Children aren't adults and they won't behave responsibly unless someone teaches them too. The ones running rampant have parents that don't care and live in estates that the police avoid.
Arguably the children have quite rationally adapted to an amoral environment. The problem is that you need to make the adapt to a moral one if society isn't going to gradually decay.
I think the problem is that there were lots of highly effective yet questionable punishments for bad kids back in the old days. As I understand it police officers would basically hit them if they were naughty, and then take them back to their parents who would hit them even more. If they were really bad they could be sent to some sort of juvenile prison.
Now I'm not saying this was a good thing per se, but it worked. The problem is that in a more human rights conscious society that doesn't happen anymore. The worst kids can literally form packs ramage around, even killing people with impunity. And the sad thing is that every time any government tries to do something about it it is sabotaged by a bunch of people that don't live in the sort of estates where kids run rampant.
You could probably make one. Get a microcontroller with USB support. Choose one with some HID class sample code and you could add support for reporting from an Atari joystick in a weekend. Here's the connector
Just pull the pins to 5V with a pull up and then see if they go low when the switches inside the joystick short them to ground. You'll need to debounce in software - just wait for a few milliseconds before reporting a transition.
I was being facetious. It's hard to imagine that the Earth would ever be less habitable than elsewhere. But you're right, artificial closed ecosystems seem to be much harder to get right than things like the Ecosphere would suggest.
This is all my plan to get the human race into space. Better fire up the SUV and start polluting then. Humans are a lazy species and won't leave this planet until it becomes uninhabitable.
McCarthy aside, isn't it a good thing that the US and its allies defeated the Communists? And wouldn't it be a good thing when the defeat the Islamists?
As far as I'm concerned people's right to privacy ends as soon as they start to use it to destroy the relatively free society that gave them that right. And historically, relatively free societies that have allowed their opponents free rein have tended to become a lot less free once those opponents take over.
Now I'm not suggesting that we should ship people off to Gitmo for questioning democracy, or force them to drink hemlock a la Socrates. But Islamists and their mirror image on the far right should be kept under surveillance. And I'm not averse to criminalizing them if they get involved in violence as this law attempts to do. And this case shows that at least in the UK the judiciary will interpret the spirit of the law, not just the text. So harmless people will not necessarily end up in prison for essentially expressing an interest in violent Islamic terrorism. Mind you these guys were not exactly harmless
The original case was sparked when police were contacted by Raja's parents. The schoolboy had run away to Bradford to meet the other students, who he had met online, leaving a note to say he intended to fight abroad.
I think if people are against an open society - in the Karl Popper sense - then they essentially have that right. But once they start to use violence to further that belief that is treason and they should be locked up.
If you look at Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin, it seems like existing laws against incitement can put them in a situation where they are either neutralised politically or go to jail. By neutralised politically I mean that they stop talking about their ideas except to their relatives and close friends to avoid jail.
Now if you look at the article, the act is (or maybe has been interpreted by the judges to be) solely concerned with incitement
"We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury [in the original trial]...that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts. We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case."
So watching a video of some Chechen Islamist sawing off someone's head is not illegal. But using Islamist videos to incite other people to commit terrorist acts is.
Incitement, incidentally, is a good concept. Let's suppose that I say that I don't like Islam. That is ok and legal. But if I tell people to go out and harm Muslims that would be incitement and would be illegal. I think this is a good dividing line between constructive political discourse and extremist rabble rousing. And incitement has always been illegal. I think even in the US the First Amendment means that the Goverment can't impose prior restraint. But if you make a speech telling people to go out and attack some group, you can still be prosecuted after the fact for incitement. And actually this doesn't need to be enforced by the government, they could just let the group you incited violence against sue you. Which would probably happen in the US should a KKK like organisation encourage people to attack minorities.
