digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

Hans Reiser was convicted Monday of first degree murder in t

cnn.com — A jury has found an Oakland software programmer guilty in the death of his estranged wife.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • soupyc, on 04/29/2008, -17/+27No body found, and very small amounts of Nina's blood found that, in reality, could be from anything (such as a nosebleed)? Strange things are afoot at the Circle K....
    • godofpumpkins, on 04/29/2008, -4/+77He sure sounds guilty, from what I've heard (the whole getting rid of the car seat and the blood, etc.)

      but I don't get why the jury was instructed to disregard the fact that his friend (and the man with whom his wife was cheating on him) happened to have murdered 8 people... it seems at least partially relevant to her disappearance investigation, given that she was having an affair with a serial murderer...
      • Spr0k3t, on 04/29/2008, -3/+18That's what you call "American Justice", or the lack there of.
        • Kyrgizion, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7From the detailed description of the prosecutor's "arguments", it's pretty clear they are only trying to influence the jury, not objectively screen the facts.
          • ByteGuerilla, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Yay for the adversarial system. -_-
          • netant, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2But the American standard is for the prosecutor to present the facts, and the jury must presume the accused innocent unless the prosecutor demonstrates beyond a "reasonable" doubt that the accused is guilty.

            Given that a body has not been found, and the case is "circumstantial" (no eyewitness or chain of evidence directly attaching the crime to the accused), it would be totally reasonable to present the argument that the boyfriend did it. IANAL but my guess it wasn't allowed was because there was an investigation of the boyfriend and he had an ironclad alibi. In that instance, it would have been wrong to be allowed to present the "red herring" argument.
        • bradleyland, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Apparently you have a better chance of surviving our justice system as a famous, black, football player than you do as a famous, white, geek.
      • Drizzit, on 04/29/2008, -0/+11So why is the other guy still walking the streets? Seems 8 murders should be enough to get the guy the death penalty. I know California is lax on this type of crap, but you'd think this guy would have annoyed enough people by now.

        And yes, no body, no weapon, trace ammounts of blood in a residence where she resided, no blood in the car (You can not clean it off completely). Either criminals are getting better at hiding evidence or juries are just too stupid to make a rational decision. I guess Hans will be in prision for a few years until they figure out who the real killer is or she pops up in Russia.
        • schneidafunk, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2there was a blood stain in the car
      • schneidafunk, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6I thought the same thing until I found out the other guy who claimed 8 murders was just a nut job, not a serial killer. The police found no credibility in his statements, no supporting evidence and decided not to even prosecute. They should probably watch him though or force him to get psychiatric treatment but just because you confess to murders doesn't mean you did them and vice versa just because you say you're innocent doesn't mean you are. Personally, after following this story extensively, I think Reiser is guilty of killing his wife. If you want to read some highly educated comments, I recommend the slashdot article on this.
    • toastgodsupreme, on 04/29/2008, -3/+37Indeed, what happened to reasonable doubt?

      Without a body, a murder weapon, or copious amounts of blood, how exactly does he get found guilty?

      Sure he LOOKS guilty from all that weird crap. But there's no hard proof. Is this what our justice system does now?

      This is great though... OJ goes free despite evidence, and this guy gets convicted without evidence. lol
      • ByteGuerilla, on 04/29/2008, -1/+13Exactly. You can make someone else look guilty pretty easily if all you need to do is bring this 'weird crap' to be.
      • netant, on 04/29/2008, -8/+2Man, you kids are f-ing clueless. What is the difference between Reiser and OJ? The difference is that OJ is rich. He could pay for a 5 lawyer team to defend him. Regrettably, a significant number of murder convictions are made with a case as "flimsy" as this, but the prosecutor "gambles" that the accused can't afford a lawyer with his expenses, or that the accused's personality will work against him in the jury trial.

        Speaking of OJ, I don't have a problem with his acquittal. It was relatively obvious the prosecutors pushed a questionable case against a defendant that could afford a multimillion dollar defense. The DA & team was greedy for publicity, and they had the arrogance/stupidity to think the flimsy "standard" for successful convictions would apply in that case. You guys pretty much didn't remember Whitehurst and the FBI scandals, which would make forensics less than a slam dunk, and once the case HINGED on a cop with a disciplinary record for racism AND wrote a fictional account of framing a defendant, they should have had second thoughts before proceeding with the trial.
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Great. 5 burys so far, but no one can dispute what I say. Cowards.
      • duncewalin, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2wow you're still with that oj *****, move on already
      • schneidafunk, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt. Is it reasonable for him to have:
        - a missing car seat with no answer to where it is, his explanation for removing the seat was to sleep on the car floor
        - 6 inch blood stain (of nina) in his car
        - a blood sample on a sleeping bag in the car
        - the car was hosed down and left to soak with 1 inch of water on the floor, he also claimed to sleep in the water
        - 2 books about police tactics in investigating murders (bought a few days after his wife went missing)
        - found with thousands of dollars cash and a passport on him, he took the battery out of his cell phone so police couldn't track him
        - his wife's cellphone found in her abandon car had the same thing done, no battery in it.
        - oh and they're going through a nasty divorce and he's the last person to see her alive... her car is found 2 miles away from Reiser's house with rotting groceries and her belongings still in it, the same distance it would have taken her to drive home... doesn't seem like she just ran off to Russia.
    • Culyt, on 04/29/2008, -13/+3Its a Microsoft conspiracy!!!!
    • rpgmaker, on 04/29/2008, -3/+14That's why Linux users don't have girlfriends.
    • Valdek, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Just letting you know that I enjoyed the B&T reference. That is all.
    • Afrotronics, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2My mom was on Coumadin and almost died from a nose bleed. Anyways, how do you convict somebody of 1st degree murder when there's not even a body?
  • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/29/2008, -12/+36He was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers.

