Former Linux Developer Hans Reiser To Remain Locked Up

[XI1YKaQsKJMZ]

Well, hello, and good-bye, you grown parasite. Your way of characterizing a fetus, a parasite, is like mental diarrhea.

Call it a parasite you Hitler wannabe. I call it a child developing in mother's womb.

Your opinions are at the same level than Himmler's or equivalent people. I don't even try to argue with that because you demonstrate beyond folly, your ideas are disgusting, and you're insane.

No, you're the insane one. I just your logic, your arguments. Really, read it again what I wrote. Carefully this time. Very, very carefully. Now, re-read what you wrote. Very, very carefully.

I applied YOUR logic. Not mine. YOURS.

The fact you failed to recognize the sarcastic tone by which I did that is, well... obvious.

As for my own argument, my own argument... I clearly wrote: The argument that a foetus is a separate entity from its mother is extremely thin and always has been extremely thin.

As far as comparing me to Nazi war criminals is concerned -- Godwin's Law would seem to apply to this thread and with that, the thread is over. As it has been for many, many posts now. But, I will close down your asinine, insulting and infuriatingly dimwitted insults with this: Re-read my post, again. Very, very carefully. Because what I wrote is just oozing, literally dripping with compassion. I showed you evidence of how being against choice is causing suffering. You're in favor of maintaining that suffering. Because you're against choice.

You're the filthy pig here. Not I. Be ashamed, you religious fanatic.

[Guest]

It is inside of her, sure! But how dare you claim it is a part of his body? I feel like I have to explain 1+1=2...

The DNA of the fetus is different from the mother's, the blood group too (in most cases), etc... what is it you can't understand about it? I mean, why are we even discussing this? Come on, this is beyond ridiculous.

So it is clear beyond any doubt that the fetus is not a part of the mother's body, hence a different individual, so the woman doesn't have a right over his life.

But you know it. It doesn't take a smart person to understand the above. You know it, but the self-evident truth makes pro-abortion people uncomfortable because it's so practical to hit the "cancel" button when there is an unwanted pregnancy, that they repeat such blatant lies ad nauseam to justify killing innocents for preserving their career aspirations, comfort, etc.

I'd say that if you consider the fetus to be a different person, they're trespassing, and mother's body autonomy should allow her to evict the child at any whim.

[profoundWHALE]

Wow these comments look like a sine wave vs phase shift sine wave

1: We have a legal system to deal with the injustice of immoral actions in a way that's the most fair we can get without an "eye for an eye" treatment

2: Bad actions are bad, good actions are good, and people who do both are called humans. Murdering his wife certainly means he was a bad person. He should have a chance to prove that he's no longer that bad person.

Good actions from a bad person are still good actions. If a murderer later start a business and donated half of all profits to cancer research, does that mean that the donations are bad because they came from a murderer? Where do you draw the line, when does it stop, who is so pure that you're willing to accept anything they do.

3: Someone said that Reiser bought a book about getting away with a crime after he committed the crime and used that as proof of Reiser being an evil man to the core. You're an idiot. Not only would anyone who commits a crime want to get away with it (ever speed on the highway?) but if what you say is true then he would have bought the book BEFORE committing the murder. Geez.

All I see from people who reject his code for something other than technical merit is that they're all hypocrites.

And then you guys shift the conversation to abortion but it's your own fault. Making bad comparisons or poor reasons for rejecting his code just invites people to take the crap that you said and throw it back in your face.

-----------

I might as well jump in on this abortion thing.

Morally, either there is a difference between killing a fetus vs killing a baby, or there isn't. To be logically consistent, you'd have to pick one side or the other. Then, afterwards, you need to take into account external factors to decide if the moral crime or the evil of the act is worth the good from the outcome.

My take is "anti-suffering and anti-corruption". Anti-suffering means abort the baby if it is deemed to cause too much suffer for either the baby itself or the mother and the family, such as if it's going to be born with a genetic disease or some sort of disability. If it's from rape then it's not a problem because they would have reported it to the police and gotten a rape kit which includes emergency contraceptives. In the case of incest, the birth defect part of that is covered.

For "anti-corruption", if you can only get emergency contraceptives in the case of rape, or can only get an abortion in the case of rape, then what do you think women who are afraid are going to do? Lie about having consent, claim it was rape.

