.... but when the Cook County Dems are involved, they're the ones to watch closest.
Not a very good knockoff, if that's what he's supposed to be. Warren Buffet is smart, good at making money on company growth, and doesn't tend to make outlandish claims about vast conspiracies against him by competitors. Must be a copy of Warren Buffett from one of those Naples or Hong Kong handbag factories.
You mean committing the felony of perjury, when felonies are listed as impeachable offenses in the Constitution of the United States? Or the fact that this guy who wanted people to believe that placing his hand on a book and swearing to God to uphold the Constitution and defend his country meant something, while placing his hand on the same book and swearing to the same God to tell the truth in court meant nothing?
Yeah, Bush is a warmongering zealot who may be skirting some laws. It was Clinton, though, who admitted to committing a felony of dishonesty. Innocence until guilt is proven is a popular concept, but people seem to hate it in practice. This attitude is especially the case when one already has a distaste for the accused, but is afforded a softer touch when one likes the accused.
That's largely because the big phone companies don't roll out technology one town at a time. There are a few reasons for that, too. Their first-level technical offices tend to take care of several phone company physical plants remotely. That means they like to have somewhat similar equipment for them to manage from place to place. They buy the equipment in large batches, so bunches of towns get upgraded at once due to that.
There are other reasons for the slower speeds, too. The bigger cities themselves tend to have plenty of connectivity within the city, but to have decent Internet access they have to have huge amounts of bandwidth upstream. To connect and turn up fiber from LA to Seattle, Seattle to Denver, Denver to Kansas City, Kansas City to Chicago, Chicago to DC, and DC to New York is a little more expensive than to run fiber from, say, Sendai to Kagoshima. The connections also have to get down to Dallas, Miami, and about 30,000 incorporated cities besides. Much of the bandwidth into and out of major hub cities is used to piggyback these smaller cities because the telecom networks are more a mesh-joined group of stars rather than a full mesh.
Springfield, Illinois (a town of about 115,000 people which is the state capital), for example, has a downtown fiber ring for 100Mbit access which it is fairly inexpensive to lease access. In order to route anywhere else, though, someone has to buy bandwidth on a line running to a peering point in Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, or more distant points. The closest any of those cities are is 98 miles (158km) by highway.
People in the Chicago suburbs, by contrast, can get fiber to the home and many have been able to for a few years. The plan one person I know had in 2004 was 18Mb down, 1.5Mb up, telephone service, and 93 channels of video all delivered for $99 a month. I pay $50 a month for 6Mb DSL by contrast (but many things here are cheaper than in Chicago, I assure you). Since our FTTC is supposed to be available this year, I'd hope I could get similar prices for similar service to what he got 4 years ago, if not better. A friend in Texas has 26Mb down and 4Mb up for well under $100 a month. That sounds pretty sweet to me, although I know people in some other countries pay less for more.
Well, there's progress being made by companies filling the rural access gaps. Dial-up isn't the big thing in rural markets that it used to be. Now it's 512Kb to 1Mb per second wireless.
My cousin for example has 768k down and 256k up via wireless. She lives smack in the middle of a 42-acre plot of land that's 6 miles from the closest town, and that town only has about 900 people in it.
The price is high, the latency's high, the throughput is lower than cable or DSL, and weather can have pretty bad effects on the signal in winter. It's still better than dialup. It even includes a dialup account for the rare event when the wireless isn't working or for when she travels.
A good friend of mine lives in a town of 4500 people which is the largest town for 30 miles in any direction. He has 3.5Mb DSL, and when he moves a little closed to the phone company's building he can have 7.5Mb DSL. That's far better service than was available just a couple of years ago.
AT&T is supposed to be rolling out fiber service in my town of 43,000 people this year. From the rumors I've heard, it's supposed to be up to 100Mb down and 12Mb up. I'd be happy with 20Mb and 2Mb, honestly, but I'd probably find a way to use 100Mb once in a while.