And, by the way, Sinn Fein and its Loyalist mirror image parties were subject to loads of restrictions like this (and admittedly some very silly ones with loopholes) and eventually they turned into normal political parties or disappeared. So this sort of pruning of the fringes of the political spectrum can work. I think it is very important that both edges be pruned simultaneously though. There is some evidence that the racist far right recruit people based on a fear of islamism, and the islamists do the reverse. Certainly in the 1930's the Communists
No this is awesome
Pluto's namesake was Roman mythology's ruler of the underworld -- seemingly an apt inspiration for a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto's designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto's nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.) It's the Bear Cavalry of weapons systems.
They believed in whatever they needed to do accomplish their goals. This is very different than using your beliefs to hold yourself to a standard. But you could do that even if you weren't religious.
I did say to control your beliefs, that you have the power to change them. But one of the characteristics of a religion or quasi religion (someone coined the term religiotic for a mixture of religion and politics) like Nazism or Communism is that you don't give members that power. At a minimum they need to believe in God, or Communism or the Fuehrer. But usually it goes much further than this and to be a member you need to share thousands of beliefs. The organisation will claim all these beliefs are the absolute truth but in practice they are often changed arbitrarily by a leading group and you must share them to be a member. If you disagree you can be excommunicated. And if you're not a member then you have much less rights should that religiotic end up taking over.
Now the AA is admittedly not very far along the cult scale, but it further along than the sort of organisations I would be comfortable with supporting are. And organisations like the AA did manage to impose their beliefs on everyone else once before, during prohibition. It wasn't as disastrous as communism or Nazism but it wasn't good. And it was only repealed because the wets could still vote. Actually in Sweden, alcohol sales are still very limited because AA like organisations have managed to lobby for it, despite the fact that the vast majority of people would prefer them not to be.
Using APPINIT_DLLS is bad because you can never test it properly and that's why the CTL3D's author's decision not to use it was wise. But it's not a security issue anymore. Now you need local admin rights to change it, and if you have admin rights you could destroy the system in lots of other ways. I think the same is true for WH_CBT global hooks.
But if you're writing an application, want 3D controls and choose to load CTL3D.DLL it is up to you to test. There's nothing really wrong with this as far as I can see - it allows people to use old applications which would be broken by the new controls since they won't load CTL3D and people who had time to test the new controls and didn't find a problem could add one line of code to load CTL3D to their application.
Whether it's a kludge is subjective I guess. Kludge is just a way of something complicated that you don't understand in an OS you don't like. And this stuff is more complicated than Posix.
A non kludge way would be to change the controls and tell people who depend on applications that made questionable assumptions about the old controls and thus crashed to upgrade. But for a lot of people that wasn't possible since the app vendor had long since gone out of business. If they had to choose between upgrading and running some vital application, they'd pick the app. So there are valid business reasons for the complexity.
Mind you, I actually find this sort of thing fascinating, and I think it's good that Microsoft does it. From my point of view it's better that they do stuff like this that will cause lesser programmers to give up because that minimizes the competition I face and probably increases my salary due to supply and demand effects. Mind you I wouldn't use something like APPINIT_DLLs because it will fail some small percentage of the time and cause people to call tech support and that will give me a reputation for producing unreliable code which could decrease my salary. But kludginess of the level of CTL3D is fine with me, it just sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Incidentally, CTL3D isn't actually used anymore. But there are other transitional things that are equally kludgy. And long may that continue.
Well the Taliban, the Inquisition, the SS and the NKVD all believed in something bigger than themselves and it made them act like monsters. Actually I think if you don't it forces you to focus on things nearer to hand like the people around you. And also to judge every issue on its merits rather than letting some religion or ideology tell you what is right against your instincts. And it's no surprise that AA are so keen on religion - they have a lot of cult like characteristics.
I believe you mean DC-8's -- but without the propellers...
Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.
Good catch dude, in addition to be being a bad writer a crook and racist, L Ron Hubbard was also ignorant of airplane propulsion. That's it! The whole sick structure will now collapse.
prove it. Of course , we're unable to prove the opposite, too.