    It seems these days the public is expecting that people find defendants guilty beyond "all" doubt, which is not the basis of the justice system, nor should it be.
    • ieure, on 04/29/2008, -11/+86Peers, eh? How many of those jurors wrote kick-ass journaling filesystems?

      Peers, my ass.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/29/2008, -4/+11That's not what's meant by "peers."
        • Lyph5, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Right, but reasonable doubt was thrown out on orders from the JUDGE. Everything pointing at this guy could easily get anyone locked up.
          • KibibyteBrain, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2This is the real point. Trace evidence so circumstatial without even proof that a murder took place could be twisted to literally apply to anyone in the world right now who was alive at the time of the murder. Just make the claim that someone else hypothetically obtained access to the car, etc. IMO, a "beyond a reasonable doubt" must at least include absolute proof that the crime took place, and without a body or clear remains, how is that possible?
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Clearly, people who have not written their own filesystem are not qualified to be judging facts

        If we let that happen we'd be no better than france
        • beernutz, on 04/29/2008, -2/+4Peers are EXACTLY the point here. He is an anti-social computer nerd. To his NON-PEERS, he appears creepy and bristly. To be fairly judged, there should be PEERS who understand his social problems, rather than have a knee jerk reaction to them.
          • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Jurors are instructed to base their judgment on facts and evidence presented...not because someone appears "creepy" or "bristly"...
          • KibibyteBrain, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3But they didn't. They said one of the main reason they convicted him was because of he seemed distant and non-remorseful. Hardly facts or evidence.
    • Picaroon, on 04/29/2008, -5/+24Personally, I'd have reasonable doubts. No one saw him do it. There's no murder weapon. There's no body. He had a custody dispute and her blood (traces of it, at least, which could have fallen off her tampon on her period for all we know) were found. He had some money and his passport. That's not a murder conviction, not to me.
      • oldhick, on 04/29/2008, -3/+3And you were in court every day? Heard all of the evidence?
    • fluoro, on 04/29/2008, -1/+20I think there is some weighty evidence against him, but there is definitely some reasonable doubt. No body, no weapon, no murder scene, and the fact that she was having an affair with a dude who has admitted to having murdered eight people in the past. But then again, I wasn't on the jury so maybe I'm missing some of the facts. But from what's been presented online I tihnk there is reasonable doubt.
      • acdcfanbill, on 04/29/2008, -0/+10Apparently they couldn't bring the fact that she was having an affair with the admitted murderer before the jury, I haven't read why, just that the defense couldn't bring it up.
        • schneidafunk, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3The reason is because although he admitted to murder, they realized the guy was just crazy and made it up. The guy has serious mental problems and they didn't want it interfering with the Reiser trial. In addition, he's not being prosecuted for the 8 supposed murders. Just because you admit to murder doesn't mean you did it and just because you say you are innocent doesn't mean you are.
          • acdcfanbill, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Maybe the guy was crazy and made it up, but shouldn't the jury be able to see him and any experts who testify about him? It's possible he could have provided reasonable doubt for Hans, but it's also just as likely he could have removed himself from suspicion too, the way it now is, we won't know.
      • karaokekidd, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2"and the fact that she was having an affair with a dude who has admitted to having murdered eight people in the past."

        I was unfamiliar with that! Like please.
    • mahler, on 04/29/2008, -3/+9The problem with a jury is that they all define 'reasonable' a little differently.
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 04/29/2008, -8/+3That's the system...embrace it, love it, live by it...it's the best in the world.
  • philovivero, on 04/29/2008, -22/+36This seems more tenuous than OJ Simpson's acquittal... yet a conviction. And this guy actually contributed a cool filesystem to society. Are we certain justice is being served?
    • Phocion55, on 04/29/2008, -3/+16OJ Simpson was in Naked Gun......
    • PJBovoNox, on 04/29/2008, -13/+44What the *****? You think because he did some open-source work he should be acquitted of murder?

      Thank god you don't run the world.
      • Amiga500, on 04/29/2008, -20/+2The true mind of the Linux Fanboy/Zealot. Yes, it IS that disturbing. Those who knew Riser well knew him to also be an arrogant asshole. He's be raped and teabagged good and proper. Now if we can get that child porn conviction on Phocion55 we might be one step closer to a more beautiful world.
        • Phocion55, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Classy.
        • Frostek, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Shame on you for sullying the memory of a great computer, with comments like that!
        • deskimo, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0I think he was saying is that this guilty verdict may be dubious given some facts that may have been suppressed during the trial. Nobody is suggesting that murderers go unpunished. But wrongfully convicting someone is not only its own injustice - it's *two* injustices. If this is a possible wrongful conviction(and I'm not necessarily saying it is, I don't know all of the facts of the case), Reiser should be able to find some way to prove his innocence in the appeals process. Finding her alive would help, of course.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 04/29/2008, -2/+14Yeah... that's EXACTLY what he was saying. -_-
      • deskimo, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I think he was saying is that this guilty verdict may be dubious given some facts that may have been suppressed during the trial. Nobody is suggesting that murderers go unpunished. But wrongfully convicting someone is not only its own injustice - it's *two* injustices. If this is a possible wrongful conviction(and I'm not necessarily saying it is, I don't know all of the facts of the case), Reiser should be able to find some way to prove his innocence in the appeals process. Finding her alive would help, of course.
    • BrandonMills, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1After his testimony? Hell yes. Lock that bastard up.

