Hans leads police to Nina's body - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Hans leads police to Nina's body - Mandriva ; No doubt about it now. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...LDR8.DTL&tsp=1 -- old-polack Of what use be there for joy, if not for the sharing thereof?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 280

Thread: Hans leads police to Nina's body

  1. Hans leads police to Nina's body

    No doubt about it now.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...LDR8.DTL&tsp=1

    --
    old-polack
    Of what use be there for joy, if not for the sharing thereof?



  2. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tuesday 08 July 2008 07:58, someone who identifies as *old-polack* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > No doubt about it now.
    >
    >

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...LDR8.DTL&tsp=1

    Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of his
    innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of manslaughter
    rather than premeditated murder, though.

    Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then seeing
    her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in a panic
    dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.

    Either way, it's tragic, both for her and for him, not to mention the
    children... :-/

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  3. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    , Aragorn wrote:

    >someone who identifies as *old-polack* wrote


    >> No doubt about it now.


    [URL clipped]

    >Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of
    >his innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of
    >manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, though.


    Standard assumption in most courts is that the accused is innocent until
    proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not to say they never make
    a mistake - that's pretty well known to be possible, but that's also why
    we have reviews and appeals processes.

    Manslaughter generally means accidental. The prosecutor managed to find
    and present enough evidence in the courtroom to convince the jury of the
    more serious charge.

    >Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
    >seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in
    >a panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.


    You really do want to read the Chronicle article - I don't believe you can
    get the trial transcripts yet. To quote:

    Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he
    had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said.

    That's not official, but it's probably got some basis of fact. If you
    want the official statements, wait a few weeks, and the transcripts will
    become available.

    Honestly, there were 12 people in that courtroom who were convinced
    beyond all reasonable doubt that he had killed her under non-accidental
    circumstances. If even one juror was not fully convinced, the result
    is a mandatory 'not guilty' verdict. It's not as if they are persecuting
    him for the hell of it. You may not have believed the evidence that was
    presented in court, but the jury did.

    Reiser, 44, was convicted by an Alameda County jury April 28 after
    a six-month trial in which the combative software programmer testified
    over 11 days that he was innocent of killing his wife, who had not been
    seen since dropping off the couple's young son and daughter at his home.
    On the day Reiser was convicted, Hora said, "We have a body. We just
    don't know where it is."

    Six months. They didn't ram it through and the jury tends to be rather
    careful, especially on a murder case. Both the prosecution and defense
    are extremely careful to select jurors who don't have pre-conceived ideas
    and who _will_ make a fair determination based on facts presented during
    the trial. Also, this is a high profile case (the URL above is of a news
    story that was on the front page of the major newspaper), so it's not as
    if the prosecution can get away with slight-of-hand or smoke and mirrors.

    Old guy

  4. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tuesday 08 July 2008 21:37, someone who identifies as *Moe Trin* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    > article , Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> someone who identifies as *old-polack* wrote

    >
    >>> No doubt about it now.

    >
    > [URL clipped]
    >
    >> Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of
    >> his innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of
    >> manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, though.

    >
    > Standard assumption in most courts is that the accused is innocent until
    > proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not to say they never make
    > a mistake - that's pretty well known to be possible, but that's also why
    > we have reviews and appeals processes.


    Well, I have been following most of that trial - I think I may have missed
    the first few sessions - via two independent sources. One was a live blog
    from the courtroom with a pretty elaborate quoting of what was said in the
    courtroom, whereas the other one was more of a short summary of the events,
    with fewer quotes.

    I stopped following the case once Reiser had been found guilty, because it
    was then just only a matter of determining the sentence, and that was
    scheduled to happen only in July, so the reports about this case also went
    into a recess.

    > Manslaughter generally means accidental. The prosecutor managed to find
    > and present enough evidence in the courtroom to convince the jury of the
    > more serious charge.


    Well, see, on that I am not so sure. I'm not arguing that he's guilty,
    obviously, but it was my impression that the prosecutor was freewheeling
    and assuming a lot without presenting proper evidence, and that key
    elements in the case were being totally discarded through prejudice.

    If anything, it was a very sloppy case, and although Reiser is obviously
    guilty and he was convicted, I see that more as a lucky strike on behalf of
    the prosecutor.

    No body had been found during the trial, Reiser was still maintaining his
    innocence and certain paths and evidence were left unexplored. It was only
    after his conviction that Reiser admitted to having killed Nina and that -
    following his lead - her body was discovered.

    By the same token he could have maintained his innocence and he even could
    have been innocent and still sentenced on the grounds of circumstantial
    evidence, because in the end, circumstantial evidence was the only thing
    presented, testimonial of which is the fact that if he did indeed strangle
    her, then the whole debacle of the blood stains on the sleeping bag cover
    and on the pillar in the house of his mother, and him allegedly rinsing the
    car "to get rid of all the blood from killing her" are moot.