In all, the US is making progress, but it's not as fast as people would like. My main complaint isn't how slowly the speeds are improving, but the high prices for how crappy the network management (Comcast, for example), speeds, and service maintenance are.
Yeah, they're "fixing our government"? Is that what you call killing 3000 innocent civilians in one day?
Hamas, I guess, has done so much for the freedom and stability of Gaza? The Taleban was a giant hippie freedom lovefest in the park for Afghanistan? Somalia's better off because people are tortured and killed for having parents who don't bow their knee to the demands of bullies and tyrants?
One major way people do take responsibility for fixing theirr governments is to limit the power of a government to do your people harm. That's exactly what DrLang21 was talking about doing. Keeping the government's hands out of as many things as possible and making them accountable to the people is a prerequisite to "fixing your government".
Your hate-filled rant praising 19 mass murderers does nothing to improve anyone's life.
Next up, your local newspaper is sued out of existence because the classifieds section was used to con 12 people out of their lifes' savings.
"The guy who placed the ads is currently living it up in Fiji, but we'll arrest him if he ever runs out of money and comes back to our town," the police chief said. "Meanwhile, isn't it nice that the civil court system allowed these citizens to put 110 of their neighbors out of work in his place?"
Okay, you go round up copies of "The Scarlet Letter", "Catch-22", "Of Mice and Men", "The Grapes of Wrath", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "The Color Purple", "The Graduate", "Their Eyes Were Watching God", and "Ulysses". Then we'll burn you for damaging the education of our children. How's that?
How people intend for kids to be kept entirely ignorant of sex, drugs, violence, dishonesty, war, poverty, and illness for 18 years then send them off to university and expect them to survive is beyond me.
Some of the most-often challenged books are ones I was required to read before I was even in junior high. "On My Honor", because it's depressing that a kid dies? Seriously? The Harry Potter books because fantasy is dangerous to morals or something? "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" because it uses language common to the period?
How about letting people read literature because it's good to read? The whole point of literature is to expose people to ideas they haven't experienced themselves. How the hell boring and useless would it be to read the everyday account of some boring jackass's life who never does anything questionable and never confronts any challenges?
So that means no more 16 and 17 year olds admitted to "The Graduate" at the local community theater?
Can schools no longer explain that Henry the 8th of England had so many wives (and divorced, killed, and founded a national church over it) because he wanted one of them to produce a son?
Most biology books are pretty explicit about sex. Are those banned?
This sort of vague bullshit law that's half-thought and haphazardly enforced is one of the biggest problems in the US today.
Chlorine bleach, lye, household ammonia, and oven cleaner can be "harmful to minors", but they're only "sexually explicit" if you're into some really kinky shit that I don't want to read or hear about.
I'm wondering if an appeal might consist of, "Well, you're right, the jurisdiction was faulty because of this technicality. Our court finds your patent invalid in the same way. Have a nice day."
That's not what appeals courts tend to do, but I think it's within their power. If they send the cases all back to the original benches with the original judges certified with a new signature, which judges are going to overturn themselves on such a technicality? It could create a big backlog even if these patent ruling all end up standing, though, and that's probably enough for the patent trolls to rejoice.
The outcome of this whole mess might have a few bogus patents gain force again, but hopefully even in that situation they'll be thrown out again eventually. We can only hope everything is handled in the best interests of the public.
Well, then, the defense lawyer is either a genius or an idiot. I can't tell whether he's a genius who got unlucky or an idiot who got the outcome he deserved, but I don't think an average person given that chance would've seen the wisdom in not calling the guy as a witness.
Whatever. To cast well-earned suspicion onto another person in the eyes of the jury in order to create doubt about the defendant is perfectly legitimate. Keep telling yourself otherwise. Unless someone can show that the boyfriend in no way possibly could be considered, the judge absolutely screwed the pooch.
At the very least, this other guy is guilty of interfering with police business and making false reports. That alone shows he's not a stand-up sort of guy. Whenever the husband is a suspect, the lover should be considered one, too. Whenever there's another suspect, the defendant should be able to make that fact part of the case.