      Just because I think he should be locked up, doesn't mean I agree with the OJ verdict.
    • vtbutterworth, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4If only Reiser's lawyer used the Chewbacca defense...
    • diggsuxxors, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Is "developing a cool file system" a defense against murder? If you'd followed the case, you'd know that this guy is guilty as sin.
  • tomhung, on 04/29/2008, -13/+2Free Hans - Tshirts
    http://shinola.org/shinola_pages/posts/free-hans-t ...
  • p00kiep0x, on 04/29/2008, -19/+40FREE HANS
  • YodaJones, on 04/29/2008, -3/+22Maybe she is in Russia. How could they prove she isn't? Did they look, and if so how? Does that cause reasonable doubt?
    • ieure, on 04/29/2008, -0/+22Yeah. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no body and no witnesses.

      I'm guessing he'll appeal, and he stands a good chance of getting the conviction overturned.
      • fluoro, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He really ***** up by not STFU during this trial. Can't anything he said in this trial be used again in the next trial?
    • oldhick, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2And she left her kids? Right...
    • iamsam84dennis, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Maybe she's on the moon. How could they prove she isn't?
  • robohoe, on 04/29/2008, -4/+15WTF?! This is just shocking!

    One question, will he continue to work on the FS?
    • sirhomer, on 04/29/2008, -0/+16Only under special circumstances do inmates in California prisons allowed access to a computer for an extended period of time. Not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely.

      Don't ask me how I know this.
  • DeathJux, on 04/29/2008, -3/+56sudo rm -Rf /wife

    :-(
    • Shootfast, on 04/29/2008, -1/+34sudo kill -9 wife
      :-(
      • sybesis, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9sudo killall wife
        O_O
      • iRelinquish, on 04/29/2008, -8/+2cd /wife
        ls
        blood blood evidence
        cd evidence
        ls
        murder....
      • netant, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2He should have wiped the hard drives....
    • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+18mv /home/hans /home/jail && cp -Rp /bin /usr /lib /home/jail && usermod -d /home/jail -s /home/jail/bin/bash hans && echo "chroot /home/jail" >> /home/jail/.bashrc && chmod -w /home/jail/.bashrc && chown root:root /home/jail/.bashrc

      #crude attempt at chroot jail joke
      • ism70605, on 04/29/2008, -2/+0What does the does -w flag do when parsed to chmod? My BSD tools don't seem to have it.
        • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2 This manual page documents the GNU version of chmod. chmod changes the file mode bits of each given file according to mode, which can be either a symbolic
          representation of changes to make, or an octal number representing the bit pattern for the new mode bits.

          The format of a symbolic mode is [ugoa...][[+-=][perms...]...], where perms is either zero or more letters from the set rwxXst, or a single letter from the
          set ugo. Multiple symbolic modes can be given, separated by commas.

          A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the file's group (g),
          other users not in the file's group (o), or all users (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if a were given, but bits that are set in the umask
          are not affected.

          The operator + causes the selected file mode bits to be added to the existing file mode bits of each file; - causes them to be removed; and = causes them to
          be added and causes unmentioned bits to be removed except that a directory's unmentioned set user and group ID bits are not affected.

          The letters rwxXst select file mode bits for the affected users: read (r), write (w), execute (or search for directories) (x), execute/search only if the
          file is a directory or already has execute permission for some user (X), set user or group ID on execution (s), restricted deletion flag or sticky bit (t).
          Instead of one or more of these letters, you can specify exactly one of the letters ugo: the permissions granted to the user who owns the file (u), the per-
          missions granted to other users who are members of the file's group (g), and the permissions granted to users that are in neither of the two preceding cate-
          gories (o).
  • actionscripted, on 04/29/2008, -3/+11> cat .gitignore
    .DS_Store
    .evidence
    • netzdamon, on 04/29/2008, -8/+5.DS_Store, he was not a mac fag...
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/29/2008, -18/+3sorry im sticking with ext3
  • Twan2649, on 04/29/2008, -8/+7I suppose the only code he'll be executing from now on is:

    serveJail ( 25 );
    • mahenda, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I think they will free him after 12 years .. it's quite common here, is it same in US?
      • hokie47, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2He will never get out. I am sure he will die in prison.
      • irinotecan, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2It's mandatory minimum of 25, and maximum of life (if he is always denied parole at his parole hearings)
      • dragonalone1, on 04/29/2008, -1/+0He's a lucky man though.
        If his trial in China, he'd be sentenced to death penalty and executed in couple days later then his organs will be sold for profit.
  • RyeBrye, on 04/29/2008, -1/+25The lack of a body and the somewhat plausible explanations to his strange behavior make would make me think that it is reasonable that she is not dead. I'm guessing the conviction hinged on the testimony that his wife would never leave her children.

    Although, he also wanted to get to trial as quickly as possible it seems - perhaps he was trying to get it over before anyone found any body? Who knows.
    • Kyrgizion, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13Character witnesses are always very skewed imho. "She would never leave her children", yet people do it all the time. Sometimes for "good" reasons, sometimes on a whim.
    • heystoopid, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5You also overlooked the fact that whilst the prosecutor made the victim to look like an angel and we all know in the case of acrimonious divorce and separation over money that is never the case in real life , so one wonders what evidence did the prosecution have stashed away that contradicted the so called angelic side of the victim and he asked indirect questions to make him ramble on which means his defence legal team too were also fast asleep at the wheel at the same time !
    • WoundedTownsmen, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2A lack of a body doesn't make it reasonable to assume a person is still alive. Imagine if getting rid of the body was all it took to cover up a murder.

      And if you think his explanations were plausible it makes me wonder if we read the same article.
      • tbstudee, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4For obvious reasons the presence or lack of a body is pretty relevant to whether or not a murder actually took place. It's quite rare to have a conviction with no body.
        • Smoozle, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Really? So I'd better stock up on bleach and sulfuric acid then.
  • kinghajj, on 04/29/2008, -12/+1As long as he isn't sentenced to death, I'm OK with this verdict. There's enough evidence to convict him, but not enough to risk killing an innocent man.
    • Kyrgizion, on 04/29/2008, -1/+13So putting an innocent man away for 25 to life isn't as cruel as killing him?

      Hell, if I were ever falsely accused of murder AND convicted, I'd take a lethal shot over rotting away for the rest of my life, anyday.
      • dagamer34, on 04/29/2008, -6/+1It's not about your feelings imo, but the state's. Wouldn't want to refuel the ammo for those anti-death groups, now would ya?
        • mrsteveman1, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3You are pro-death? You can practice if you want, go ahead. We will wait.
      • kinghajj, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I never stated that one was crueler than the other. All I stated was that I believe that there is enough evidence to convict Reiser, but not enough to warrant capital punishment, because there's a chance, even if small, that Nina is alive, or that someone else killed her.
      • dopplerdog, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Why don't you ask Reiser what he'd prefer, 25 or death row? Who are you pass judgement as to what's more cruel? In any case, Reiser always has the option to top himself if he really thought death was less cruel.
  • jmpeagle, on 04/29/2008, -26/+3couldn't you argue his contribution to society outweighs his cost. Some people should be able to get away with murder depending on how much they add to society.
    • pathy, on 04/29/2008, -1/+16... What?
      • jmpeagle, on 04/29/2008, -9/+2let's say someone is only a year away or so from curing breast cancer but he also like to kill poor people in his spare time. Shouldn't he be able to remain a free man and contribute greatly to the field of medicine and save hundreds of thousands of lives rather than go to jail for nobodies who don't add anything to society?
        • BrandonMills, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2No. That bastard should be behind bars. Murder is not acceptable in this society.
        • daverave999, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4WTF!??! Think about that. Really. For any amount of time at all.
    • fluoro, on 04/29/2008, -2/+9Those sound like the words of either a murderer or someone who is planning a murder.

      Don't do it, dude! Anyone who hangs out in digg forums isn't THAT useful to society. :)
      • jmpeagle, on 04/29/2008, -7/+1I know I contribute very little which is why I would never do such a thing but if say Sergey Brin murdered me...they shouldn't bother trying him as he creates thousands of jobs every year...his benefit is greater than the loss of me
    • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2That is why capital punishment should be abolished and the justice system reformed - so that those who are willing and able to contribute to society are still able to. However, that contribution is not enough to outweigh or justify harmful behavior. It is not a means to absolve one's self from any/all punishment. What you say seems to presume some people are better than others - they are not.

      No one is completely expendable and nearly everyone can contribute to society (or at least live without damaging it) if they choose... Despite what many people believe, it is not the job of the state determine what people deserve to live but to protect everyone equally.
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3So if i write a filesystem for Linux i can kill one person? Is there an equivalency menu i can take a look at before i decide?
    • daradib, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3You are not an extraordinary human.

      Hint: Crime and Punishment
  • kotrin, on 04/29/2008, -15/+14I blame Microsoft.
  • jesuswuzanalien, on 04/29/2008, -12/+3#include "soap_on_a_roap.h"
  • Comp1demon, on 04/29/2008, -23/+17How the Hell can you be GUILTY OF MURDER with no Body to be found... I don;t care HOW MUCH OTHER EVIDENCE YOU HAVE. Other than his confession or a body turning up. No body mean no murder.. I have never seen anything like this.
    • XIUgraag, on 04/29/2008, -6/+24What... the... *****... so anytime you kill somebody it's enough to get rid of the body?
      • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -2/+12So anytime you want to frame someone who ***** you off, you just have to leave the country for a few years and squirt some blood?
        • sancho, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8And have an affair, and get rid of one of the guy's car seats, and claim that he assaulted you to get a restraining order, and plant books on how police investigate murders in his car, and...

          Seriously, how much farther do you want me to go on?
        • georgebnet, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Presuming you are very good at hiding your plan and any evidence of your plan, yes. But then you do not want to get caught by authorities. Ever.

          If she was trying to frame him for her murder, given how thorough she was at hiding her "escape plan", you'd think she would leave even more incriminating evidence behind.

          Hans Reiser is a very strange person. From his LKML posts he striked me as paranoid and delusional. I heard in real life he was even worse than that. I have little doubt in my mind that he was capable of killing. On the other hand people who knew them both seem to speak highly of her.
        • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3@sancho & george

          Please keep your comments in the proper context. He said "anytime", and I replied in kind, which changed the context from this particular case to more generic terms.

          However, for the record, the evidence I have seen presented proves beyond all reasonable doubt IMO
          • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1doh! stupid timer...

            none of the evidence I have seen proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt I meant (though I haven't been following the case close enough to say I believe either way with any real conviction since I haven't heard any of the defenses etc, just some of the evidence. Evidence alone that I know of isn't enough to convict though IMO)
          • sancho, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1But XIUgraag was being sarcastic. The poster to whom he replied indicated that without a body, there was no reason to convict. That's simply not reasonable. There could be plenty of evidence of murder without a body, but I don't think that a smattering of blood (as you indicated) would be enough.

            I think that the problem may be that we're nesting too much sarcasm and devil's advocate statements.
          • smotpoker, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1You are probably right, haha. Really XIU was pretty justified in his comment in retrospect - but in most cases it really should not be assumed there was a murder without a body, video footage, massive amounts of blood evidence or something to the affect.

            Circumstantial evidence alone should not be enough IMO
          • oldhick, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2You do realize that entering or leaving a country (such as Russia, but any country in reality) involves a paper trail.
          • sancho, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0"none of the evidence I have seen proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt"

            I agree with this. Unfortunately, as the Wired article covering this verdict pointed out, once he took the stand to offer explanations for all of the circumstantial evidence, he lost. The jury had to decide whether or not he was lying (leading to the very reasonable belief that he's hiding his true intents in these circumstances) rather than just deciding whether this was a string of bad coincidences and unusual circumstances.