Ok, hypothetically let's say you are an atheist and I believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn will intervene and grant me eternal life and I try to convince you that this is the case and that if you accept him as your saviour, forsaking all others, he will do the same for you. Now I can't prove the IPU exists and you can't prove he doesn't.
In that case would you believe in the IPU? If yes, what about my friend who tells you you will be saved, but only if you worship exclusively the One True God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Remember both of them won't tolerate worship of the other.
Or would you be agnostic about him? It seems like a good idea until you realise that you're actually agnostic about every deity ever proposed, even the ones that people fabricated in a couple of minutes to win arguments on the Internet. You don't believe in one of them anymore than you believe in Santa Claus actually. And it doesn't do you any good if any of them do exist because of the damn exclusivity clauses.
Or do you decide the IPU/FSM/God/Santa Claus is just wishful thinking?
NO! When you die that's it. Your mind is just software running on the hardware that is your brain. When you brain dies and rots away, that's it. Information is lost when you die, and that information is YOU.
Incidentally if Jehovas Witnesses/Mormons/Christians approach you with pamphlets, say this in the tone you would talk to a disobedient dog whilst looking them full in the eye you can sometimes see a flicker of doubt. Fear even.
You are aware that women tend to bleed on a regular basis Yeah, that's how they got the blood sample from her underwear that matched the six inch stain. But I guess they can tell the difference between menstrual blood and blood splatters from a murder.
And that it's not unusual for a wife to phone her husband? That's not the point. It shows that he is the last person she spoke to. Since she met him to drop off the kids, it shows that he was the last person who saw here before she disappeared.
As one of the articles I quoted before puts it. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BASIUUNE1.DTL&feed=rss.news
A Verizon Wireless employee, Jody Citizen, testified Thursday that Nina Reiser called her husband's Oakland hills home twice on Sept. 3, 2006. The first call was made at 1:40 p.m. and lasted 62 seconds, and the second call was placed at 2:04 p.m. and lasted 22 seconds, Citizen said.
Nina Reiser was shopping with her young son and daughter at the Berkeley Bowl supermarket at the time of the second call, and was preparing to drop off the children at Hans Reiser's home afterward, according to previous testimony.
No calls were made from her cell phone after that day, Citizen said, and Nina Reiser has not been seen since. Many people who were worried about her after she disappeared called her cell phone, and those calls went straight to her voice mail, Citizen said.
The cell phone was later found in Nina Reiser's abandoned minivan with its battery detached.
Hans Reiser placed an eight-second call to the cell phone Sept. 5, 2006, two days after his wife disappeared, said Michael Caniglia, an AT&T Mobility employee. The prosecution believes Hans Reiser called the phone to make sure it was off; the defense says he simply wanted to know where she was. So she called him and then went to meet him and has never been seen since. That's not proof of murder, being the last person to see her and the last person she was due to meet is consistent with him being a murderer. It'd be interesting to hear what Hans ays about this of course.
I'd want to know what they meant by "stained with blood"; that could be anything from a few drops to a large patch indicating a serious wound. My bet is the former, How much did you bet? Do you have PayPal?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html
The sleeping bag cover, which Cavness described as a "stuff sack," was discovered in the 44-year-old defendant's tiny Honda CRX. The blood stain was about six inches wide and a picture of it was shown to jurors on a monitor. The actual sleeping bag cover was brought into the courtroom and shown to jurors. ... The other piece of forensic evidence is specks of the woman's blood found on a pillar in that Oakland hills house. Pictures of that post were shown to jurors last week and again Tuesday. So blood specks on a pillar and a six inch stain on a sleeping bag cover used as a 'stuff sack'. Nope, not at all suspicious.
Not all the evidence is circumstantial, there is the forensic stuff too.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html
OAKLAND, California -- Jurors in the Hans Reiser murder trial for the first time in the three-month trial were shown actual forensic evidence -- a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing. ...