    >> Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
    >> seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in
    >> a panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.

    >
    > You really do want to read the Chronicle article - I don't believe you can
    > get the trial transcripts yet. To quote:
    >
    > Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he
    > had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said.


    I _have_ read the article, but the word "strangled" must have eluded me
    somehow. I had been awake all night and I've just had a terrible three
    days behind me, so I must have missed that. ;-)

    > That's not official, but it's probably got some basis of fact. If you
    > want the official statements, wait a few weeks, and the transcripts will
    > become available.


    Probably yes.

    > Honestly, there were 12 people in that courtroom who were convinced
    > beyond all reasonable doubt that he had killed her under non-accidental
    > circumstances. If even one juror was not fully convinced, the result
    > is a mandatory 'not guilty' verdict. It's not as if they are persecuting
    > him for the hell of it. You may not have believed the evidence that was
    > presented in court, but the jury did.


    Well, it was all circumstantial evidence, and even the District Attorney was
    willing to acknowledge that. But as I wrote higher up, I believe that the
    case hadn't been investigated with the proper earnest.

    Had the investigators and the District Attorney's office done their jobs
    well enough, then they would have seriously investigated every possible
    angle to this case, and clearly that was not what was going on. They had
    been investigating Reiser (and only Reiser) with prejudice from the start
    and they made a case against him based upon circumstantial evidence,
    presented in court with colorful propagandistic slogans and slides, and the
    prosecutor was even given a second closing argument _after_ the defense
    attorney had finished his. The jury needed several days to review and
    debate this evidence, so they weren't at all sure about everything either.

    And so they found him guilty. And now it turns out that he *is* guilty. So
    the D.A. made a homerun. But - and I repeat - by the same token he could
    have been innocent, and then all of this would have been just the circus
    show it was presented as. This is not the way a serious investigation
    should be conducted.

    Don't get me wrong, though. I'm certainly not going to say that over here
    in Belgium such a case would have been tried better. The big difference
    however is that the equivalent of the district attorneys here - simply
    called "Prosecutor of the King" in an archaic title - are not elected, and
    neither are the chiefs of police or sheriffs - for the few remote areas
    that still have an equivalent of a sheriff. All of the aforementioned here
    are public servants and are given their rank and position based upon the
    results of exams, diplomas and qualifications. In other words, they don't
    have to win a case in court in order to ensure a re-election, and this adds
    to their credibility.

    > Reiser, 44, was convicted by an Alameda County jury April 28 after
    > a six-month trial in which the combative software programmer testified
    > over 11 days that he was innocent of killing his wife, who had not been
    > seen since dropping off the couple's young son and daughter at his
    > home. On the day Reiser was convicted, Hora said, "We have a body. We
    > just don't know where it is."


    Yeah, I've read that. And that is just one of the things that go to show
    that it's all about slogans and propaganda. They did *not* have a body,
    until Reiser himself presented them with one, *after* his conviction.
    Slogans like that are religious, not factual.

    > Six months. They didn't ram it through and the jury tends to be rather
    > careful, especially on a murder case.


    I don't agree with that. If that were true, then there never would have
    been any cases of innocent people being sentenced for life or even being
    executed, only to have the real killer turn up much, much later. Besides,
    in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty and it
    was later on discovered - and proven in a civil court - that he was.

    > Both the prosecution and defense are extremely careful to select jurors
    > who don't have pre-conceived ideas and who _will_ make a fair
    > determination based on facts presented during the trial.


    Jurors demographically represent the people and may therefore not be savvy
    enough regarding technical details or investigation methods. Well, I'm not
    a lawyer and who am I to criticize how the court works, but still, jurors
    can be mislead easily.

    > Also, this is a high profile case (the URL above is of a news story that
    > was on the front page of the major newspaper), so it's not as if the
    > prosecution can get away with slight-of-hand or smoke and mirrors.


    Which is all the more reason to point out that in this particular case, they
    actually did pull that off, even if they did turn out to be right in the
    end.

    Of course, Reiser's decision to take the stand is one of the key factors
    that got him convicted. Not because of what he said or didn't say, but
    because he managed to make himself very much disliked by both the judge and
    the jurors - the blog reported on some of the jurors' facial reactions and
    body language throughout Reiser's testimony.

    Of course, whether the judge liked or disliked Reiser has nothing to do with
    the verdict, as the judge seemed professional enough about it - he was
    actually the only one who appeared credible throughout this trial - but
    even jurors are only human.

    Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his attorney to
    forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would have been his
    legal right in the United States - then he'd probably have been acquitted.
    And the key factor in all this is that even though he did take the stand,
    there was actually nothing in any of what he said that contributed anything
    useful to the resolution of the case, with the sole and sad exception being
    that now, _after_ the proceedings, he has finally confessed and presented
    the investigators with Nina's remains in order to get a sentence reduction.