            In the end, the story that came out of his mouth just wasn't believable, but since he provided unbelievable explanations, the "series of unfortunate events" hypothesis couldn't fly.
      • WoundedTownsmen, on 04/29/2008, -7/+5Why are you idiots digging him down? The absence of a body isn't proof of innocence by a long shot.
        • BastionKane, on 04/29/2008, -1/+14Last time I checked we don't need to prove innocence in this country.
    • BitKid, on 04/29/2008, -2/+7If a murder happens in East Oakland and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
    • mizatt, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Look up "circumstantial evidence." This is hardly the first time this has happened
    • minorthreat, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1so if this guy was a black man from the ghetto, would you be as concerned?
  • edebolt, on 04/29/2008, -9/+4may his glorious bung hole be safe in prison
  • RandyFithian, on 04/29/2008, -7/+8I can't believe this. I met Hans once and he seemed like a nice guy.
    Also, if he did do it he would have planed his defense before he would have even killed her.
    A good programmer is always thinking ahead.
    • WoundedTownsmen, on 04/29/2008, -0/+20Thats assuming it was premeditated. Most murders involving spouses are in fits of rage.
      • tomatensaft, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8Yeah, but Reiser was convicted of premeditated murder! Therefore, I guess, they somehow managed to prove, that he really thought everything through in advance.
        • georgebnet, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7According to California Law 1st degree murder includes but is not limited to premeditated murder. We would need a lawyer with access to the case files to explain to us why he was charged with 1st degree murder. Indeed there is absolutely no evidence of premeditation. None.
    • sancho, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5He did plan his defense. He bought books on how police handle murder investigations.
      • ieure, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Or maybe he anticipated being a suspect and was trying to prepare a legitimate defense?
  • Brian48216, on 04/29/2008, -4/+42I like how so many people are up in arms.
    Programmers are as human as the rest of the population and are completely capable of committing murder just like everybody else.
    • karan1003, on 04/29/2008, -5/+9That's a given, but nobody should be convicted with this total lack of evidence.
      • PyroRaver, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2there isn't a total lack of evidence.
    • deskimo, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0d
  • provost, on 04/29/2008, -2/+16.. good file system though.
    • BitKid, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2Yeah...good if you want to lose all your data.
    • grimward, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1RieserFS - Murder on your machine -
  • stephenpjc, on 04/29/2008, -10/+2Diggers to the rescue?
  • heystoopid, on 04/29/2008, -8/+7Oh well , not the first to be convicted without a body and undoubtedly will not be the last , for that is Justice in Amerika with a very small j , in a corrupted court system that allows both the police and prosecutor to perjure themselves without punishment to tell the biggest lies of them all , one does not have to wonder why one in ten who are convicted are innocent of the crime they are convicted off in a badly flawed legal system where injustice prevails !
    • WoundedTownsmen, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2The justice system is flawed, but you're assuming it should be perfect. There will always be a margin of error, otherwise no one would be convicted, guilty or not.
      • mrsteveman1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Yea but, as far as im concerned, no body = no murder. I realize this just encourages people to hide their crimes but thats not the overriding interest here, it is more important to ensure someone ACTUALLY killed the person before charging them with a felony murder, which of course requires that this person is now dead, something you can't prove without a lot more evidence than i see in this case.

        Normally when someone goes missing it takes a long time before that person can be declared legally dead.
  • ZeRux, on 04/29/2008, -13/+3That's a really horrible thing he did, but I'm not saying that all Linux users are the same. I'm actually pretty sure that majority of them hasn't killed anyone, let alone their wives.
    • radu79, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Wtf?
    • sybesis, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1nothing really prove if he did it or not...there is just some circumstance.
      But nobody talk about the fact that his wife was cheating on him with a serial killer !!!!
      • ZeRux, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Screw evidence, screw facts, let's say he's innocent only because he's a geek. You make controversy surrounding O.J. Simpson's trial decent when compared with your bias.

        Perhaps his lawyer should have used "Your Windows-using police is trying to frame my client only because he's using Linux" approach, eh??
    • tbstudee, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Successful troll is successful
    • mrsteveman1, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Yea i installed Ubuntu the other day, and now I'm sure that guy next door is looking at me funny, he *HAS* to be. Something must be done about him.
  • julianp, on 04/29/2008, -8/+4I saw him speak a few years back at a Linux User's Group meeting. He seemed like a reasonably nice fellow. Until now, murderers were always people I saw on TV/news... it's weird to have met one.
    • tomatensaft, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7I know a guy who has stalked and subsequently murdered his ex-girlfriend. He was a nice guy, when you were nice with him -- once you start offending him, he's going crazy.

      The fact that H. Reiser was so nice at a LUG meeting or anything like that doesn't mean anything. You probably haven't seen the guy when he was confronted, less likely so, when he was speaking with his wife... People can be very different in different situations, frighteningly different...
    • anaoum, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Sorry to tell you julianp, but you have not met a murderer.
  • incd, on 04/29/2008, -12/+7His wife is *missing* and he was convicted? Without a body?
  • asadajk, on 04/29/2008, -9/+3If in India,we need proper evidence that he murdered,if at all conviceted,will be hanged .else 14 years serving jail.fair!
    US laws are flawed from DRM,Software patents,to personal laws :x!

    I hope this guy did not done the crime :)
    • sybesis, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4I hope he did a crime, because there would be no actual reason for him to go in jail. I don't know how i would feel if i had to go in jail for no crime. If i made something wrong i would think about that...but if you go in jail because of a mistake like that...i would clearly be ***** off during all these year in prison...
  • janyu86, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2would've been funny though if it was ESR...
  • nxtwrld, on 04/29/2008, -4/+6Russian wife disappearance?! classic Russian mafia scam. Marry her to states, use her to suck out as much money from her husband as possible and then get her back or get rid off her...
    • darkenigma, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1If only we could make all the Russian spam disappear....
  • yacks, on 04/29/2008, -0/+21I find it disturbing that the prosecuter was allowed to show video of her at their son's birthday party.. I mean what does that really add to the case? Was Hans wielding a butcher knife behind her or what? I smell tainting the jurors. I mean if anything is shown.. it should be strictly evidence.. and evidence that shows a crime has been committed.. What crime was on that tape? I'm not saying Hans is innocent, but this paints the justice system in bad light.
    • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6I'm guessing it was to counter arguments that the wife was prone to abandoning her children, or was suicidal. Just because the defense is allowed to speculate, doesn't mean the prosecution is obliged to let it stand.
  • inbuninbu, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2In Soviet Russia, victims kill YOU!
  • MacintoshSauce, on 04/29/2008, -9/+0jesuswuzanalien wrote, #include "soap_on_a_roap.h"

    ROTFLMAO! I almost got my tea up my nose after reading that. :)
  • Mohan, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1I think as programmers we are still human and capable of doing bad things (though we should not) . But still, with a person like Hans, I find it difficult to think he would not have covered his actions like washing the car floor if he really did the crime. A brilliant mind like his is capable of doing a crime in a more brilliant fashion. This line of thought should have been considered before a verdict was given. I mean he is not a dumb person to do a shoddy job...
    • BrandonMills, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7If you think all Linux programmers have the same 'brilliance' in real life, then obviously you've never attended a Linux convention. Some of the most brilliant programmers on the planet lack even the most basic common sense.
      • UKsHaDoW, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Thats mainly bececause they have never been outside for the past 10 years.
  • TehClaw, on 04/29/2008, -3/+13Yay! im using the filesystem of a convicted murderer !
  • WoundedTownsmen, on 04/29/2008, -1/+38Everyones so flabbergasted and appalled at how he could be convicted without hard evidence or a body. Sometimes circumstantial evidence can paint enough of a picture to prove guilt without reasonable doubt (Not ALL doubt, it's called reasonable doubt for a reason).

    - Hosed out the interior of his car, removed the seat and carpet; both the latter never recovered
    - Found in his car: sleeping bag with her blood on it along with two books on murder which he bought days after her disappearance
    - Paid retainer fee on a lawyer just days after her disappearance, before even trying to call her
    - Wife's car found next to his house, rotten groceries and her cell phone with the battery removed found inside
    - Brought into custody carrying thousands in cash and a passport


    Yeah, it's circumstantial but the nail in the coffin was his explanations for them. If he would have shut up and listened to his lawyer is probable he would have been found innocent.

    • DisposableRob, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8TV and movies have diluted the concept of "circumstantial evidence" in people's minds. In real life, circumstantial evidence tends to be more reliable than eyewitnesses as it is based upon fact as opposed to the sometimes faulty human memory.
  • tsotha, on 04/29/2008, -0/+52Reiser may or may not have written a kick-ass file system (opinions differ), but he made one stupid blunder after another regarding his wife's disappearance, whether or not he was guilty. This is almost a textbook case of what *not* to do when you're accused of a crime. For one thing, you should never, ever, talk to the cops unless you are the victim. Anyone who's watched Law & Order knows the cops are allowed to lie to you, make false promises, whatever it takes. But you're in big trouble if you lie to the cops. And you never take the stand in your own defense, no matter how smart you think you are. Prosecutors know how to trip people up - they do it for a living. The last thing you want to do is get up on the stand and get caught lying, as Reiser did.

    In all probability he probably would have been convicted anyway. For one thing, he took the seat and carpet out of his car and threw them away, then hosed out the inside of the car. Who hoses out his car? And then he didn't have any sort of reasonable explanation for his behavior. He said he took the seat out so it would be easier to sleep in the car, but he left an inch of water sloshing around on the floor. And he left two books on murder investigations in the car. Oh, and some of her blood was in the car as well.

    When they caught him he had his passport and thousands of dollars in cash on his person. He'd taken the battery out of his cellphone so the cops couldn't find him using e911. At first he claimed he did it because he thought the battery would last longer, but then later admitted he was lying.

    When the cops found the wife's car her cellphone was in it , with the battery taken out of that phone as well.

    He picked up his kids from school the day after his wife disappeared but before she was reported missing. The problem is it was her day to pick up the kids, and he didn't call her to change plans. So... how did he know she wouldn't be there to pick up the kids?

    It's really hard for me to imagine he could be innocent.
    • BrandonMills, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6I have to agree. He just did far, far, far too much for any innocent man to do. I couldn't in good conscious let him loose in society.
    • koft, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Sleeping in the car, now thats a lame excuse. I have the passenger front seat removed in my car for the simple reason that it's awfully more convenient to haul crap in a passenger car with the seat removed. As a bonus I have an excuse to not give people rides.
  • CodyZ, on 04/29/2008, -10/+2Habeas corpus: Latin: "[We command] that you have the body."

    Seems relevant here.
    • csrster, on 04/29/2008, -0/+11No it doesn't.
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Not really since thats not what habeas corpus refers to
    • DisposableRob, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1So you believe murder is ok if you successfully get rid of the body?
  • waspinator, on 04/29/2008, -8/+1framed
    • dopplerdog, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1It seems odd to me that people would think this: do you think he was telling the truth when he said he was sleeping in a water logged car? How do you explain the lame excuses for his bizarre behaviour?
  • vidorian, on 04/29/2008, -3/+12The average American juror is too stupid to get out of jury duty and that is who you get stuck with to judge your fate.

    I've sat on a jury 6 times in my lifetime i was a foreman in 2 of those. I've asked to be excused 3 times. In every jury i can say that there were maybe 3 intelligent people on each jury. Most jurys consist of retired people who have nothing better to do or city/state workers who love jury duty because they get paid there full wage the entire time they are on the jury. The average person can not take the financial blow of losing a week or more of pay so they do everything they can to get out of it.

    If we could make employers pay a person there normal wage while on jury duty we would have a better pool to pick from. But i can honestly say after sitting on those jurys im scared as hell to get a jury of my peers if i ever need it.

    Every person i know that gets a summons i give a lecture on civic duty and how important it is for you to go and do your duty because if you are ever in that situation wouldn't you want someone like you judging you.

    That back fired on me when i convinced my sister not to get an excuse and she got stuck on a jury of a 70+ year old man who killed his terminally ill wife who was living in horrible pain. She cried every day after court and the images of that old woman stick with her still today.
    • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+31) "The average American juror is too stupid to get out of jury duty...I've asked to be excused 3 times." What are we to conclude from that? ;)

      2) Once you're an adult and called for jury duty, you should be able to function as an adult. The world is an ugly place. A person who can't deal with that should not serve jury duty BECAUSE they are not an adult. The problem is this culture mentally cripples people.

      3) There is a sure fire way to get out of jury duty without lying. Just express the fact you aware of the concept of jury nullification. Most courts will run away from you like the plague. They're so scared of it, they won't even speak the term in the voir dire. They'll ask you something like "Will you make a decision based solely on the facts presented in court and apply the law as the Judge defines it?" You answer, "I can't in all cases", and they you get interrogated in chambers. But check out fija.org and make sure you understand the concepts dead cold. You are legally responsible for everything you state in the voir dire.
      • AgentAce, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2You really expect us to take a site about jury information seriously which has the "Juror's Handbook" written by a "professor" at Regent Law School?
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Why not? Apparently you're not aware of the politics involved with Jury Nullification.

          Its not an authority site. Its a site focused on certain legal issues such as jury nullification. I could have also mentioned wikipedia (but that's a political source of information) and google, but isn't that like suggesting to "breathe"?
      • vidorian, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1Actually after you serve you are able to be excused for a certain period of time some states as little as a couple months some up to a year. I could have taken that excuse numerous times but didn't. The 3 times i asked to be excused varied.

        One was a civil asbestos case the trial was expected to last about 6 weeks. At the time my uncle was dieing of cancer and i didn't think he would make it thru the 6 weeks. Had i not informed the judge of this i would have either missed his funeral or had to leave mid trial with an alternate taking my place. He died 2 weeks later.
        The second time my husband was very ill and I had to take him to the hospital daily for his I.V's.
        The third time the plaintiff was my nephew's basketball coach and i knew him personally.
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1In NYC, I only have to show up for the voir dire, eat three days, and I won't be called back for another four years.

          Now, if NYC made me show up every year for the voir dire, then I'd have to rethink my strategy. But I'd always want to avoid getting put on Grand Jury duty. But those legal assholes shouldn't discriminate against me because I understand the concept of jury nullification.
      • vidorian, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1And by average i mean just that average not all. I'm just one of those people who think jury duty is something that we as Americans should do. It is a responsibility to be taken very seriously and is a small price to pay for the freedoms and form of government we have. I just wish the majority of people felt that way instead of feeling like it is a burden. Or who knows maybe i am just stupid hehe.
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1It is a citizen's duty. It is important for the fair operation of the legal system which protects citizens' rights and the innocent. If I felt I had to shirk jury duty, I wouldn't register to vote. I don't think the State uses income tax rolls for jury duty (yet).

          Having said that, we live in an imperfect world, and jury duty (particularly the OJ case) is an imposition upon the responsible. If the courts don't want knowledgeable citizens who are aware of jury nullification as jurors, so be it. But I do resent that attitude.

          Oh, I forgot to point out that people who are in the information technology industry are more likely to be picked as jurors, because as programmers, they understand following rules and tend to be more programmatic about their deliberations. And once you have served on a jury, you're more likely to be picked as a juror, because you're considered vetted. (Kinda like running for VPOTUS). You have to work at avoiding jury duty, or you're going to spend significant amounts of time actually serving on the jury.
      • AustinMandi, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Dugg for mentioning jury nullification. If more citizens understood and exercised this right we would all benefit greatly.
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1....but then I'd probably get stuck serving at a trial. ;)
          • AustinMandi, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1And then you'd get to educate the other jurors! I am all about enlightening the masses.
          • netant, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I suspect I wouldn't be going out of my way to instruct jurors about nullification. Right now, "The Man" is looking for a test case to bring a juror to trial for some form of nullification use. What I would do is not specifically use the term jury nullification. Its an implied jurist right, based in English common law, not specifically codified in the Constitution. In any case, not being a lawyer or law student, I would have no business in explaining legal theory as an authority during jury deliberations. I'd probably stick to addressing arguments in the case, and using nullification argumentation to address issues in the case.

            To be honest, I believe nullification should only be used when ethically appropriate, which would be rarely, if ever.
      • iarann, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I just went up for jury duty and I can tell you right now that anyone who thinks they know how to get out of jury duty with stuff like that are in for a surprise. Sure, they won't put you on the jury, but I watched a few people get sent back to the waiting room instead of get dismissed like people with legitimate reasons to leave. You may avoid the jury, but you will likely spend a week in a waiting room bored out of your mind. Maybe it's worth it if the case would be particularly long, but don't think a judge that does multiple jury selections in a given week hasn't heard whatever it is you have to say and can't see through what you are trying to do.
        • netant, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Even worse. There are judges that WANT people like me serving on the jury. But luckily, in our neoconservative autocracy, everyone care more about having sheep that will abide to what the Judge determines.

          Also, you have to realize, I am a citizen of the People's Republic of the Bronx. They REALLY don't want jurors who understand jury nullification. The majority of the time, the jurors don't realize what it means when they answer the magic question, and end up acquitting drug dealers and murderers all the time. My experience has generally been as soon as I don't answer the magic question with a yes, the Judge says "Thank you for reporting to jury duty. You are excused. Please return to the waiting room." I do have amusing stories (to me) about when I didn't get immediately booted.

          Also, I'm allowed to bring a book or laptop into the waiting room. Its a nearly unpaid vacation for me. I get picked for a trial on the first day of voir dire, and the trial lasts more than two days, I'm screwed.

          In any case, nobody wants me on the jury. Even without nullification, all I need to do is volunteer a bias towards either the prosecution or defense, and the lawyers will boot me. Also, if I show enough of a pulse, everyone will avoid me just because they think I might be one of those nightmare jurors who will deadlock a deliberation for the perversity of it. They'd only pick me if there is a problem with finding jurors.

          It doesn't matter. I've seen jurors likely flat out lie during the voir dire to get out of sitting on a jury. Its as simple as "I think black people generally commit the crime they are accused of". The Judge doesn't punish them, he just excuses them.
    • eryximachus, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Jurors also should not be excused. Lawyers intentionally eliminate intelligent people - this should not be allowed.

      It would be ideal if we had national IQ tests or at the least eliminated people who lacked high school diplomas or college degrees, but that won't happen. Instead, it should be completely random.
      • netant, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1You're mistaken on many levels.

        In NYC, demonstrating a pulse does not get you excused from jury duty. In fact, its so difficult for them to find "acceptable" jurors, the State now compel lawyers and cops (and doctors, not sure about politicians) to serve jury duty. I cannot conceive how they would let either a cop or a lawyer serve on a jury (but Ghouliani did it). Its either nullification or bias that will get you booted.

        And I don't agree with (those) kinds of testing standards for jurors. If you limited it to college degrees, you'd have too few people available for jury duty. Also, your standard injects LEGAL BIAS against the poor. People are more sympathetic to people of their class. You'd be railroading more impoverished innocents.

        An IQ test would not eliminate bias. Its a waste of time. But I think some forms of voluntary prescreening may help accelerate the process. If they really cared about the quality of the juror, they would just make it harder to arbitrarily strike jurors from the panel.
        • eryximachus, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1Sorry you picked the wrong poster. I live in Brooklyn. I was just dismissed from Jury duty a month ago. There is a shortage, but trust me - they do not want an intelligent, native born white Brooklynites with a masters degree serving on a jury in this borough.

          In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find any white person in Brooklyn not from Park Slope who believes the crap you just spouted.

          The "poor" are largely idiots who can't function in civilized society. This is why they disproportionately are in court facing a jury. If your class can't follow the law, why should they enforce it? Don't give me any sociological *****. The poor in this city make more than enough to survive and not steal. Every grand liberal dream has been tried here - and they have all failed.

          And shut the ***** about Giuliani. You obviously aren't from New York otherwise you would remember how it was. You are likely another midwestern ***** who now enjoys a safe city courtesy of the man you denigrate. Go back to Wisconsin. Better yet, move your ass into Bed Stuy so your liberal white ass can get jumped every month. Then come back and tell us all about "Gouliani" and "railroading more impoverished innocents".

  • tbstudee, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5Please never let my fate rest in the hands of a jury of my peers.
    • tripzero, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1I say we let your fate rest in the hands of donald trump. "You're fired/guilty!"
    • rblancarte, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2Don't kill your wife and you should be okay.
      • franklymister, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Because the only people that ever end up as defendants are guilty?
    • NSResponder, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1If you'd rather let your fate rest in the hands of the state, you can waive a jury trial in most states.

      -jcr
  • rancidpony, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3I can't say I am happy about this. But it is what it is.
  • NateTheApe21, on 04/29/2008, -1/+11Great programmer, not so good at the whole covering up a murder thing
    • noseeme, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1The latter is much harder.
    • cobaltblue12345, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Oh, he did a really good job of covering up the murder. No body, no weapon, not enough blood to prove that somebody had died, etc. What he wasn't so good at was covering up the cover up. That is, it's pretty obvious that the reason we have no weapon or body is because he dumped them in the Sierras, and we have no blood because he gutted the inside of his car and hosed it all down.
  • ricks1950, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2This is very disturbing. There is no body, no crime scene, no murder weapon, and no evidence linking Mr. Reiser to any of these. I can understand an investigation of her disappearance, but there is no evidence to base a charge on here, let alone a conviction.

    No wonder American prisons are full to bursting, if this is the standard of evidence used to gain convictions. Can't anyone see that this makes everyone vulnerable to false conviction?
  • defconoi, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Lets hope they give him a computer in jail or a notepad so he can keep writing :)
  • AdamZC, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3reiserfsck
  • Voldtekt, on 04/29/2008, -3/+0I dont know if he's guilty or not, blood being in the house and the car . . . and the removal of the car seat, its all pretty sketchy. What I can say however, is that its disgusting that the defense used kids to play on the jury's emotions. Its a classic south-parkish strategy. "If you dont convict this man, then you hate children... You dont hate...children, do you?" They didnt have enough solid evidence against the man, so they just used the kids to get their way. I guess this is what you get when a German marries a Russian, lesson learned.
    • v3gard, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1While we're mentioning South Park, maybe the defense should call in Chewbacca to save the day? :)
  • Stevo23, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9Is he allowed to code in jail? He'll have plenty of time now, I guess.
  • Musicmonkey34, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4FREE HAT
  • mojonandha, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3I read this wired article last year when i was flying and it really made be believe that he is innocent.
    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07 ...

    FREE HANS
    • bucky31, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0All it did was convince me how out of touch he is with reality.
  • techmonkey4u, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2I know this is off topic, but why are there so many digg links with the titles truncated?
    • noseeme, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Because the submitter said Candlejack, and he appe
      • adnudynn, on 04/30/2008, -0/+0Sorry, I rushed to get the article submitted.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.