[Reiser's car] was littered with trash, clothes, a sleeping bag and its cover, some maps, two books about murder and an Oakland Tribune newspaper with a screaming headline describing the authorities searching his Oakland hills residence. Still, it appeared as though the vehicle might have undergone some serious scrubbing. The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified. ...
Absent was the passenger seat. Inside the vehicle was a bunch of trash, a socket set and receipt showing the tools were purchased two weeks after the woman went missing. The bolts to the car seat were also found inside, and the socket on the ratchet matched the 12 millimeter diameter of the seat's bolts. Now Reiser says he removed the seat and put it in a dumpster because he was sleeping in the car. But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.
Nina Reiser has disappeared. Hans claims she is hiding in Russia, but she was heavily in debt, mostly due to unpaid child support. And she just got offered a $50K per year job.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BAOFUTA27.DTL
Two days before she disappeared, Nina Reiser accepted a $50,000-a-year job with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to help Russian immigrants, the woman who hired her testified Wednesday.... Also Wednesday, Richard Wilson of the TransUnion credit bureau testified that Hans Reiser was $90,000 in debt as of late last month. The figure includes $29,000 in unpaid child support, he said. Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, Wilson said.
Other witnesses have testified that Hans Reiser complained that his wife was a financial burden to him. The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.
But realistically Hans's suspicious behaviour, creepiness and arrogance will probably end up dooming him whether he's guilty or not. I think trials are really a question of which narrative the jury believes. If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that. Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off. Then again, maybe not -
Slashdot Mirror
You mean
1) America = USA
2) US = USA
3) USA = USA
4) USA! USA! USA!
Hope this helps.
The 'people' getting first post haven't been human for years.
Children aren't adults and they won't behave responsibly unless someone teaches them too. The ones running rampant have parents that don't care and live in estates that the police avoid.
Arguably the children have quite rationally adapted to an amoral environment. The problem is that you need to make the adapt to a moral one if society isn't going to gradually decay.
I think the problem is that there were lots of highly effective yet questionable punishments for bad kids back in the old days. As I understand it police officers would basically hit them if they were naughty, and then take them back to their parents who would hit them even more. If they were really bad they could be sent to some sort of juvenile prison.
Now I'm not saying this was a good thing per se, but it worked. The problem is that in a more human rights conscious society that doesn't happen anymore. The worst kids can literally form packs ramage around, even killing people with impunity. And the sad thing is that every time any government tries to do something about it it is sabotaged by a bunch of people that don't live in the sort of estates where kids run rampant.
You could probably make one. Get a microcontroller with USB support. Choose one with some HID class sample code and you could add support for reporting from an Atari joystick in a weekend. Here's the connector
http://www.hardwarebook.info/Atari_2600_Joystick
Just pull the pins to 5V with a pull up and then see if they go low when the switches inside the joystick short them to ground. You'll need to debounce in software - just wait for a few milliseconds before reporting a transition.
Here's an example with a PIC.
http://www.eetkorea.com/ARTICLES/2004MAY/2004MAY25_ID_AN.PDF?SOURCES=DOWNLOAD
Note the PIC has A to D converters - it's probably got more circuitry than a 2600! - and so could handle Atari paddles too.
Hmm, you seem very sensible for someone called Facetious
http://slashdot.org/~Facetious/journal/
I was being facetious. It's hard to imagine that the Earth would ever be less habitable than elsewhere. But you're right, artificial closed ecosystems seem to be much harder to get right than things like the Ecosphere would suggest.
As far as I'm concerned people's right to privacy ends as soon as they start to use it to destroy the relatively free society that gave them that right. And historically, relatively free societies that have allowed their opponents free rein have tended to become a lot less free once those opponents take over.