    As the OP put it, "there's no doubt about it anymore now". But up until
    this "now", for me, there still was, despite the court's ruling.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  5. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    Aragorn wrote:
    > On Tuesday 08 July 2008 21:37, someone who identifies as *Moe Trin* wrote
    > in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in
    >> article , Aragorn wrote:
    >>
    >>> someone who identifies as *old-polack* wrote
    >>>> No doubt about it now.

    >> [URL clipped]
    >>
    >>> Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of
    >>> his innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of
    >>> manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, though.

    >> Standard assumption in most courts is that the accused is innocent until
    >> proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not to say they never make
    >> a mistake - that's pretty well known to be possible, but that's also why
    >> we have reviews and appeals processes.

    >
    > Well, I have been following most of that trial - I think I may have missed
    > the first few sessions - via two independent sources. One was a live blog
    > from the courtroom with a pretty elaborate quoting of what was said in the
    > courtroom, whereas the other one was more of a short summary of the events,
    > with fewer quotes.
    >
    > I stopped following the case once Reiser had been found guilty, because it
    > was then just only a matter of determining the sentence, and that was
    > scheduled to happen only in July, so the reports about this case also went
    > into a recess.
    >
    >> Manslaughter generally means accidental. The prosecutor managed to find
    >> and present enough evidence in the courtroom to convince the jury of the
    >> more serious charge.

    >
    > Well, see, on that I am not so sure. I'm not arguing that he's guilty,
    > obviously, but it was my impression that the prosecutor was freewheeling
    > and assuming a lot without presenting proper evidence, and that key
    > elements in the case were being totally discarded through prejudice.
    >
    > If anything, it was a very sloppy case, and although Reiser is obviously
    > guilty and he was convicted, I see that more as a lucky strike on behalf of
    > the prosecutor.
    >
    > No body had been found during the trial, Reiser was still maintaining his
    > innocence and certain paths and evidence were left unexplored. It was only
    > after his conviction that Reiser admitted to having killed Nina and that -
    > following his lead - her body was discovered.
    >
    > By the same token he could have maintained his innocence and he even could
    > have been innocent and still sentenced on the grounds of circumstantial
    > evidence, because in the end, circumstantial evidence was the only thing
    > presented, testimonial of which is the fact that if he did indeed strangle
    > her, then the whole debacle of the blood stains on the sleeping bag cover
    > and on the pillar in the house of his mother, and him allegedly rinsing the
    > car "to get rid of all the blood from killing her" are moot.
    >
    >>> Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
    >>> seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in
    >>> a panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.

    >> You really do want to read the Chronicle article - I don't believe you can
    >> get the trial transcripts yet. To quote:
    >>
    >> Reiser also acknowledged that he and his wife had fought and that he
    >> had strangled her, a source familiar with the investigation said.

    >
    > I _have_ read the article, but the word "strangled" must have eluded me
    > somehow. I had been awake all night and I've just had a terrible three
    > days behind me, so I must have missed that. ;-)
    >
    >> That's not official, but it's probably got some basis of fact. If you
    >> want the official statements, wait a few weeks, and the transcripts will
    >> become available.

    >
    > Probably yes.
    >
    >> Honestly, there were 12 people in that courtroom who were convinced
    >> beyond all reasonable doubt that he had killed her under non-accidental
    >> circumstances. If even one juror was not fully convinced, the result
    >> is a mandatory 'not guilty' verdict. It's not as if they are persecuting
    >> him for the hell of it. You may not have believed the evidence that was
    >> presented in court, but the jury did.

    >
    > Well, it was all circumstantial evidence, and even the District Attorney was
    > willing to acknowledge that. But as I wrote higher up, I believe that the
    > case hadn't been investigated with the proper earnest.
    >
    > Had the investigators and the District Attorney's office done their jobs
    > well enough, then they would have seriously investigated every possible
    > angle to this case, and clearly that was not what was going on. They had
    > been investigating Reiser (and only Reiser) with prejudice from the start
    > and they made a case against him based upon circumstantial evidence,
    > presented in court with colorful propagandistic slogans and slides, and the
    > prosecutor was even given a second closing argument _after_ the defense
    > attorney had finished his. The jury needed several days to review and
    > debate this evidence, so they weren't at all sure about everything either.
    >
    > And so they found him guilty. And now it turns out that he *is* guilty. So
    > the D.A. made a homerun. But - and I repeat - by the same token he could
    > have been innocent, and then all of this would have been just the circus
    > show it was presented as. This is not the way a serious investigation
    > should be conducted.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong, though. I'm certainly not going to say that over here
    > in Belgium such a case would have been tried better. The big difference
    > however is that the equivalent of the district attorneys here - simply
    > called "Prosecutor of the King" in an archaic title - are not elected, and
    > neither are the chiefs of police or sheriffs - for the few remote areas
    > that still have an equivalent of a sheriff. All of the aforementioned here
    > are public servants and are given their rank and position based upon the
    > results of exams, diplomas and qualifications. In other words, they don't
    > have to win a case in court in order to ensure a re-election, and this adds
    > to their credibility.
    >
    >> Reiser, 44, was convicted by an Alameda County jury April 28 after
    >> a six-month trial in which the combative software programmer testified
    >> over 11 days that he was innocent of killing his wife, who had not been
    >> seen since dropping off the couple's young son and daughter at his
    >> home. On the day Reiser was convicted, Hora said, "We have a body. We
    >> just don't know where it is."

