5/10 In Linux, is there a safe way to resize a mounted LVM
ext3 partition? I know you can do it with reiserfs.
None of my partitions are in reiserfs. I was thinking of
converting to reiserfs, but then I don't want to wake up
one morning and read how Linus has decreed no convicted
murderers can touch his git repository now.
\_ Yes. Search for ext2online.
\_ Reiser might yet possibly succeed on an appeal. Did we have
\_ HA! - danh
much discussion about his trial here yet?
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7544
\_ through sheer force of will that crank has posted his
rantings on many many sites on the internet, it doesnt
make it believable. http://jaygaskill.com/blog1 is
a better place to start. or wade through the
sfgate reiser blog articles. - danh
After reading that I'm pretty dubious about how they could
convict him in criminal court. Unless that page is leaving things
\_ uh that is by a known crank... when he's not busy posting
insane stuff about the reiser trial, he is pushing
his guide to cross compiling in windows and linux
and cygwin. dont pay attention to him - danh
\_ Just curious, is there something wrong with his cross-compile
guide?
\_ What does a cross compile guide have to do whether
Hans murdered his wife?
\_ I don't know either, but danh mentioned it like it
proves the pro-Reiser guy is a crank. So, I'm curious.
-pp
\_ Pretend there is a forum for people commenting
on the Reiser trial. Pretend there is a dude
who keeps posting about how the Jews have it in
for Reiser, it's obvious Nina's best friend
killed her, some more stuff about Jews, then
he posts his linux/windows cross compiling guide.
All the posts are by the same guy. It is reasonable
to assume the dude is a crank. Most of his posts
have been deleted from the sfgate news articles
and reiser trial blog, he just can't help himself
from ranting about the Holocaust myth. It's the same
guy on the proronix forum, and it's the same guy
who is the only person who posts to the linux kernel
dev. lists from an AOL account. - danh
\_ Can we give him a soda account?
\_ No computer access allowed in jail.
out. No body, no weapon, no direct evidence.
\_ plenty of circumstantial evidence, plenty of motive,
defendent did an amazing public job of destroying
evidence. - danh
\_ Then he should be tried for destroying evidence right?
\_ Destroying evidence, and getting caught destroying
evidence, before being tried for the murder of your
wife is looked upon poorly by jury.
\_ The prosecutor was able to bring up the reasonable
argument of "Why would Hans destroy the interior of
his car, wash it out with a hose, and tell the jury
a completely implausible story about his actions,
if he were not guilty of murder?"
\_ That may be a reasonable argument, but not
beyond reasonable doubt (w.r.t. implausibility)
\_ It's simple: kill your wife, go to jail. Very
reasonable. Writing a filesystem is not a get out
of jail free card.
What exactly was the circumstantial evidence? The car
seat? That doesn't seem to hold up to the reasonable
\_ You should look up the photos of the CRX interior. A funny
thing is it wasnt even his own car. So he ripped out
the passenger seat, the carpeting in the interior,
and the trunk interior, and just sort of lost it and
says he doesn't remember where he dumped it. Plus
he hosed it out with a garden hose. Then he claimed
he did all of this so he could sleep in his car.
In a storage unit. In Manteca. Then on the stand he
said oh nevermind about all that cat stuff, I only
spent 1 night in it.
\_ He ripped out the carpeting? I thought they said
\_ First, remember this isn't his car. He got rid
of the passenger seat. He got rid of the interior
carpeting of the trunk. He cut out the interor
carpet of the backseat of the car (remember a CRX
has more of a 'bench' back there, not a full seat)
On the witness stand he said he was doing to
make some kind of futon back there. The prosecutor
had a lot of fun picking that argument apart.
ok I don't remember what happened to the interior
carpet on the passenger side. He did hose out
that area (he claimed he was cleaning his car.
Who the hell hoses out their car?). The Oakland
PD inventory report said there was a couple of
inches of water in the soggy carpeting, when
the car was confiscated as evidence.
Hans claimed he slept in the car, even when it
was in this soggy state.
\_ See what I really need is an accurate account
of the trial. All I have so far is the thing
from the "crank" and useless articles like
the wired one below.
\_ yes, obviously you "need" that so you can
try to prove what you already want to
believe. The people who saw it all
convicted him.
\_ No, obviously you're a douchebag.
I'm not trying to prove anything.
I'm skeptical and looking for info.
Juries aren't always right.
You're a douchebag.
\_ There's a ton of info about it all over
the net. Pick your source. The rest of
us figured it out already. He's a cold
blooded killer. --someone else
there was wet carpet in the car? Supposedly he
did not have a real place to live and had
financial problems so trying to live in the car
\_ he could have slept at a friend's house.
it makes no sense that he would store his car
in a storage unit, in manteca, then sleep in it.
he took a lot of weird trips in the car to
Fairfield, Reno, Truckee, and Manteca, even
on days he was supposed to be in court
for the custody of his kids. His own mother
was unable to entire the house for a few weeks
because the police were searching the house
for evidence, she stayed with friends, like
a normal person. Maybe Hans has no friends.
It doesn't appear that he does. _/
Are weird trips evidence of guilt,
or just weirdness? Was he somehow
driving around disposing of body parts?
\_ Maybe! He spent a big chunk of his
testimony saying how much he loved
his kids, and lived for his kids.
There was a hearing for the custody
of his children. Nina couldn't make
it since she was busy being a missing
person. Hans spent the day doing
some unknown thing in Truckee.
\_ Hans and Nina were together in Truckee.
Hans + Nina_corpse + shovel spending a
family day in Truckee.
doesn't seem completely implausible. Forgetting
where he put the car seat does seem implausible
though. I'd like to see a timeline of events
that isn't
doesn't seem completely implausible. Forgetting
where he put the car seat does seem implausible
though. I'd like to see a timeline of events
that isn't from a "known crank". Where did you
get your information?
doubt criterion. Reiser is clearly a weird dude. But
for example it's not criminal to evade surveillance or
buy police investigation books.
\_ It is criminal, and extremely stupid, to get on
the witness stand and lie to the jury
It seems to me that
Reiser's extreme social weirdness made the jurors and
judge hate him. I haven't seen a logical story of how
the killing theoretically happened.
It seems to me that Reiser's extreme social weirdness made
the jurors and judge hate him. I haven't seen a logical story
of how the killing theoretically happened.
\_ I posted a reasonable timeline in a different link.
sure, everyone hates hans. he weirdly spent 10 days on
the stand telling everyone what a horrible human his wife
was. if you're on trial for the murder of your
wife, as your internet lawyer I recommend DONT DO THAT
\_ No, I came around to the general consensus after reading
more. But just from an entertainment/murder mystery
perspective I am pretty curious exactly what he did
and how it fits with the timeline. It's odd that he
did most of the most suspicious things after he was
already under police surveillance. His recorded
phone call response to the wife's friend was pretty
flamingly guilty. This dude has serious issues. He
seems to have near-zero social sense/empathy.
\_ I think it's weird there is no body. I do not think
Hans is/was clever enough to make a body disappear.
\_ I think he was probably quite clever in specific
narrow ways. I mean, if he hadn't sabotaged
his own trial he might now be a free man. Or if
he hadn't said certain things that only a
social retard would say.
\_ no, his ridiculous eye-rolling lies made them hate him.
This has nothing to do with your question of course.
\_ Here's Wired's take:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/reiser-guilty-o.html
He seems to have been mostly convicted on the 'strength'
of his own testimony.
Not sure why it's first-degree though.
\_ Why did his attorney have him testify at all? Sounds like a
mistake.
\_ His attorney didnt. Hans did. Hans threatened to
fire his attorney. I guess his attorney relented.
Hans is dumb.
\_ jury thought he lured his wife to his house, with the
children, on a weekend when he wasn't scheduled to
see the children. also there are some interesting
ways to interpret 'with pre meditated motive'. you
don't have to plan your crime for days and days
beforehand. - danh
\_ Doesn't that seem flimsy? Is that premedidation beyond
reasonable doubt?
\_ I thought first degree was a bit excessive,
but he did annoy the crap out of the jury. He
should have stayed off the stand.
\_ "Hey Nina come on over so I can whack you dead, bury you
out in nowhere and lie my way into jail!" It was very
clearly first degree. After he killed her he gave a
zillion different stupid stories on the stand, never
said, "oh oops sorry, I killed her in a fit of rage
because xyz" or anything else a reasonable person could
believe. Justice was well served.
\_ Reiser did all sorts of things which removed "reasonable"
doubt. I believe the jury returned the correct verdict
given the evidence. |
http://csua.com/feed/