Now I'm not suggesting that we should ship people off to Gitmo for questioning democracy, or force them to drink hemlock a la Socrates. But Islamists and their mirror image on the far right should be kept under surveillance. And I'm not averse to criminalizing them if they get involved in violence as this law attempts to do. And this case shows that at least in the UK the judiciary will interpret the spirit of the law, not just the text. So harmless people will not necessarily end up in prison for essentially expressing an interest in violent Islamic terrorism. Mind you these guys were not exactly harmless
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/13/internet_extremism_appeal_victory/
The original case was sparked when police were contacted by Raja's parents. The schoolboy had run away to Bradford to meet the other students, who he had met online, leaving a note to say he intended to fight abroad.
I think if people are against an open society - in the Karl Popper sense - then they essentially have that right. But once they start to use violence to further that belief that is treason and they should be locked up.
If you look at Abu Hamza and Nick Griffin, it seems like existing laws against incitement can put them in a situation where they are either neutralised politically or go to jail. By neutralised politically I mean that they stop talking about their ideas except to their relatives and close friends to avoid jail.
Now if you look at the article, the act is (or maybe has been interpreted by the judges to be) solely concerned with incitement
"We do not consider that it was made plain to the jury [in the original trial]...that they possessed the extremist material for use in the future to incite the commission of terrorist acts. We doubt whether the evidence supported such a case."
So watching a video of some Chechen Islamist sawing off someone's head is not illegal. But using Islamist videos to incite other people to commit terrorist acts is.
Incitement, incidentally, is a good concept. Let's suppose that I say that I don't like Islam. That is ok and legal. But if I tell people to go out and harm Muslims that would be incitement and would be illegal. I think this is a good dividing line between constructive political discourse and extremist rabble rousing. And incitement has always been illegal. I think even in the US the First Amendment means that the Goverment can't impose prior restraint. But if you make a speech telling people to go out and attack some group, you can still be prosecuted after the fact for incitement. And actually this doesn't need to be enforced by the government, they could just let the group you incited violence against sue you. Which would probably happen in the US should a KKK like organisation encourage people to attack minorities.
And, by the way, Sinn Fein and its Loyalist mirror image parties were subject to loads of restrictions like this (and admittedly some very silly ones with loopholes) and eventually they turned into normal political parties or disappeared. So this sort of pruning of the fringes of the political spectrum can work. I think it is very important that both edges be pruned simultaneously though. There is some evidence that the racist far right recruit people based on a fear of islamism, and the islamists do the reverse. Certainly in the 1930's the Communists
I dunno, it reminds me of this -
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-319611-l33t-of-teh-rings.html
Now the AA is admittedly not very far along the cult scale, but it further along than the sort of organisations I would be comfortable with supporting are. And organisations like the AA did manage to impose their beliefs on everyone else once before, during prohibition. It wasn't as disastrous as communism or Nazism but it wasn't good. And it was only repealed because the wets could still vote. Actually in Sweden, alcohol sales are still very limited because AA like organisations have managed to lobby for it, despite the fact that the vast majority of people would prefer them not to be.
Using APPINIT_DLLS is bad because you can never test it properly and that's why the CTL3D's author's decision not to use it was wise. But it's not a security issue anymore. Now you need local admin rights to change it, and if you have admin rights you could destroy the system in lots of other ways. I think the same is true for WH_CBT global hooks.
But if you're writing an application, want 3D controls and choose to load CTL3D.DLL it is up to you to test. There's nothing really wrong with this as far as I can see - it allows people to use old applications which would be broken by the new controls since they won't load CTL3D and people who had time to test the new controls and didn't find a problem could add one line of code to load CTL3D to their application.
Whether it's a kludge is subjective I guess. Kludge is just a way of something complicated that you don't understand in an OS you don't like. And this stuff is more complicated than Posix.
A non kludge way would be to change the controls and tell people who depend on applications that made questionable assumptions about the old controls and thus crashed to upgrade. But for a lot of people that wasn't possible since the app vendor had long since gone out of business. If they had to choose between upgrading and running some vital application, they'd pick the app. So there are valid business reasons for the complexity.