    >
    > Yeah, I've read that. And that is just one of the things that go to show
    > that it's all about slogans and propaganda. They did *not* have a body,
    > until Reiser himself presented them with one, *after* his conviction.
    > Slogans like that are religious, not factual.
    >
    >> Six months. They didn't ram it through and the jury tends to be rather
    >> careful, especially on a murder case.

    >
    > I don't agree with that. If that were true, then there never would have
    > been any cases of innocent people being sentenced for life or even being
    > executed, only to have the real killer turn up much, much later. Besides,
    > in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty and it
    > was later on discovered - and proven in a civil court - that he was.
    >
    >> Both the prosecution and defense are extremely careful to select jurors
    >> who don't have pre-conceived ideas and who _will_ make a fair
    >> determination based on facts presented during the trial.

    >
    > Jurors demographically represent the people and may therefore not be savvy
    > enough regarding technical details or investigation methods. Well, I'm not
    > a lawyer and who am I to criticize how the court works, but still, jurors
    > can be mislead easily.
    >
    >> Also, this is a high profile case (the URL above is of a news story that
    >> was on the front page of the major newspaper), so it's not as if the
    >> prosecution can get away with slight-of-hand or smoke and mirrors.

    >
    > Which is all the more reason to point out that in this particular case, they
    > actually did pull that off, even if they did turn out to be right in the
    > end.
    >
    > Of course, Reiser's decision to take the stand is one of the key factors
    > that got him convicted. Not because of what he said or didn't say, but
    > because he managed to make himself very much disliked by both the judge and
    > the jurors - the blog reported on some of the jurors' facial reactions and
    > body language throughout Reiser's testimony.
    >
    > Of course, whether the judge liked or disliked Reiser has nothing to do with
    > the verdict, as the judge seemed professional enough about it - he was
    > actually the only one who appeared credible throughout this trial - but
    > even jurors are only human.
    >
    > Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his attorney to
    > forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would have been his
    > legal right in the United States - then he'd probably have been acquitted.
    > And the key factor in all this is that even though he did take the stand,
    > there was actually nothing in any of what he said that contributed anything
    > useful to the resolution of the case, with the sole and sad exception being
    > that now, _after_ the proceedings, he has finally confessed and presented
    > the investigators with Nina's remains in order to get a sentence reduction.
    >
    > As the OP put it, "there's no doubt about it anymore now". But up until
    > this "now", for me, there still was, despite the court's ruling.
    >

    When humans are involved, nothing is perfect. Such is life.

    The U.S. "system" is pretty good, but much less consistent than, for
    example, the French system, where there is no jury and the judge is
    trained to serve in any or all capacities as director of
    investigation, prosecutor, and advocate for the defense, and his job
    is to determine the facts, determine the appropriate law(s)
    applicable, and render judgment in accordance thereto. There is not
    a lot of flexibility in the system, for good or evil.

    Results in the U.S. vary from court to court, but generally my
    estimate is that the principal problem is too great a tendency for
    the guilty to get off, and continue by committing the same or similar
    crimes. While an innocent can be convicted, that happens rarely, and
    the damage in such cases is (for society as a whole) far far less
    than the damage from repeat criminals getting off and repeating.

    Cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  6. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    Aragorn wrote:
    > Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his attorney to
    > forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would have been his
    > legal right in the United States


    United States Constitution, Amendment 5: "No person ... shall be
    compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself",
    commonly called "taking the fifth [amendment]".

    In the U.S., homicide is a state crime. (Actually, relatively few
    things are federal crimes.) I was an alternate juror in a New York
    State criminal case (not homicide) in 2004, and the defendant did not
    testify, and we the jury were explicitly instructed by the judge (I
    forget his exact words) not to let this affect our verdict.

    Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether to
    use the Reiser file system? More generally, can an idea from an evil
    source be morally good? (For example, I believe the Nazis were among
    the first to mount an anti-smoking campaign.)

    Adam
    --
    Email: adam seven zero seven at verizon dot net

  7. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    Adam wrote:
    > Aragorn wrote:
    >> Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his
    >> attorney to
    >> forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would have been his
    >> legal right in the United States

    >
    > United States Constitution, Amendment 5: "No person ... shall be
    > compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself",
    > commonly called "taking the fifth [amendment]".
    >
    > In the U.S., homicide is a state crime. (Actually, relatively few
    > things are federal crimes.) I was an alternate juror in a New York
    > State criminal case (not homicide) in 2004, and the defendant did not
    > testify, and we the jury were explicitly instructed by the judge (I
    > forget his exact words) not to let this affect our verdict.
    >
    > Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether to
    > use the Reiser file system? More generally, can an idea from an evil
    > source be morally good? (For example, I believe the Nazis were among
    > the first to mount an anti-smoking campaign.)
    >
    > Adam

    Morals have nothing to do with it. I will replace the Reiser file
    system
    because I don't want constant reminders of sad & irreparable events.