The Chewbacca defense is when you say something completely unrelated. The fact that this woman was bumping uglies with a confessed multiple murderer should have some bearing on the case, even if his confessions are only fucking with the police (a felony, yes?) or signs of gross mental instability and a fascination with murder. How the hell is that completely unrelated?
Blood being somewhere is not foolproof evidence of murder. I've bled copiously in football, wrestling, in the kitchen, while fishing, after a car accident, and working on computers built in cheap cases. Believe it or not, I'm still alive.
Here we're talking about a guy who is fascinated by murder, talks about murder, and has confessed to multiple murders. She dated him. Whether or not his past confessions pan out, I think the jury needed to hear about him.
Hans Reiser might be as guilty as someone caught on tape committing a crime, but he should be allowed a vigorous and complete defense. I don't think the judge allowed that.
What proof did the Reiser jury get that the confessions were false? They weren't even informed of the confessions! I'd say that she dated someone who wants to be known as a murderer is pretty relevant, because maybe this time he did do it.
No, see, the fact that the stipulation is needed makes the initial concept relevant. If you say, "he claims to be a multiple murderer", that's relevant. If you claim it's irrelevant, there's not much to your definition of relevance that I can see.
So there's little evidence surrounding this guy's claimed multiple murders. There's also little evidence surrounding this case.
That the guy provably turns out to be innocent of these claimed multiple murders, if that's the case, removes the doubt. They didn't argue that at all. They just kept the defense from mentioning it altogether. The stipulation is everything here, but they haven't proven the stipulation.
This other guy doesn't need to be convicted to place doubt on Reiser. There can be a reasonable doubt about both of them. There can be a reasonable doubt that Nina Reiser is dead, I think. Many people do doubt her death. Maybe if we'd heard everything the jury did there wouldn't be, but I'm not yet convinced.
There's physical evidence that ties a Mr. X to the presence of Mrs. X having at some point been in his car, and at some point having bled.
Have you ever bled? Have you ever been in someone's car? Have you ever bled in someone's car? You're still alive, though, so you can't have been murdered.
Yes, it's suspicious that Nina Reiser is nowhere to be found, but you can't really "verify" murder without knowing she's dead. Yes, it is more suspicious that Hans Reiser has been acting very strangely around the time of her death, but that doesn't "verify" much. He's a pretty strange guy all the time from what I've heard.
Is he guilty? Maybe. Would I have found him guilty if I was on the jury? Possibly. Yet saying that a confessed multiple killer's confession is utterly meaningless just because the deaths of those victims hasn't been verified when the death of the alleged victim in this case hasn't been verified is missing the point that this death is no more verified than those eight others.
That there's little reasonable doubt in the end is one thing. That you had stipulate proves that it's relevant, though. If it was not relevant, the stipulation would not be necessary.
Most maximum security prisons don't allow Internet access, from what I've seen from my little bit of contract work on prison computers. Most convicted murderers don't end up in minimum security or medium security prisons, either.
I'm not sure what the prisons in California allow, as I've never done any work there and I don't know any former or current CA inmates or guards. He might get Ethernet, IP routing, and a Linux box in prison, but I doubt it.
I take issue with the Wal-Mart crack. Sam Walton was a fine man. My grandfather knew him. It's his heirs and the officers of the publicly traded company that grew from his chain of stores that cause the grief. Sam himself wouldn't have allowed most of the crap that goes on today.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it just invites claims of impropriety when the Democrats brought down people form Cook County Illinois to help with the recount. I mean, seriously, with Chicago's brand of Democrat corruption, do you really think the Republicans should be the ones in the spotlight in that situation? Okay, probably both should be.... but when the Cook County Dems are involved, they're the ones to watch closest.
Well, Apple sued Microsoft for "look and feel" copyright violations. Does that count?