Mind you, I actually find this sort of thing fascinating, and I think it's good that Microsoft does it. From my point of view it's better that they do stuff like this that will cause lesser programmers to give up because that minimizes the competition I face and probably increases my salary due to supply and demand effects. Mind you I wouldn't use something like APPINIT_DLLs because it will fail some small percentage of the time and cause people to call tech support and that will give me a reputation for producing unreliable code which could decrease my salary. But kludginess of the level of CTL3D is fine with me, it just sorts the wheat from the chaff.
Incidentally, CTL3D isn't actually used anymore. But there are other transitional things that are equally kludgy. And long may that continue.
Well the Taliban, the Inquisition, the SS and the NKVD all believed in something bigger than themselves and it made them act like monsters. Actually I think if you don't it forces you to focus on things nearer to hand like the people around you. And also to judge every issue on its merits rather than letting some religion or ideology tell you what is right against your instincts. And it's no surprise that AA are so keen on religion - they have a lot of cult like characteristics.
That's what John George Haigh believed but it isn't true.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327392/
Actually if you think about it, it can't be true. Otherwise all murderers would get rid of the body and then be safe from prosecution.
I believe you mean DC-8's -- but without the propellers...
Oops! The DC-8 was and is a pure jet aircraft. No propellers.
Good catch dude, in addition to be being a bad writer a crook and racist, L Ron Hubbard was also ignorant of airplane propulsion. That's it! The whole sick structure will now collapse.
By the way, the racism link would probably comes as a surprise to all the Hollywood stars who donate to Scientology.
http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/deny.htm
prove it. Of course , we're unable to prove the opposite, too.
Ok, hypothetically let's say you are an atheist and I believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn will intervene and grant me eternal life and I try to convince you that this is the case and that if you accept him as your saviour, forsaking all others, he will do the same for you. Now I can't prove the IPU exists and you can't prove he doesn't.
In that case would you believe in the IPU? If yes, what about my friend who tells you you will be saved, but only if you worship exclusively the One True God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Remember both of them won't tolerate worship of the other.
Or would you be agnostic about him? It seems like a good idea until you realise that you're actually agnostic about every deity ever proposed, even the ones that people fabricated in a couple of minutes to win arguments on the Internet. You don't believe in one of them anymore than you believe in Santa Claus actually. And it doesn't do you any good if any of them do exist because of the damn exclusivity clauses.
Or do you decide the IPU/FSM/God/Santa Claus is just wishful thinking?
Something must be retained from death to birth,
NO! When you die that's it. Your mind is just software running on the hardware that is your brain. When you brain dies and rots away, that's it. Information is lost when you die, and that information is YOU.
Incidentally if Jehovas Witnesses/Mormons/Christians approach you with pamphlets, say this in the tone you would talk to a disobedient dog whilst looking them full in the eye you can sometimes see a flicker of doubt. Fear even.
Fair enough. But if forensic evidence is circumstantial then most murder cases are decided based on circumstantial evidence.
What's the medium income living incognito in Russia. Actually come to think of it, if she's in Russia why isn't she with her kids?
Yeah, I don't believe it either. And I don't think a jury will.
As one of the articles I quoted before puts it.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BASIUUNE1.DTL&feed=rss.news A Verizon Wireless employee, Jody Citizen, testified Thursday that Nina Reiser called her husband's Oakland hills home twice on Sept. 3, 2006. The first call was made at 1:40 p.m. and lasted 62 seconds, and the second call was placed at 2:04 p.m. and lasted 22 seconds, Citizen said.
Nina Reiser was shopping with her young son and daughter at the Berkeley Bowl supermarket at the time of the second call, and was preparing to drop off the children at Hans Reiser's home afterward, according to previous testimony.