    Morals have nothing to do with smoking either. If the NAZIs used
    the idea that bad morals were promoted by smoking they were wrong.
    Smoking is physically bad for one and the longer you smoke the more
    damaging it is and the younger you start smoking the harder it is to
    quit. More than likely they were concerned with the foreign exchange
    advantages of curtailing tobacco imports.

    later
    bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

    --
    bobbie sellers -(Back to Angband)Team *AMIGA & SF-LUG*
    a retired nurse in San Francisco

    "It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
    the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
    It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
    --from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.


  8. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Wednesday 09 July 2008 02:29, someone who identifies as *bobbie sellers*
    wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > Adam wrote:
    >
    >> Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether to
    >> use the Reiser file system? More generally, can an idea from an evil
    >> source be morally good? (For example, I believe the Nazis were among
    >> the first to mount an anti-smoking campaign.)

    >
    > Morals have nothing to do with it. I will replace the Reiser file
    > system because I don't want constant reminders of sad & irreparable
    > events.


    If you think that morals have nothing to do with it, then emotions should
    not have anything to do with it either. I admit that I too will have
    emotional/ethical considerations next time I decide to format a partition
    on any machine, but this computer here has /reiserfs/ partitions on it and
    I do not intend to convert them to anything less suited for my purposes.
    Besides, the Reiser filesystems were not created by Hans Reiser alone; they
    are the work of the collective coders at NameSys, and they are very good
    filesystems.

    Mind you that I am not saying that they are the best filesystems there are.
    One's choice of filesystem should depend upon one's needs. On my heavier
    system, I prefer using XFS, which is far more advanced than /reiserfs/ and
    certainly more advanced than /ext3,/ but which may not be appropriate for
    all kinds of implementations. For laptops, I recommend /reiserfs/ -
    version 3.6, not version 4.0.

    That said, RedHat's installer - and by legacy, therefore also CentOS's
    installer - refuses to allow you to mount anything other than /ext3/ in the
    system tree, or create anything other than /ext3/ at install time. And
    this decision of theirs was already made long before Nina Reiser's life
    ever came to such a tragic end.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  9. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:39:12 -0400, Aragorn wrote:

    > One's choice of filesystem should depend upon one's needs. On my heavier
    > system, I prefer using XFS, which is far more advanced than /reiserfs/ and


    I'm using xfs for most of my file systems.
    $ mount
    /dev/hda14 on / type reiserfs (rw,noatime,notail,user_xattr)
    /dev/mapper/81-home on /home type xfs (rw,relatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/mapper/81-opt on /opt type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/mapper/81-tmp on /tmp type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/mapper/81-usr on /usr type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/mapper/81-var on /var type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/hda15 on /var/log type xfs (rw,noatime,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)
    /dev/mapper/81-mnt on /var/mnt type ext2 (rw,noatime)
    /dev/mapper/81-data on /var/mnt/data type xfs (rw,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k)

    I've kept / using reiserfs, as xfs cannot have lilo or grub installed on it.
    I'm using ext2 for /var/mnt (with /media and /mnt replaced with symlinks to
    /var/mnt), as it is rarely updated, and can be kept very small (4mb), so I
    quickly find out, if I try to copy data to an unmounted filesystem.

    The above decisions were based on various reviews I've read, and on how I
    use my system. Actions unrelated to software development, by one of the
    authors of the filesystem, is not going to impact my choices, at all.

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  10. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:24:55 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

    > Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of his
    > innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of manslaughter
    > rather than premeditated murder, though.


    Why would you "think" that? Why "must" it have been manslaughter rather
    than premeditated? Do you have evidence that the trial did not have?

    > Probably they got into a fight and he hit her and she fell, and then
    > seeing her body he must have thought "What have I done?" and then in a
    > panic dragged her body out, took it far away and buried her.


    Wow! Lots of assumptions. How much stock do you think a lawyer would
    place on such statements? Do you have any actual *reason* to think any of
    that might actually be true?

    > Either way, it's tragic, both for her and for him, not to mention the
    > children... :-/


    Probably, but not necessarily.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  11. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    David W. Hodgins wrote:
    >
    > I've kept / using reiserfs, as xfs cannot have lilo or grub installed on it.


    Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
    long as I can remember.

    Mandrake included XFS in version 8.1, I have been using both
    lilo and grub on various systems with most MDK/MDV versions
    since 8.1 with /boot being XFS, or not using a separate /boot
    and / being XFS.

