Personally, I love that KDE gives users the freedom to configure their desktop to operate how they want it. People get upset when people create themes to have KDE look or operate like Windows or OS X, but why? Let them! That's what the freedom of choice means.
And personally I see the Windows themes get ripped the most by ass-hats, but if I can make KDE look just like Windows, then I can install it on boxes for people who largely only use a web browser, and they won't know the difference.
The Mac-style option to have the application menu always at the top is not yet implemented in KDE 4, but plenty of people keep requesting it. It may be there when 4.1 launches.
You're suggesting anyone who hides information is guilty. So anyone who uses privacy proxy like Tor should be thrown in jail. That makes you an idiot or a fanatic. Take your pick.
Secondly, that was the only evidence of the trial. So you're wrong on that count as well.
Destroying evidence is a much lesser count. He is going to jail for first degree murder. Perhaps someone should explain the difference to you.
Yes, he hid the car. It is certainly suspicious behavior, and it might indicate guilt.
If that is the only evidence you have, it certainly doesn't abolish all reasonable doubt.
Hans' father also insists that Nina was connected to Russia mafia (factual or otherwise, he sure seems to believe it). He told Hans to hide, and that Hans was in danger. With that in mind, the fact that he did hide doesn't prove much of anything for certain.
Prep`o*si"tion\, n. [L. praepositio, fr. praeponere to place before; prae before + ponere to put, place: cf. F. pr['e]position. See Position, and cf. Provost.]
1. (Gram.) A word employed to connect a noun or a pronoun, in an adjectival or adverbial sense, with some other word; a particle used with a noun or pronoun (in English always in the objective case) to make a phrase limiting some other word; -- so called because usually placed before the word with which it is phrased; as, a bridge of iron; he comes from town; it is good for food; he escaped by running.
2. A proposition; an exposition; a discourse. [Obs.]
Does the submitter of this story understand the distinction between free as in beer, and free as in speech?
They are questioning whether or not Ubuntu classifies as open source, because the parent company might want to make money. The entire preposition here is flawed and silly.
I'm saying that it's unreasonable to think that she planned this extremely elaborate hoax. Especially since her entire plan is predicated on Hans being charged with her murder. Otherwise her kids would've stayed right where she left them, with Hans. You have zero concept of logic. I never suggested she intended for him to be charged with murder. In fact I said first and foremost, that we don't know if she is dead or not. I said secondly, in a scenario when she did run off, she didn't go out of her way to frame him. You seem hung up on how everything must depend on framing him. Why? Where are you getting this?
Don't forget that this all happened 2 years ago. You really think she's been hiding out for 2 years? No one that can identify her has seen her? I addressed that directly. First, the people who do know her could in fact be hiding her in Russia. People in California who would spot her, wouldn't spot her if she is halfway around the globe. And she could in fact be dead.
Next, even if she was murdered, there isn't proof definitively that he did it.
Do you understand the concept of reasonable doubt? If there is any question of guilt or innocence, the jury is supposed to let him go. Our justice system is predicated on the concept that it better to let 1,000 guilty men walk than punish one innocent man.
You need to read up on the concepts of the US justice system.
Seriously, don't post in these threads if you have zero concept of what you're talking about.
He answered all reasonable doubt that he killed her. Really?
You obviously didn't follow the case and/or are an idiot.
Does the jury have any idea where she is, or where her body is? Do they have blood, a murder weapon, or anything to suggest she was even murdered? Do they know when she might have died? Do they know how she might have died?
Her son initially said he saw her drive off safe and sound while Hans stayed home. Then after spending a bunch of time with the prosecution he started saying he dreamed of carrying a body off, only to recant that later. That sounds pretty coerced to me.
Nothing is known for certain. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt.
A. Fake passport's are extremely common. B. She was in charge of company finances, and a whole slew of money disappeared. C. She had split custody, and Hans already had the kids half the time. If her plan was to disappear so she could get the kids permanently, it makes perfect sense. The kids are in Russia. Is it within reason that she might be as well? D. Obviously when a person disappears, people notice. However, if she did run off, she didn't leave much in the way of evidence to try and implicate him, so I'm not sure that would be her intent/motive. E. This also doesn't make any sense. She could be it contact with her family and friends in Russia, and they could very well be hiding her. She filed a restraining order, not because Hans actually was violent (no such charges on his record) but because he played violent video games, and she stated in court she was worried that could make a person violent. If she really believed she was in danger, she could ask her friends to hide her. Why would she have to avoid contact with the whole world?
Apparently, the other person she was close with, was her boyfriend, who is crazy and claims to have killed 8 people.
I'm not saying this is definitively what happened. I'm saying it is possible, and that there is reason to doubt.
If you're suggesting that with no body, no blood, no weapon, no witness, no evidence of her death, let alone a murder, that is enough to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of first degree murder, I pray you're never on a jury.
That contradicts every news story I've read, and the Wired blog. It also contradicts the cops who for months said there was no blood in the house or the car.
Can you please cite a source than can explain some of this?
Except in the case of a missing person, which turns into a murder trial. If the guy is insane, and talking about murder, perhaps that should be looked into.
Surely, you mean that he gave concrete answers that he killed his wife?
The only damning in his testimony was that he admitted to hiding his car, which does go along with the phone calls he received from his father stating he was in danger, and should hide.
He may have killed her. She may be in Russia with her kids. I don't claim to know. I will say that there sure seems to be reasonable doubt. It scares me to think someone can be convicted of first-degree murder with little evidence at all.
It also concerns me that the judge deemed it irrelevant to the case that her boyfriend confessed to 8 other murders. How is that not relevant to the case?
ZFS is GPLv3, and the Linux Kernel would have to go GPLv3 to include it. It doesn't look like that would happen. There are tons and tons of people who have contributed code, and they would all have to agree individually to relicense their code, or at least that is what Linus said.
The only blood found were two small trace amounts of blood. In fact, for months the police said there was no blood, because trace amounts are neglible and normally ignored. However, due to the lack of other evidence, suddenly it counted as blood.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is how they sway you away from competing products. Here they are just selling one of their own, with no mention of a competing product.
It was specifically stated several times in reports, and in the trial, these were small trace amounts. Before Hans was officially charged, the local police said basically they had no blood. So either they discounted trace blood, or it was so small they didn't find it for some time.
She filed a restraining order because she believed him capable of violence. There were no recorded instances of domestic abuse, neither cited in this trial, nor in the restraining order.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the wobble window effect. That's just me.
Personally, I love that KDE gives users the freedom to configure their desktop to operate how they want it. People get upset when people create themes to have KDE look or operate like Windows or OS X, but why? Let them! That's what the freedom of choice means.
And personally I see the Windows themes get ripped the most by ass-hats, but if I can make KDE look just like Windows, then I can install it on boxes for people who largely only use a web browser, and they won't know the difference.
The Mac-style option to have the application menu always at the top is not yet implemented in KDE 4, but plenty of people keep requesting it. It may be there when 4.1 launches.
You're suggesting anyone who hides information is guilty. So anyone who uses privacy proxy like Tor should be thrown in jail. That makes you an idiot or a fanatic. Take your pick.
Secondly, that was the only evidence of the trial. So you're wrong on that count as well.
Destroying evidence is a much lesser count. He is going to jail for first degree murder. Perhaps someone should explain the difference to you.
* Having a Mac without supporting Apple.
* Having a Mac on the cheap where you can upgrade your video card.
Yes, he hid the car. It is certainly suspicious behavior, and it might indicate guilt.
If that is the only evidence you have, it certainly doesn't abolish all reasonable doubt.
Hans' father also insists that Nina was connected to Russia mafia (factual or otherwise, he sure seems to believe it). He told Hans to hide, and that Hans was in danger. With that in mind, the fact that he did hide doesn't prove much of anything for certain.
Preposition
Prep`o*si"tion\, n. [L. praepositio, fr. praeponere to place before; prae before + ponere to put, place: cf. F. pr['e]position. See Position, and cf. Provost.]
1. (Gram.) A word employed to connect a noun or a pronoun, in an adjectival or adverbial sense, with some other word; a particle used with a noun or pronoun (in English always in the objective case) to make a phrase limiting some other word; -- so called because usually placed before the word with which it is phrased; as, a bridge of iron; he comes from town; it is good for food; he escaped by running.
2. A proposition; an exposition; a discourse. [Obs.]
He made a long preposition and oration. --Fabyan.
I always assumed they sold support contracts like Red Hat, but I never looked into it.
That doesn't mean your computer is bricked.
Boot to a Live-CD. Chroot, go into grub, have it setup the MBR, and presto!
Does the submitter of this story understand the distinction between free as in beer, and free as in speech?
They are questioning whether or not Ubuntu classifies as open source, because the parent company might want to make money. The entire preposition here is flawed and silly.
Next, even if she was murdered, there isn't proof definitively that he did it.
Do you understand the concept of reasonable doubt? If there is any question of guilt or innocence, the jury is supposed to let him go. Our justice system is predicated on the concept that it better to let 1,000 guilty men walk than punish one innocent man.
You need to read up on the concepts of the US justice system.
Seriously, don't post in these threads if you have zero concept of what you're talking about.
He answered all reasonable doubt that he killed her. Really?
You obviously didn't follow the case and/or are an idiot.
Does the jury have any idea where she is, or where her body is? Do they have blood, a murder weapon, or anything to suggest she was even murdered? Do they know when she might have died? Do they know how she might have died?
Her son initially said he saw her drive off safe and sound while Hans stayed home. Then after spending a bunch of time with the prosecution he started saying he dreamed of carrying a body off, only to recant that later. That sounds pretty coerced to me.
Nothing is known for certain. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt.
A. Fake passport's are extremely common.
B. She was in charge of company finances, and a whole slew of money disappeared.
C. She had split custody, and Hans already had the kids half the time. If her plan was to disappear so she could get the kids permanently, it makes perfect sense. The kids are in Russia. Is it within reason that she might be as well?
D. Obviously when a person disappears, people notice. However, if she did run off, she didn't leave much in the way of evidence to try and implicate him, so I'm not sure that would be her intent/motive.
E. This also doesn't make any sense. She could be it contact with her family and friends in Russia, and they could very well be hiding her. She filed a restraining order, not because Hans actually was violent (no such charges on his record) but because he played violent video games, and she stated in court she was worried that could make a person violent. If she really believed she was in danger, she could ask her friends to hide her. Why would she have to avoid contact with the whole world?
Apparently, the other person she was close with, was her boyfriend, who is crazy and claims to have killed 8 people.
I'm not saying this is definitively what happened. I'm saying it is possible, and that there is reason to doubt.
If you're suggesting that with no body, no blood, no weapon, no witness, no evidence of her death, let alone a murder, that is enough to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of first degree murder, I pray you're never on a jury.
I read that ZFS was going to be released as GPLv3, and all the OpenSolaris stuff was GPLv3. I could be mistaken.
That contradicts every news story I've read, and the Wired blog. It also contradicts the cops who for months said there was no blood in the house or the car.
Can you please cite a source than can explain some of this?
Except in the case of a missing person, which turns into a murder trial. If the guy is insane, and talking about murder, perhaps that should be looked into.
Surely, you mean that he gave concrete answers that he killed his wife?
The only damning in his testimony was that he admitted to hiding his car, which does go along with the phone calls he received from his father stating he was in danger, and should hide.
He may have killed her. She may be in Russia with her kids. I don't claim to know. I will say that there sure seems to be reasonable doubt. It scares me to think someone can be convicted of first-degree murder with little evidence at all.
It also concerns me that the judge deemed it irrelevant to the case that her boyfriend confessed to 8 other murders. How is that not relevant to the case?
ZFS is GPLv3, and the Linux Kernel would have to go GPLv3 to include it. It doesn't look like that would happen. There are tons and tons of people who have contributed code, and they would all have to agree individually to relicense their code, or at least that is what Linus said.
The only blood found were two small trace amounts of blood. In fact, for months the police said there was no blood, because trace amounts are neglible and normally ignored. However, due to the lack of other evidence, suddenly it counted as blood.
Not this time actually.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt is how they sway you away from competing products. Here they are just selling one of their own, with no mention of a competing product.
He writes fine. You're a grammar Nazi!
It was specifically stated several times in reports, and in the trial, these were small trace amounts. Before Hans was officially charged, the local police said basically they had no blood. So either they discounted trace blood, or it was so small they didn't find it for some time.
She filed a restraining order because she believed him capable of violence. There were no recorded instances of domestic abuse, neither cited in this trial, nor in the restraining order.
Trace blood is common in most places. It isn't uncommon to find traces of blood in most motel sheets for instance.
He did have an explanation for removing his seat that was plausible.
Purchasing a book on body disposal is just damning.
There was no history of violence.
There was certainly reason to suspect him, but I think there was clearly reasonable doubt.