Instead of trying to push for abortion rights for black trans people, just allow doctors to make the call. Their whole job is to minimize suffering so they'd be best suited to make that call.

Then, with all that time and money saved from fighting each other, how about some government programs to encourage having kids to deal with the low and declining birthrate?

/rant

[CochainComplex]

The fetus is literally connected to the mother, so it might as well be a part of her body, and even if you assume it isn't, it's inside of her.

...didnt follow this discussion. But that point is not correct. The fetus is genetically different of the body of its mother (50% - normal cases no inbreed or surrogacy ). Therefore in a lot of cases the Bloodtype is also different. This is why the placenta separates the circulatory system of the mother from the circulatory system of the fetus. It acts as an interface for nutrition/antibody/ exchange. So no the fetus is never a part of the mothers body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta#Placental_circulation

[cyclistefou]

No, you're the insane one. I just your logic, your arguments. Really, read it again what I wrote. Carefully this time. Very, very carefully. Now, re-read what you wrote. Very, very carefully.

I applied YOUR logic. Not mine. YOURS.

You applied no logic at all, only lies with an agenda.

The fact you failed to recognize the sarcastic tone by which I did that is, well... obvious.

Only half relieved that it was sarcasm, which I wasn't sure about. But this shows even clearer how you're on an agenda, defending horrible things, with lies or sarcasm, which is the only weapon that remains for those without true arguments.
Update: not it really doesn't look like sarcasm. You elaborate on it on several paragraphs. You're not making it look like it is sarcasm.

As for my own argument, my own argument... I clearly wrote: The argument that a foetus is a separate entity from its mother is extremely thin and always has been extremely thin.

Yeah. You wrote it. And so what? I could consider you retarded for not seeing that different DNA and blood type are clear and absolute arguments demonstating without any doubt that the foetus is separate entity from the mother. But not, you're not retarded, not in "that" sense of the term. You read and write english, you can use a computer, you have an understanding of the arguments that goes beyond an AI like Google Translate, so the problem is that you're a liar with an agenda for defending killing of humans at foetus stage in the mother's womb. I would guess this is for the commodity of not having to take responsibilities for bad contraception etc.

As far as comparing me to Nazi war criminals is concerned -- Godwin's Law would seem to apply to this thread and with that, the thread is over. As it has been for many, many posts now.

Current state of abortion laws and practice (save for mother's life danger etc) really is some atrocity on the scale of the Shoah. Yes, it is. Of course if the life of the mother, or her health, are very severely endangered by the pregnancy, that's something else, but such cases are the minority. No, carreer aspirations, planning, finances and such reasons, don't count as valid reasons for abortion and aborting a foetus for similar reasons is a crime on same scale as individual Nazi crimes. Which is endorsed by our mad society just like killing Jews was endorsed by nazi Germany.

But, I will close down your asinine, insulting and infuriatingly dimwitted insults with this: Re-read my post, again. Very, very carefully. Because what I wrote is just oozing, literally dripping with compassion.

I will offer you smiles and laughs in return for such a ridiculous sentence. This part of your post is hilarious. Freaky, but I choose to find it hilarious.

I showed you evidence of how being against choice is causing suffering. You're in favor of maintaining that suffering. Because you're against choice.

You showed no evidence at all, niet, zilch, nada.

1. I refuse to call it "choice" and being pro or against "choice". This is an entire misrepresentation of what abortion is. No I am calling it the way it is: being pro or against abortion which is killing humans at foetus stage in the mother's womb. Let's call a cat, a cat.
2. Suffering comes from multiple sources. Being against abortion (not choice) DOESN'T CAUSE SUFFERING. It is about:

a. recognizing that suffering exists in the world and can (will) happen to everybody multiple times during lifetime, to varying extent
b. It is perfectly legitimate to want to minimize suffering and everybody (individuals, groups, private and public sectors) share the common good responsibility to try to minimize it as much as possible for everybody
c. Human life has value and deserves to be cared for.
d. It comes with ethical challenges which I can't address in this post (too complex), but it can be admitted that on a high-level, we can accept that some individual(s) bear some "lesser" suffering, if it allows to avoid a significantly greater suffering on the same, or other individual(s). Call it "solidarity", "share the burden" etc. Like what we are doing with CoVid-19 now, with so many people confined (which causes some suffering) to avoid greater suffering of people more at risk.
e. Killing an individual (especially against the will of that individual) is certainly the greatest suffering that can be inflicted to said individual. So killing a foetus to avoid lesser suffering on the mother's, is DREADFULLY WRONG. That's for when there is real suffering on the mother's side, and this is also why if the mother's life is really in danger, abortion can be ethically acceptable!
f. If the motives of the mother (or the filthy pig of father, when the father is the individual pressuring the mother for abortion, to reuse the term you wanted to apply to me) are egotistic (e.g. not due to actual, real suffering, but shaken dreams of carreer etc), then it is not only DREADFULLY WRONG, but a CRIME.

You're the filthy pig here. Not I. Be ashamed, you religious fanatic.

Did I mention ANYTHING about religion you liar with an evil agenda? ANYTHING?

[cyclistefou]

I'd say that if you consider the fetus to be a different person, they're trespassing, and mother's body autonomy should allow her to evict the child at any whim.

You're just like XI1YKaQsKJMZ and my comments and replies to her/him also apply to you.

[Moscato]

The abortion question has already been decided in roe vs wade.

A woman has no legal requirement to continue to support a fetus inside of them.

The fetus can be removed, without killing it immediately. It will of course, have no chance of survival on its own, but making sure another person survives is not your legal responsibility. Even with life support from a medical facility, it will eventually end.

Perhaps you could step up and be a donor to make sure the fetus survives by transplanting it, but nobody should be required to grow another creature inside of them. It's a form of slavery.
This is a settled legal issue. Just get over it.

[SystemCrasher]

My personal opinion is that it maybe better to release him - IF there're reasons to believe he would behave (that's up to judges and other appropriate ppl of course). Maybe subject to some extended monitoring for few more years. When someone sits in jail, others have to spend resources to keep them alive, while they do virtually nothing useful in return. Expecially when it comes to their actual field of expertise. This could be a bit better than this pointless and cruel state of things, without compromising public security too much, no? I bet in 2020 it possible to go a bit beyond of medieval age?

[tuxd3v]

Sure but what does that have to do with the patches? He should be imprisoned for life (given the certainty of his parole denials), and also submitting patches.

If he's uncivil or people don't want to work with him for other reasons, that's another matter, but the injustice is done, and the consequence is in effect; if he is productive and generous in some other facet of his life, I don't see why society should not benefit from it.

Now, probably Reiser's filesystems aren't anything all that special at this point, but that's a different matter.

My fathers told me when I was a kid..
"Tell me with who you usually agree with... and I will tell you, who you are.."

My old parents at the time,
Gave me "that tool"..

Today( with all the experience acquired during my life.. ), I realize that "that tool"( that my fathers gave me in childhood ),
Was probably the most powerful tool they ever gave me..

I don't know about you,
But I know about me, and I don't want a single line of code of that guy polluting my computer..

[zyxxel]

My fathers told me when I was a kid..
"Tell me with who you usually agree with... and I will tell you, who you are.."

My old parents at the time,
Gave me "that tool"..

Today( with all the experience acquired during my life.. ), I realize that "that tool"( that my fathers gave me in childhood ),
Was probably the most powerful tool they ever gave me..

I don't know about you,
But I know about me, and I don't want a single line of code of that guy polluting my computer..

You are seriously mixing up the concept there - maybe you are holding "that tool" backwards.

If you are about to drown, and someone you can't stand is about to save you, then your use of "that tool" would force you to say no and drown because you can't stand being saved by someone you don't like.

The source code does not represent political, ethical, ... views. So the use of the ReiserFS really has nothing to do with what you feel about the person. It would have been a difference if every partition formatted with RFS had required you to pay money to Hans Reiser. Then you could argue that you don't want to support him by giving him royalties.

In the end, it isn't a question of "polluting" any computer. It's a question of who you want to support. So seeing him as a dirt bag, it would be logical that you don't want him to get out and earn money for continuing to maintain the file system. But that's a completely different question from having ethical issues about using the already existing file system. Code isn't dirty, but paying for getting (potentially new/updated) code can be dirty.