    Including XFS (long before in was in the upstream kernel) is
    one of the reasons I began using Mandrake.


  12. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    Adam wrote:

    > More generally, can an idea from an evil
    > source be morally good? (For example, I believe the Nazis were among
    > the first to mount an anti-smoking campaign.)


    Some among us consider that early anti-smoking campaign
    evil, evil, evil.

    No cheers!

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  13. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    , Aragorn wrote:

    >someone who identifies as *Moe Trin* wrote


    >Well, I have been following most of that trial - I think I may have
    >missed the first few sessions - via two independent sources. One was
    >a live blog from the courtroom with a pretty elaborate quoting of what
    >was said in the courtroom, whereas the other one was more of a short
    >summary of the events, with fewer quotes.


    I didn't bother following the trial - it's a state trial in a different
    state, and I know I don't have enough facts to form an opinion. Where
    those sources you used either official, or a reasonably unbiased source
    like 'Court TV' or one of the less unbiased, but _relatively_ balanced
    two newspapers (Oakland Tribune or San Francisco Chronicle)?

    >Well, see, on that I am not so sure. I'm not arguing that he's
    >guilty, obviously, but it was my impression that the prosecutor was
    >freewheeling and assuming a lot without presenting proper evidence,
    >and that key elements in the case were being totally discarded
    >through prejudice.


    Were that the case, the defense attorney should have been constantly
    objecting, and the judge would be slapping the prosecution around
    pretty harshly.

    >No body had been found during the trial, Reiser was still maintaining
    >his innocence and certain paths and evidence were left unexplored. It
    >was only after his conviction that Reiser admitted to having killed
    >Nina and that - following his lead - her body was discovered.


    Still the prosecutor was able to present enough information that the
    defense could not disprove or object to, and the judge didn't report
    that there was insufficient evidence to give to the jury.

    >By the same token he could have maintained his innocence and he even
    >could have been innocent and still sentenced on the grounds of
    >circumstantial evidence, because in the end, circumstantial evidence
    >was the only thing presented, testimonial of which is the fact that if
    >he did indeed strangle her, then the whole debacle of the blood stains
    >on the sleeping bag cover and on the pillar in the house of his mother,
    >and him allegedly rinsing the car "to get rid of all the blood from
    >killing her" are moot.


    I can't say until I see the transcripts, and the coroners report. It
    really isn't a requirement that the body be found. Were that the case
    merely see that there are no witnesses, and dispose of the body in a
    sure manner (torch the body, dispose of the ashes at sea), and no one
    would be able to be convicted. No, it doesn't work that way.

    >The jury needed several days to review and debate this evidence, so
    >they weren't at all sure about everything either.


    Of the four times I've been on a criminal jury, there was only one
    case where we returned - actually in about 20 minutes. There was
    absolutely no question of the defendants guilt, plenty of evidence
    against him, and our biggest question was why they wasted our time
    bringing this to a trial - the defense lawyer should have gotten the
    idiot to plea. Other than that, I think the quickest debate/vote
    was something like two days, and we acquitted that defendant. Jurors
    really do tend to take the job seriously, especially on a capital
    crime.

    >> Six months. They didn't ram it through and the jury tends to be

    >rather careful, especially on a murder case.
    >
    >I don't agree with that. If that were true, then there never would
    >have been any cases of innocent people being sentenced for life or even
    >being executed, only to have the real killer turn up much, much later.


    Nothing is perfect.

    >Besides, in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury found the defendant not
    >guilty and it was later on discovered - and proven in a civil court -
    >that he was.


    O.J was tried and acquitted of murder - that was the criminal trial.
    He was then sued in a civil trial for causing the wrongful death of
    two individuals, and that trial went against him. His loss of that
    case in no way proved that he was guilty of capital murder OR ANY
    CRIME what-so-ever. Different charges, different standards, and
    requiring only a majority to decide the case, not a unanimous
    decision.

    >Jurors demographically represent the people and may therefore not be
    >savvy enough regarding technical details or investigation methods.
    >Well, I'm not a lawyer and who am I to criticize how the court works,
    >but still, jurors can be mislead easily.


    So are you saying that William Du Bois (his defense attorney) and the
    judge were incompetent?

    >Of course, Reiser's decision to take the stand is one of the key
    >factors that got him convicted. Not because of what he said or didn't
    >say, but because he managed to make himself very much disliked by both
    >the judge and the jurors - the blog reported on some of the jurors'
    >facial reactions and body language throughout Reiser's testimony.


    Andrew has already pointed to the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution
    which says that a person may not be "compelled in any criminal case to
    be a witness, against himself". Should he take the stand of his own
    accord and give evidence - that really is his problem (and that of his
    defense attorney for failing to prevent him giving such evidence). It's
    the old rule that you can't be convicted of stupidity, but stupidity can
    get you convicted of other crimes.