Not a very good knockoff, if that's what he's supposed to be. Warren Buffet is smart, good at making money on company growth, and doesn't tend to make outlandish claims about vast conspiracies against him by competitors. Must be a copy of Warren Buffett from one of those Naples or Hong Kong handbag factories.
You mean committing the felony of perjury, when felonies are listed as impeachable offenses in the Constitution of the United States? Or the fact that this guy who wanted people to believe that placing his hand on a book and swearing to God to uphold the Constitution and defend his country meant something, while placing his hand on the same book and swearing to the same God to tell the truth in court meant nothing?
Yeah, Bush is a warmongering zealot who may be skirting some laws. It was Clinton, though, who admitted to committing a felony of dishonesty. Innocence until guilt is proven is a popular concept, but people seem to hate it in practice. This attitude is especially the case when one already has a distaste for the accused, but is afforded a softer touch when one likes the accused.
That's largely because the big phone companies don't roll out technology one town at a time. There are a few reasons for that, too. Their first-level technical offices tend to take care of several phone company physical plants remotely. That means they like to have somewhat similar equipment for them to manage from place to place. They buy the equipment in large batches, so bunches of towns get upgraded at once due to that.
There are other reasons for the slower speeds, too. The bigger cities themselves tend to have plenty of connectivity within the city, but to have decent Internet access they have to have huge amounts of bandwidth upstream. To connect and turn up fiber from LA to Seattle, Seattle to Denver, Denver to Kansas City, Kansas City to Chicago, Chicago to DC, and DC to New York is a little more expensive than to run fiber from, say, Sendai to Kagoshima. The connections also have to get down to Dallas, Miami, and about 30,000 incorporated cities besides. Much of the bandwidth into and out of major hub cities is used to piggyback these smaller cities because the telecom networks are more a mesh-joined group of stars rather than a full mesh.
Springfield, Illinois (a town of about 115,000 people which is the state capital), for example, has a downtown fiber ring for 100Mbit access which it is fairly inexpensive to lease access. In order to route anywhere else, though, someone has to buy bandwidth on a line running to a peering point in Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Louis, or more distant points. The closest any of those cities are is 98 miles (158km) by highway.
People in the Chicago suburbs, by contrast, can get fiber to the home and many have been able to for a few years. The plan one person I know had in 2004 was 18Mb down, 1.5Mb up, telephone service, and 93 channels of video all delivered for $99 a month. I pay $50 a month for 6Mb DSL by contrast (but many things here are cheaper than in Chicago, I assure you). Since our FTTC is supposed to be available this year, I'd hope I could get similar prices for similar service to what he got 4 years ago, if not better. A friend in Texas has 26Mb down and 4Mb up for well under $100 a month. That sounds pretty sweet to me, although I know people in some other countries pay less for more.
Well, there's progress being made by companies filling the rural access gaps. Dial-up isn't the big thing in rural markets that it used to be. Now it's 512Kb to 1Mb per second wireless.
My cousin for example has 768k down and 256k up via wireless. She lives smack in the middle of a 42-acre plot of land that's 6 miles from the closest town, and that town only has about 900 people in it.
The price is high, the latency's high, the throughput is lower than cable or DSL, and weather can have pretty bad effects on the signal in winter. It's still better than dialup. It even includes a dialup account for the rare event when the wireless isn't working or for when she travels.
A good friend of mine lives in a town of 4500 people which is the largest town for 30 miles in any direction. He has 3.5Mb DSL, and when he moves a little closed to the phone company's building he can have 7.5Mb DSL. That's far better service than was available just a couple of years ago.
AT&T is supposed to be rolling out fiber service in my town of 43,000 people this year. From the rumors I've heard, it's supposed to be up to 100Mb down and 12Mb up. I'd be happy with 20Mb and 2Mb, honestly, but I'd probably find a way to use 100Mb once in a while.
In all, the US is making progress, but it's not as fast as people would like. My main complaint isn't how slowly the speeds are improving, but the high prices for how crappy the network management (Comcast, for example), speeds, and service maintenance are.
Yeah, they're "fixing our government"? Is that what you call killing 3000 innocent civilians in one day?
Hamas, I guess, has done so much for the freedom and stability of Gaza? The Taleban was a giant hippie freedom lovefest in the park for Afghanistan? Somalia's better off because people are tortured and killed for having parents who don't bow their knee to the demands of bullies and tyrants?
One major way people do take responsibility for fixing theirr governments is to limit the power of a government to do your people harm. That's exactly what DrLang21 was talking about doing. Keeping the government's hands out of as many things as possible and making them accountable to the people is a prerequisite to "fixing your government".
Your hate-filled rant praising 19 mass murderers does nothing to improve anyone's life.
Next up, your local newspaper is sued out of existence because the classifieds section was used to con 12 people out of their lifes' savings.
"The guy who placed the ads is currently living it up in Fiji, but we'll arrest him if he ever runs out of money and comes back to our town," the police chief said. "Meanwhile, isn't it nice that the civil court system allowed these citizens to put 110 of their neighbors out of work in his place?"
Film at 11.
Okay, you go round up copies of "The Scarlet Letter", "Catch-22", "Of Mice and Men", "The Grapes of Wrath", "A Midsummer Night's Dream", "The Color Purple", "The Graduate", "Their Eyes Were Watching God", and "Ulysses". Then we'll burn you for damaging the education of our children. How's that?
How people intend for kids to be kept entirely ignorant of sex, drugs, violence, dishonesty, war, poverty, and illness for 18 years then send them off to university and expect them to survive is beyond me.
Some of the most-often challenged books are ones I was required to read before I was even in junior high. "On My Honor", because it's depressing that a kid dies? Seriously? The Harry Potter books because fantasy is dangerous to morals or something? "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" because it uses language common to the period?
How about letting people read literature because it's good to read? The whole point of literature is to expose people to ideas they haven't experienced themselves. How the hell boring and useless would it be to read the everyday account of some boring jackass's life who never does anything questionable and never confronts any challenges?
So that means no more 16 and 17 year olds admitted to "The Graduate" at the local community theater?
Can schools no longer explain that Henry the 8th of England had so many wives (and divorced, killed, and founded a national church over it) because he wanted one of them to produce a son?
Most biology books are pretty explicit about sex. Are those banned?
This sort of vague bullshit law that's half-thought and haphazardly enforced is one of the biggest problems in the US today.
Chlorine bleach, lye, household ammonia, and oven cleaner can be "harmful to minors", but they're only "sexually explicit" if you're into some really kinky shit that I don't want to read or hear about.
I'm wondering if an appeal might consist of, "Well, you're right, the jurisdiction was faulty because of this technicality. Our court finds your patent invalid in the same way. Have a nice day."
That's not what appeals courts tend to do, but I think it's within their power. If they send the cases all back to the original benches with the original judges certified with a new signature, which judges are going to overturn themselves on such a technicality? It could create a big backlog even if these patent ruling all end up standing, though, and that's probably enough for the patent trolls to rejoice.
The outcome of this whole mess might have a few bogus patents gain force again, but hopefully even in that situation they'll be thrown out again eventually. We can only hope everything is handled in the best interests of the public.
Well, then, the defense lawyer is either a genius or an idiot. I can't tell whether he's a genius who got unlucky or an idiot who got the outcome he deserved, but I don't think an average person given that chance would've seen the wisdom in not calling the guy as a witness.
Whatever. To cast well-earned suspicion onto another person in the eyes of the jury in order to create doubt about the defendant is perfectly legitimate. Keep telling yourself otherwise. Unless someone can show that the boyfriend in no way possibly could be considered, the judge absolutely screwed the pooch.
At the very least, this other guy is guilty of interfering with police business and making false reports. That alone shows he's not a stand-up sort of guy. Whenever the husband is a suspect, the lover should be considered one, too. Whenever there's another suspect, the defendant should be able to make that fact part of the case.
The Chewbacca defense is when you say something completely unrelated. The fact that this woman was bumping uglies with a confessed multiple murderer should have some bearing on the case, even if his confessions are only fucking with the police (a felony, yes?) or signs of gross mental instability and a fascination with murder. How the hell is that completely unrelated?
Blood being somewhere is not foolproof evidence of murder. I've bled copiously in football, wrestling, in the kitchen, while fishing, after a car accident, and working on computers built in cheap cases. Believe it or not, I'm still alive.
Here we're talking about a guy who is fascinated by murder, talks about murder, and has confessed to multiple murders. She dated him. Whether or not his past confessions pan out, I think the jury needed to hear about him.
Hans Reiser might be as guilty as someone caught on tape committing a crime, but he should be allowed a vigorous and complete defense. I don't think the judge allowed that.
What proof did the Reiser jury get that the confessions were false? They weren't even informed of the confessions! I'd say that she dated someone who wants to be known as a murderer is pretty relevant, because maybe this time he did do it.
No, see, the fact that the stipulation is needed makes the initial concept relevant. If you say, "he claims to be a multiple murderer", that's relevant. If you claim it's irrelevant, there's not much to your definition of relevance that I can see.
So there's little evidence surrounding this guy's claimed multiple murders. There's also little evidence surrounding this case.
That the guy provably turns out to be innocent of these claimed multiple murders, if that's the case, removes the doubt. They didn't argue that at all. They just kept the defense from mentioning it altogether. The stipulation is everything here, but they haven't proven the stipulation.
This other guy doesn't need to be convicted to place doubt on Reiser. There can be a reasonable doubt about both of them. There can be a reasonable doubt that Nina Reiser is dead, I think. Many people do doubt her death. Maybe if we'd heard everything the jury did there wouldn't be, but I'm not yet convinced.
There's physical evidence that ties a Mr. X to the presence of Mrs. X having at some point been in his car, and at some point having bled.
Have you ever bled? Have you ever been in someone's car? Have you ever bled in someone's car? You're still alive, though, so you can't have been murdered.
Yes, it's suspicious that Nina Reiser is nowhere to be found, but you can't really "verify" murder without knowing she's dead. Yes, it is more suspicious that Hans Reiser has been acting very strangely around the time of her death, but that doesn't "verify" much. He's a pretty strange guy all the time from what I've heard.
Is he guilty? Maybe. Would I have found him guilty if I was on the jury? Possibly. Yet saying that a confessed multiple killer's confession is utterly meaningless just because the deaths of those victims hasn't been verified when the death of the alleged victim in this case hasn't been verified is missing the point that this death is no more verified than those eight others.
That there's little reasonable doubt in the end is one thing. That you had stipulate proves that it's relevant, though. If it was not relevant, the stipulation would not be necessary.
Actually, it wasn't allowed as evidence in the case. It might have made the prosecution's job much more difficult had it been allowed.
I must've missed where it mentioned Coda, NFS, Andrew, GFS, HPFS, FAT-12, cramfs, ISO-9660, ext2, OCFS, Minix fs, UDF, Acorn disk FS, Amiga FFS, BeFS, and GoogleFS.
Naming all possible alternatives aren't really necessary to understanding that ReiserFS is in limbo.
Most maximum security prisons don't allow Internet access, from what I've seen from my little bit of contract work on prison computers. Most convicted murderers don't end up in minimum security or medium security prisons, either.
I'm not sure what the prisons in California allow, as I've never done any work there and I don't know any former or current CA inmates or guards. He might get Ethernet, IP routing, and a Linux box in prison, but I doubt it.
I take issue with the Wal-Mart crack. Sam Walton was a fine man. My grandfather knew him. It's his heirs and the officers of the publicly traded company that grew from his chain of stores that cause the grief. Sam himself wouldn't have allowed most of the crap that goes on today.
As opposed to the murder for which Reiser was just convicted, which they've been unable to verify?