blog (coffee shop)
by I remember going through countless setups of the newest flavors of Linux during the blossoming stage of the open-source OS about 8 years ago. Among the many options for bleeding-edge file systems was the ReiserFS - known (at that time) for being just as unstable as it was revolutionary. As the years progressed I began to fall in love with it - its speed, its compatibility with other file systems, and its general bleeding-edge-cool factor. Many of these features are personified in Hans Reiser, the brains behind the ReiserFS. Unfortunately, over the past year or so, he's been in litigation behind the disappearance of his wife, and within the last hour the verdict was released: Reiser is guilty.
This verdict is a tribute to the failure of our system to look at a person independent of our perceptions of them and to judge them based on material fact. The fact is, there was no body, no evidence, nothing incriminating about him except his demeanor, which the judge determined to be "arrogant." Beware, o arrogant OmniNerds; arrogance is an offense punishable by 25 years to life in prison.
Add a Comment (17)
Email This
Message Author
You know...it truly doesn't pay to be an Open Source programmer. If Reiser had better lawyers he could have gotten off, but who can afford stuff like that when you write file systems for a free OS...O.J. got off and they had dead bodies sprawled in front of his house!! This case was a real head-scratcher...
This verdict is a tribute to the failure of our system to look at a person independent of our perceptions of them and to judge them based on material fact.
This makes me think back to the Honor Code boards that were used to expel cadets from West Point. I remember one occasion when I was a member of the board deciding whether or not a freshmen had committed an honor violation. The charge had something to do with either documentation of sources or perhaps plagiarism. That part, I really don't remember. What I do remember is that he seemed very sleazy ... the type of person that should not have been a cadet nor a future officer (assuming USMA didn't change him into a better person). Anyway, despite the sleaziness, he presented a decent case and the evidence that he had committed the honor violation was very weak and subjective by the end of the trial. The next step was for the board to deliberate and I think I was one of two cadets that dissented, saying he was not guilty based on reasonable doubt. What disgusted me, however, was the remainder of the cadets found him guilty because they "felt he was guilty" and from his sleazy demeanor. Granted, I felt the same thing ... but that's not what our decision was supposed to be based on. I remember that case well because it made me extra cautious to sit on my hands and not get in trouble at USMA because now I saw you were guilty prior to the trial, guilty during the trial and short of some miraculous divine halo of light shining down upon you ... guilty pretty much no matter what simply because the board wouldn't have been called if you weren't guilty.
I think that mentality really has permeated all over the place and is at the root of just about everyone's sense of judgment. You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid. You see it here when atheists are told they are the most immoral of the bunch just because. When it happens at such base, simple levels, ridiculous judgment is inevitable when the stakes are higher.
So I wonder, given the sheer lack of evidence ... did Reiser just have a lawyer that sucked that bad? And for that matter, say he had a good lawyer. We like to look at the legal system with disgust thinking the lawyers are gaming juries, etc. But given the inevitable nature of man, maybe that really is a good thing (if he/she's your lawyer).
I think that mentality really has permeated all over the place and is at the root of just about everyone's sense of judgment.
This is an absolute truth.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid
So true...I think its a tribute to the fundamental flaw in democracy, people as whole are poor decision makers...
did Reiser just have a lawyer that sucked that bad?
This would be a tribute to the fundamental flaw in Capitalism...buy yourself justice?
But given the inevitable nature of man, maybe that really is a good thing
Curious you say "inevitable nature of man" ...thats a spot on spiritual concept, the inherent evil within mankind.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid.
Yeah, when it's really the conservatives who are unpatriotic and stupid.
Just kidding. Well, only half so. I do find many conservative ideas to be irredeemably un-American. Especially when it's religious conservativism, not political conservativism.
What I do remember is that he seemed very sleazy ... the type of person that should not have been a cadet nor a future officer (assuming USMA didn't change him into a better person).
I think that's an interesting example. But I do think that, in that particular venue, it's not unreasonable to use standards that are somewhat different than the civilian legal standards. If his fellow cadets judge that he "should not have been a cadet nor a future officer", and they further judge that he's not the sort that will be changed into a better person by the Academy, then maybe he really doesn't belong there. That seems a reasonable place to evaluate and dismiss some undesirables. Military courts are just different than civilian ones.
But I do think there are a lot of civilian courts - and this Reiser case may have been one - where that kind of decision-making occurs, and it's clearly inappropriate there.
When it happens at such base, simple levels, ridiculous judgment is inevitable when the stakes are higher.
And that's the core of the problem. I really don't care if you end up with a crappy car because you feel you have to "buy American". But I docare if we all end up with a crappy president because you chose the guy it seemed like you could have a beer with (a common response to why Bush over Gore eight years ago - um... he's a oil millionare, idiot, you've got nothing in common).
I feel just a teeny bit sorry for an adult who's too stupid to go to a doctor to get an easily curable disease treated, but I'm beyond appalled when a family lets their eleven year old daughter die because they're convinced Jeebus will fix her.
The kind of mentality we're talking about here is distressingly common, and if I might indulge in a little equine necroflagellation, it's depressingly well correlated with religious belief. If you can't see through that shit, you're going to be in trouble when it comes to the real world.
Scott,
I think this is a tribute to the convo we had earlier about the "constructs of man" and putting "faith" in them...
here is that convo.
What disgusted me, however, was the remainder of the cadets found him guilty because they "felt he was guilty" and from his sleazy demeanor.
What you fail to realize is that most juries are swayed not by facts, but by emotion. Juries are made of people who are not formally trained in law, but rather they are simply 'ordinary' people. Preponderance of the Evidence is a fantasy; otherwise innocent people who fail to have the 'high powered' lawyers wouldn't go to jail. Lawyers (and I have several as friends0 are taught how to play on the emotions of juries; it's part of their bag of tricks. In truth, it is not evidence, but emotion that rules the heads of most juries. Much worse is the fact that, because of the preponderance of 'CSI' shows, juries have been asking more and more for forensic evidence of a type that only exists in the realm of TV Fantasy. Without said evidence, they often acquit--even though other evidence says otherwise.
I am not saying that people are too 'stupid' to understand, but rather that the majority of people are ruled by emotion and not fact.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid.
Certain aspects of more 'liberal thinking' are, in my mind, quite unpatriotic--chief among those is the behaviour we recently saw in Berkley, where citizens were physically BARRED from entering a recruiters office by protesters. Other issues involve Energy Independence--most alternative technology won't be commercially viable for at least a decade--and it will take a decade beyond that before it pervades every aspect of society; and Health Care--Hillary is telling me that if I refuse to particpate in HER plan, she'll garnish my wages, even if I already pay into my own plan. There are numerous other items too.
You see it here when atheists are told they are the most immoral of the bunch just because.
Let's see..do any atheists here agree with abortion? pre-marital sex? drunkeness? Gay-Marriage? While certain of these are 'illegal in certain circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behaviour, you are acting in an immoral manner, and continuing in the behaviour makes one immoral--by the moral compass I believe in. When my mother grew up in the 1930's it was all immoral. When my brother grew up in the 1950's it was all still immoral. In the 1970's when I grew up only a couple of things on the list were still immoral, now only one is considered 'bad'..not immoral, but 'bad'. I've already put forth in a previous posting that there are no grey areas, so I'm not going there. Suffice to say that immorality is immorality; it is not re-defined as we age as a culture.
Certain aspects of more 'liberal thinking' are, in my mind, quite unpatriotic--chief among those is the behavior we recently saw in Berkley,
That's called being annoying NOT un-patriotic being un-patriotic is bombing a recruitment office in New York. I think that's the point he was trying to make...just because you don't understand something (e.g. blocking access to a Recruitment Center) doesn't make it un-patriotic. Protest takes many different faces, and there are many different approaches to exercising this fundamental right.
Other issues involve Energy Independence--most alternative technology won't be commercially viable for at least a decade--
What does that have to do with being un-patriotic, your logic at this point is questionable...
and Health Care--Hillary is telling me that if I refuse to particpate in HER plan, she'll garnish my wages
So now you're saying that you wouldn't advocate nation-wide participation in healthcare? That's unpatriotic...and selfish...we are capitalists, but we aren't heartless. I dont agree with many of Hillary's policies but if she represented what the majority of American's wanted then I would conform, that's being patriotic. I don't believe in income taxes, is it unpatriotic that I pay them?
circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behavior, you are acting in an immoral manner,
Your point here is poorly stated. By affirming that someone is in fact acting in an "immoral manner" you've negated your entire argument.
There are numerous other items too.
Probably not.
When my mother grew up in the 1930's it was all immoral.