No calls were made from her cell phone after that day, Citizen said, and Nina Reiser has not been seen since. Many people who were worried about her after she disappeared called her cell phone, and those calls went straight to her voice mail, Citizen said.
The cell phone was later found in Nina Reiser's abandoned minivan with its battery detached.
Hans Reiser placed an eight-second call to the cell phone Sept. 5, 2006, two days after his wife disappeared, said Michael Caniglia, an AT&T Mobility employee. The prosecution believes Hans Reiser called the phone to make sure it was off; the defense says he simply wanted to know where she was. So she called him and then went to meet him and has never been seen since. That's not proof of murder, being the last person to see her and the last person she was due to meet is consistent with him being a murderer. It'd be interesting to hear what Hans ays about this of course.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html The sleeping bag cover, which Cavness described as a "stuff sack," was discovered in the 44-year-old defendant's tiny Honda CRX. The blood stain was about six inches wide and a picture of it was shown to jurors on a monitor. The actual sleeping bag cover was brought into the courtroom and shown to jurors.
The other piece of forensic evidence is specks of the woman's blood found on a pillar in that Oakland hills house. Pictures of that post were shown to jurors last week and again Tuesday. So blood specks on a pillar and a six inch stain on a sleeping bag cover used as a 'stuff sack'. Nope, not at all suspicious.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/jurors-shown-st.html OAKLAND, California -- Jurors in the Hans Reiser murder trial for the first time in the three-month trial were shown actual forensic evidence -- a sleeping bag cover that was stained with blood from the missing wife whom the Linux programmer is accused of killing. ... [Reiser's car] was littered with trash, clothes, a sleeping bag and its cover, some maps, two books about murder and an Oakland Tribune newspaper with a screaming headline describing the authorities searching his Oakland hills residence. Still, it appeared as though the vehicle might have undergone some serious scrubbing. The floorboards were sopping wet, Cavness testified. ... Absent was the passenger seat. Inside the vehicle was a bunch of trash, a socket set and receipt showing the tools were purchased two weeks after the woman went missing. The bolts to the car seat were also found inside, and the socket on the ratchet matched the 12 millimeter diameter of the seat's bolts. Now Reiser says he removed the seat and put it in a dumpster because he was sleeping in the car. But an alternative explanation was that he used the car to move a body, scrubbed the blood off the bodywork and dumped the seat because he couldn't get the blood off it.
Nina Reiser has disappeared. Hans claims she is hiding in Russia, but she was heavily in debt, mostly due to unpaid child support. And she just got offered a $50K per year job.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/07/BAOFUTA27.DTL Two days before she disappeared, Nina Reiser accepted a $50,000-a-year job with the San Francisco Department of Public Health to help Russian immigrants, the woman who hired her testified Wednesday.
Also Wednesday, Richard Wilson of the TransUnion credit bureau testified that Hans Reiser was $90,000 in debt as of late last month. The figure includes $29,000 in unpaid child support, he said. Nina Reiser was about $30,000 in debt, Wilson said.
Other witnesses have testified that Hans Reiser complained that his wife was a financial burden to him. The last two calls Nina made on her cellphone were to Hans before she disappeared, just after she dropped off her children at his house.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/08/BASIUUNE1.DTL&feed=rss.news
His behaviour on 20/20 was highly suspicious. Circumstantial admittedly.
http://www.eyesforlies.blogspot.com/2007/11/hans-and-nina-reiser.html
But realistically Hans's suspicious behaviour, creepiness and arrogance will probably end up dooming him whether he's guilty or not. I think trials are really a question of which narrative the jury believes. If they believe his story that she abandoned her kids (she had sole custody), boyfriend and a highly paid job to live incognito in Russia he'll get off, but I seriously doubt that. Then again he's a smart guy. Maybe he or his lawyer can work out some Johnny Cochrane type mindtrick to get him off. Then again, maybe not -
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/hans_reiser_trial/index.html#44890938
sudo rm -rf /home/gandhi/