    >Yet the fact remains that if Reiser had taken the advice of his
    >attorney to forego taking the stand - which as I understand it would
    >have been his legal right in the United States - then he'd probably
    >have been acquitted.


    He can be called to the stand - but he can not be compelled to answer
    any questions that may tend to incriminate himself. That's basically
    been construed to mean you have to answer the "State your name"
    type of question, and for everything else can decline to answer citing
    the fifth amendment.

    Old guy

  14. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.mandriva, in article
    , Adam wrote:

    >In the U.S., homicide is a state crime. (Actually, relatively few
    >things are federal crimes.)


    Well... I wouldn't go quite that far. There sure are plenty of laws on
    the federal books, and I've got an ex-relative working at the Danbury
    Health Resort - or what ever they call it ;-)

    >Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether
    >to use the Reiser file system? More generally, can an idea from an
    >evil source be morally good?


    No - we never adopted it on reliability reasons. Not to say it's
    unreliable (it isn't that bad), but when it does go pear shaped, you
    are totally screwed, and you'd better hope your backups are good.

    >(For example, I believe the Nazis were among the first to mount an
    >anti-smoking campaign.)


    Invoking Godwin so early? My, my. ;-)

    How you doing otherwise?

    Old guy

  15. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:24:23 -0400, Bill wrote:

    > Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
    > long as I can remember.


    Yes it can boot from a xfs root filesystem, however lilo/grub cannot be
    installed on a xfs filesystem (in the / or /boot filesystem, not the mbr).

    If you have an xfs / or /boot filesystem, try changing /etc/lilo.conf (or
    equivalent for grub), to install the boot loader on that partition, instead
    of in the mbr. It won't allow it. I use the GAG bootloader, which I then
    use to select which m$ or lilo boot loader I want to load. It then loads the
    boot loader from the boot sector of the /, or /boot partition,

    The reason I use GAG, instead of lilo, in the mbr, and install lilo in the /
    filesystem, of each distro I run, is so that each bootloader is independent.
    That way, when I install a new version/disto, I don't have to copy all of the
    boot configuration lines from the latest version I used, or have to worry about
    an older version of the bootloader not working with a new version.

    For example, anyone using grub from 2008.0 will not be able to boot a 2008.1
    system, that uses ext3, for the / file system. That's because the default inode
    size changed from 128 bits to 256 bits, and only the 2008.1 version of grub can
    from mandriva has been patched, to handle that.

    Regards, Dave Hodgins

    --
    Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
    (nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
    use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)

  16. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    David W. Hodgins wrote:
    > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:24:23 -0400, Bill wrote:
    >
    >> Yes it can, lilo and grub have been able to boot from XFS for as
    >> long as I can remember.

    >
    > Yes it can boot from a xfs root filesystem, however lilo/grub cannot be
    > installed on a xfs filesystem (in the / or /boot filesystem, not the mbr).
    >


    I have always used a single boot loader in the MBR, I miss interpreted
    your comment and stand corrected.

  17. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Wednesday 09 July 2008 03:27, someone who identifies as *Aragorn* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > On Wednesday 09 July 2008 02:12, someone who identifies as *Adam* wrote
    > in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >> More generally, can an idea from an evil source be morally good?

    >
    > I would say that this depends on the idea itself. And just because Hans
    > Reiser killed his wife - under circumstances that he and he alone knows
    > into detail - doesn't mean that everything the man did was evil. He made
    > a mistake, and a terrible one for that matter, but that doesn't turn him
    > into a monster yet.
    >
    >> (For example, I believe the Nazis were among the first to mount an
    >> anti-smoking campaign.)

    >
    > I wasn't aware of that, but this gives me one more reason to loathe the
    > Nazis (on top of all others) as I am a smoker myself and I am being
    > confronted all too often with the witchhunt on smokers through all the
    > hype and anti-smoking indoctrination in the media.


    I forgot to add something to this whole ethics debate, particularly with
    regard to the Nazis... The Volkswagen Beetle was designed by Ferdinand
    Porsche as ordered by Adolf Hitler himself as "a car for the people of the
    Third Reich" - hence the brandname Volkswagen, which literally means "car
    of/for the people" - and it turned out to be the best selling car of the
    world, having also been in production the longest. I believe the
    second-longest running car was the French Citro├źn 2CV, also know as "the
    goat" and "the ugly duckling" over here in Europe. :-)

    While in Europe, the original rear-wheel drive and rear-engine-mounted
    Beetle was eventually phased out in the 1970s and in the 1990s replaced by
    the front-wheel driven and front-engine-mounted "New Beetle" - which was
    based upon the chassis, engine and transmission of the Volkswagen Golf -
    the original Beetle still remained in production in Mexico until at least
    the late 1990s, and I believe even the early 2000s.