I think a better stated argument is: What is morality? I think a lot of morality is dictated by religion, and there in lies the struggle with atheism...I suppose their argument is that "Religion" comes from the minds of men...which, in many cases, it does. Also, Can a heterogeneous cultural structure ever embrace the same basic morality? Probably not.
I think that's the point he was trying to make...just because you don't understand something (e.g. blocking access to a Recruitment Center) doesn't make it un-patriotic
It's not that I don't understand the behaviour, rather their behaviour was in fact preventing another individual by physical means from exercising THEIR right to enter the recruiting office. THAT is the un-patriotic action.
So now you're saying that you wouldn't advocate nation-wide participation in healthcare?
Mandatory participation, when I'm already participating in a system that works fine for me and I can afford? Nope..not at all. I believe in supplying Health Care to those who cannot afford it. I can, and I like mine so let me pay for it myself. Don't force me to be a part of your system. I don't for one minute believe that her plan is what the majority wants; nor do I believe we need to raise any taxes to pay for it. There's too much 'fat' in the US Government. Trim it down, balance the budget, and I'd bet you would find the money to pay for it. Go to a flat tax system, and you could reduce the IRS, thereby reducing coast. $433 million for a useless agency known as the FCC? Get rid of them and save the money. I'm sure there are others we can think. Spend money where it needs to be spent (can you say modernize the FAA? EPA/DNR/Forestry/Fish and Wildlife are woefully understaffed--I can go on.)
Your point here is poorly stated. By affirming that someone is in fact acting in an "immoral manner" you've negated your entire argument.
No, my point here is that I don't judge the PERSON, I judge the BEHAVIOR. I don't call it immoral, however I call it SIN.
What does that have to do with being un-patriotic, your logic at this point is questionable...
Energy Independence is vital to our national security--and no, I'm not merely parroting Rush or other conservative pundits, it's simple logic. If we depend on other countries (who also happen to be somewhat hostile toward us) to supply a bulk of our energy requirements, our Government is behaving un-patriotic. We should be able to supply our own energy needs internally, in the event of *any* supply shortage from overseas--regardless of the reason. The Oil Embargo of the 1970's should have taught us a lesson, but it hasn't.
Let's see..do any atheists here agree with abortion? pre-marital sex? drunkeness? Gay-Marriage? While certain of these are 'illegal in certain circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behaviour, you are acting in an immoral manner, and continuing in the behaviour makes one immoral--by the moral compass I believe in.
I was with the rest of your response until this. I could very easily substitute the "atheists" with progressive Christian, Sunday Christian ... or just about everyone I know (who happen to associate themselves with Christianity).
I suppose an interesting question then is who is worse? An atheist that adheres to nothing except what they personally think is right or a Christian that does what they personally think is right (in this - behavior identical to the atheist) despite having stances against dogma? In that case, the Christian is the worse person. It would seem to me that there are more people of faith that think the way you describe atheists than you want to believe. And I think more atheists inherently act the way you would expect a Christian to than you would like to believe as well.
And I think more atheists inherently act the way you would expect a Christian to than you would like to believe as well.
Really? do they pray when the see an accident? I do.. Do they pray when they see foul behaviour? I do. Do they avoid and pray about pornography? Pray about abortion clinics? Pray about people and places regardless of the other persons' belief structure? I do. Those are some things I would expect a Christian to do ''In Addtion To Acting In A Moral Manner.
Based upon the answers above, do you think an atheist would inherently act the way I would expect a Christian to act.
I don't.
The bottom line up front is that when you say "Based upon the answers above, do you think an atheist would inherently act the way I would expect a Christian to act. I don't." and then say in another thread "No, my point here is that I don't judge the PERSON, I judge the BEHAVIOR.''"
Well ... you DO judge the person based on a label before their behavior is ever evident.
That came out in the atheist leader discussion regarding the soldier who was denied a promotion in the Army because the NCO board felt he wouldn't be able to connect. This, of course, being the same atheist that would drive his fellow platoon members to church every Sunday so they could worship while he waited outside.
Look - atheists are typically not at all like Richard Dawkins. Most of us can't stand that guy. Generally speaking, you wouldn't be able to point out and pick an atheist from a crowd even if you'd known them for years. Minus church/prayer and saying the words Jesus/God - they generally act on a daily basis just like any normal everyday person.
So, the usual responses to a few things:
do they pray when the see an accident?
Is it necessary to pray when you see an accident and keep going? Or do you pull over as the first responder to a car that's rolled over five times down an embankment and render first aid to the family of four until the paramedics arrive? We did.
Do they pray when they see foul behaviour?
Funny - if America is composed of such a high percentage of pious people (an argument made before - America is a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs by Christians) than basic probability says Christians were behaving fouly to each other i the first place.
Do they avoid and pray about pornography?
Christians use (and make) pornography, too. Being an atheist doesn't mean you become some guy in a basement addicted to porn. Plenty of molesters and sex offenders are not only Christian - some are clergy! Besides, is a system that lets you confess such a sin, repent for a bit and be "okay" really all that great?
Pray about abortion clinics?
Atheists have pro-lifers, too.
Besides, is a system that lets you confess such a sin, repent for a bit and be "okay" really all that great?
True repentence is not repenting 'for a bit'. We should never, ever, ever, ever commit that sin again. I admit, some sins have a deeper hold on us than others--I struggled for years with the use of foul language--an in certain heated moments I do slip an utter profanities. As soon as that happens, I ask the Lord for forgiveness of my Sin and for strength from the Holy Spirit not to do it again. The frequency has reduced, because I've also asked for strength to have more patience--frustration is merely a lack of patience. Other things also come into play; James 5:14 calls for the laying of hands and anointing with oil for sickness--Sin is sickness. Galatians 6:1-2 is one verse that shows us the need for accountability partners, which I will discuss further.
Funny - if America is composed of such a high percentage of pious people (an argument made before - America is a Christian nation founded on Christian beliefs by Christians) than basic probability says Christians were behaving fouly to each other i the first place.
See, I don't believe that for one minute; (and I believe I've said this before)I would put the actual percentage of true Christians (not just Sunday Christians) to be less than 40%. Probably even less than 20%, sadly. It used to be more, I'm sure it was far closer to the current numbers when my brother was growing up, and definitely closer when my mother was growing up. While I believe this country was founded on Christian principles as a Christian Nation--the evidence is in the writings of the founding fathers that people like to twist to make you believe otherwise. One example of this is Thomas Jeffersons bible--he removed the references to miracles because he didn't want to offend the Native Americans, not because he himself did not believe in them.
Being an atheist doesn't mean you become some guy in a basement addicted to porn. Plenty of molesters and sex offenders are not only Christian - some are clergy!
I never for once said that being an atheist means what you said, i know not a few atheists who believe as I do--porn is an industry that attracts and exploits women with the promise of 'easy money'. And yes, plenty of molesters are clergy. It goes directly to my comment above about Sin and Repentence--Long before it ever got to the stage where someone would molest a Child, they need intervention from God and the Holy Spirit. We also need accountability partners to keep us on our path. Our pastor illustrated that on Sunday--if any of the pastors has any of the female church staff in their office, the door is open and another male church staff is present. If they have them in their car--their WIVES are there. Accountability; not even the appearance of impropriety. For that reason, I won't have a single or attached female I am not attached to in my car without my wife present. I work with female staff--and i won't allow one in my office with the door closed. Accountability.
do they pray when the see an accident?
In all of those, you either missed or deliberately overlooked my point---Do Atheists Pray? That's the behavior I expect out of Christians above all else. I, for one, am not a first responder. The sight of real (not hollywood) human blood and fluids causes an immediate vomit reaction in me--it even happens if I cut myself. I've always done it, since the first time I skinned my knee, and I've tried every method on the planet to stop it from happening. While my *first* response at a accident is pull over and to dial 911, my second response is prayer.
And yes, there are Atheist pro-lifers (just as there are Christian pro-choicers), but again do they pray? I expect Christians to do so.
Generally speaking, you wouldn't be able to point out and pick an atheist from a crowd even if you'd known them for years. Minus church/prayer and saying the words Jesus/God - they generally act on a daily basis just like any normal everyday person.
You're probably right--but in person if I know them for even five minutes I will know if they are Christian or not; because I ask them. Internet 'knowing' does not count--I'm not hanging out with you, attending events, etc.
Well ... you DO judge the person based on a label before their behavior is ever evident.
I am commanded 2 Corinthians 6:14 not to be yoked or bound with unbelievers. While in Matthew 28:16-20 I am commanded to make disciples of all nations, and Christ himself was among the sinners, publicans and tax collector (they were lower than the lowest criminal during the time of Christ), He did not count them as friend. He loved them, but He still judged their behaviour. In the business climate it is hard, I have had to quit a position in the past when asked by my boss to lie to a client. There were other issues as well, but that was the final straw. I am also honest in the interview process (because that position is extremely short term on my resume) about why I left. I learned from it, and frankly I'm sure it and the one immediately following where the company was on the verge of bankruptcy when I was hired, but that fact wasn't communicated., to ask really pointed questions. I believe this all goes back to the fact that unbelievers are simply not moral enough to be a good leader.
, I'm sure it was far closer to the current numbers when my brother was growing up, and definitely closer when my mother was growing up.
(I need to figure out how to make the FONT larger in FF3b5)
That should read:
I'm sure it was far closer to the current poll numbers when my brother was growing up and definitely closer when my mother was growing up.
The fact is, there was no body, no evidence, nothing incriminating about him except his demeanor, which the judge determined to be "arrogant."
My understanding of the facts of the case were as follows:
1. After Nina's disappearance, Hans got a speeding ticket; at this time the front passenger seat was in his car.
2. Between (1) and police seizing Hans' car, (i.e. a few days) he removed that front seat and threw it away. He could not say how he got rid of it - so no chance of searching through the local dump to find evidence to exonerate him.
3. He also threw away other parts of the car's interior and likewise could not account for them.
4. He hosed down the inside of his car, leaving an inch of water at the bottom of the cab when police found it.
5. In spite of the car's recent cleaning, there was a sleeping bag in the car with a six-inch stain of Nina's blood on.
6. He purchased two books on police investigations of murder, with cash, shortly after Nina's disappearance.
7. He paid a $5,000 retainer to a criminal defence attorney days after Nina disappeared - before even attempting to call Nina's cell phone.
8. He said on the stand that he did not remove his cell phone's battery, then later changed that story; and he had in fact removed it several times after Nina's disappearance.
9. When arrested he was carrying $9,000 and his passport.
10. Hans and Nina were going through an acrimonious divorce.
11. HERE'S THE IMPORTANT BIT: Instead of leaving those somewhat uncertain facts to speak for themselves, he took the stand, against the advice of his lawyer, and gave an eleven-day explanation of all the facts above.
If there's evidence against you that makes you 20% likely to be guilty and you keep your mouth shut, you're 20% likely to be guilty and 80% likely to be not guilty. If you take the stand and give an explanation for the evidence, and your explanation is only 10% likely, you've gone from 80% likely to be not guilty to 10% likely to be not guilty.
From the Wired coverage:
"In his 11 days of testimony, Reiser offered lengthy and verbose explanations for every piece of circumstantial evidence. But Reiser's version of events often drew disbelieving head shakes from jurors — and occasional smirks from the trial judge.
In a characteristic exchange under cross-examination, Reiser tried to explain why he'd removed and discarded the passenger seat from his two-seater Honda CRX after Nina vanished. His explanation: He'd been sleeping in the vehicle, and wanted the extra room. Asked why he hosed down the inside of the car, leaving an inch of water on the floorboard, he explained that the interior was dirty, and he mistakenly believed the water would drain out.
'I just assumed that every car engineer would put a hole in the car,' he said.
'Don't you remember sleeping on a nice, soft, wet carpet?' Hora went on to ask.
Reiser replied, 'I don't remember.'
By the time he was done, Reiser had succeeded only in dispelling the cloud of ambiguity surrounding his actions in the case, replacing it with a storm of very specific explanations that each strained credulity. Jurors had to choose between Reiser's strained version of events and the plain conclusion that he was lying."
The real lesson for arrogant OmniNerds is: Don't take the stand in your defence against your lawyer's advice; and don't murder your estranged wife.
All of that information has already been noted by most of us. The point is that all of that information is circumstantial. Whether or not he was actually guilty is irrelevant. I think my point is the idea that the justice system is supposed to be this tribute to the idea of indiscriminate and rational judgment...it's meant to separate us from what we "feel" or "believe" and deduce a conclusion based on material fact. If we can't fully commit to that type of system then we become hypocrites.
RSS
Future of ReiserFS by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 29 April 2008
I remember there was a period when ReiserFS was supposed to be part of Apple's OS X Tiger ... perhaps the events leading up (and this case itself) led to its removal in lieu of maintaining status quo on HFS.
So ... with his pending incarceration for a very long time, was there anybody involved in his work enough to keep it going? Or will he be one of the cozied inmates with computer access such that CriminalFS becomes the latest ware?