    It could no longer be used in Europe because it was no longer considered
    safe, ecologic and economic enough by modern vehicle standards, but
    apparently Latin-American countries were more lax regarding those issues,
    and the original Beetle kept selling quite well over there - I believe some
    were also shipped from Mexico to Asian countries. Well, they were not fast
    and their handling was terrible, but they could use low octane fuel and
    they were built like a tank, although that is not to say that they didn't
    rust. ;-)

    In addition, this original Beetle as commissioned by Adolf Hitler was also
    the direct ancestor to today's Porsche 911, and just about every stock
    broker (or Microsoft Executive, retired or otherwise) drives one of
    those...

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  18. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On 2008-07-08, Aragorn wrote:
    > On Tuesday 08 July 2008 07:58, someone who identifies as *old-polack* wrote
    > in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >> No doubt about it now.
    >>
    >>

    > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...LDR8.DTL&tsp=1
    >
    > Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of his
    > innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of manslaughter
    > rather than premeditated murder, though.
    >

    Someone made an interesting point. Because he was 'one of us' people
    were more keen to give him the benefit of the doubt that the would
    someone else. Of course there are a few similar high profile cases,
    where the same phenomema was observed. And in those cases, there
    is also a past history of the authorities discrimination against the
    groups involved. So even when guilt was proved, some people still
    doubted.

    However there is no real persecution of hackers

    Lordy

  19. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:27:42 +0200, Aragorn wrote:

    >>> Yep, read about it this morning. Seems I was wrong in my assumption of
    >>> his innocence. Still, I think that it must have been a case of
    >>> manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, though.


    >> Why would you "think" that? Why "must" it have been manslaughter rather
    >> than premeditated? Do you have evidence that the trial did not have?


    > Let's just say that I have reason to believe that the trial (and the
    > investigations leading /to/ the trial) did not proceed as unbiased as
    > it(/they) should have.


    Unless you were there for the trial, conducted the interviews, and had
    access to the entire evidence inventory, you do NOT have "reason to
    believe" that. You are basing your "reason to believe" on biased news
    reporting, obviously unofficial blogs, and third-hand gossip. None of
    those are legally solid enough to provide actual "reason to believe".
    Sorry, no insult intended, but that's how it is.




    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  20. Re: Hans leads police to Nina's body

    Moe Trin wrote:
    >> In the U.S., homicide is a state crime. (Actually, relatively few
    >> things are federal crimes.)

    >
    > Well... I wouldn't go quite that far.


    Certainly a lot more attention goes to state crimes than federal crimes.

    > There sure are plenty of laws on
    > the federal books, and I've got an ex-relative working at the Danbury
    > Health Resort - or what ever they call it ;-)


    My father was on a federal jury once -- a town highway supervisor was
    charged with embezzlement. Nowhere near as exciting as murders or
    robberies, or even the drug dealer that I was on a state jury for.

    >> Ethical question for anyone: Will this affect your decision whether
    >> to use the Reiser file system?

    >
    > No - we never adopted it on reliability reasons.


    I noticed several decisions based solely on technical reasons, and only
    one (bobbie's) based on morality. Both are valid. I don't buy gasoline
    and motor oil from one major company because they fired me.

    >> (For example, I believe the Nazis were among the first to mount an
    >> anti-smoking campaign.)

    >
    > Invoking Godwin so early? My, my. ;-)


    Does that count? :-) I wasn't comparing anybody, just looking for
    someone or something commonly regarded as evil.

    > How you doing otherwise?


    I've solved, or rather gotten around, many problems by switching. I'm
    still on dialysis awaiting transplant, which was a good excuse to switch
    to DSL to keep my voice line free for THE call. That also solved my
    problem with dropped dialup connections. (I know Verizon doesn't have
    the greatest reputation, but I needed DSL ASAP, not several months
    later.) That also means I need to be reachable by cell phone when I'm
    not home. I thought I lived in a cell dead zone, but solved that by
    switching to another cell provider. And switching also solved my
    computer lockup problem, which was worsening -- I concluded the problem
    was at least the hard drive and power supply, so I just scrapped it and
    bought a bottom-of-the-line Compaq desktop, the best deal locally that
    week. Now I have Vista (which it shipped with, but I hate), 3 Linux
    distros (including Mandriva 2008.0 for everyday tasks), Win2K under
    VMware, and data, all on a 120GB HD. And my new ISP just dropped all
    newsgroups except the big-8, so I switched to Motzarella for text groups
    like this one.

    And I've switched from analog to digital TV reception by getting one of
    those converter boxes for my set-top UHF antenna. I went from getting
    two channels badly, one of them interesting, to eight channels clearly,
    seven of no interest and one of very slight interest. That is supposed
    to be progress. The "catch" in the FCC regulation is that all FULL
    POWER stations must convert to digital broadcasting by February 2009,
    and the one interesting station was a local college's translator of a
    PBS station, and the translator is NOT a full power station, and doesn't
    have to switch, and hasn't yet.

    How have you been doing?

    Adam
    --
    Email: adam seven zero seven at verizon dot net

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast