opablo

Continuando con esta noticia: http://www.taringa.net/posts/noticias/81218/Creador-de-resier-4:-Asesino.html Nueva noticia: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser Respuesta a comentarios boludos que se que van a hacer: 1) esta en ingles ! R: viste el titulo? porque fue lo primero que advertí... o sea... para que entraste ? tenes problemitas ? Creo que el 90% de la gente a la que le interesa esta nota sabe inglés y del 10% restante el 90% sabe que existen traductores online como babelfish.... y el 1% restante me la chupa 2) es re larga ! R: si, lo se... y ? 3) me chupa un huevo la nota; no postees basura. R: a mi hna le chupa un huevo linux asique para que postean linux ? ahhh y a mi me chupa un huevo la musica que se suele postear en taringa asique tambien... no la posteen mas... pf... ----------- Arraigned for murder in October 2006, Reiser is being held in Santa Rita Jail near San Francisco. conocian a la esposa de Hans? ta linda la guacha eh... Nina Reiser, an obstetrician and mother of two, has not been seen since September 2006. Police believe she was murdered, but her body has not been found. Hans Reiser: Once a Linux Visionary, Now Accused of Murder Hans Reiser is waiting for me, standing on the other side of an imitation-wood table. The room is small, the concrete walls bare. A guard locks the steel door from the outside. There is no sound. Reiser is wearing the red jumpsuit of a prisoner in solitary confinement, though he has been allowed to meet with me in this chilly visiting room. There was a time when he was known as a cantankerous but visionary open source programmer. His work was funded by the government; he was widely credited (and sometimes reviled) for rethinking the structure of the Linux operating system. Now he is known as prisoner BFP563. I stick out my hand. It's an awkward moment — his wrists are chained to his waist. It's mid-December now, and he's been in this jail 40 miles east of San Francisco for two months, ever since the Alameda County District Attorney's office accused him of murdering Nina Reiser, his estranged wife. The police found drops of her blood in Reiser's house and car, and, when they picked him up on an Oakland street to swab his mouth for DNA, he was carrying his passport and $8,960 in cash in a fanny pack. At the police station, they photographed his body for signs of scratches or bruises. None were found. By this time, though, he had been under surveillance for three weeks. The police had followed him on foot, tailed his car, and even tracked him by airplane. On October 10, he was arrested, locked up, and, days later, charged with murder. (His trial is set to begin in July.) His only visitors have been his lawyers and his parents. I'm the first new face he's seen from the outside world. I'm here because his defense lawyer thinks I will understand Reiser. The accused is a 43-year-old geek — he lives in his own world of computer code, videogames, and science fiction books. He spent his early twenties developing a role-playing game to compete with Dungeons & Dragons while writing a novel about aliens invading Earth. By age 30, he'd decided that his talents would be better applied to recrafting overlooked aspects of the Linux operating system. As a technology writer, I frequently meet people like this. Just because he doesn't behave like the rest of us — and just because he evaded police surveillance and bought a book titled Masterpieces of Murder shortly after his wife's disappearance — doesn't mean he's guilty. I have been asked to try to understand this, to try to understand the man. And so I shake his shackled hand and ask my first question. "Tell me about your file system." + /* initialize transaction manager */ + init_txnmgr(&sbinfo->tmgr); † A file system organizes data on a computer. When you double-click a Microsoft Word document on your desktop, for instance, the file system tells the processor where to find the data. When you upload a picture from your camera, the file system decides how to place the information on your hard drive. Every bit and byte — including the operating system itself — has its place in the layers upon layers of branching directories. "A file system represents the roads and waterways of the OS," Reiser tells me. For the past two decades, he has struggled to create a different method of organizing data. His approach, known as ReiserFS, is a file system unlike any other. Rather than assign data a fixed location on a hard drive, it uses algorithms to frequently reposition information, including the code that makes up the file system itself. It elegantly maximizes storage space, but it can also complicate data recovery when a computer crashes. If the algorithms are corrupted, the file system will be unable to locate its own position. All the data it organizes disappears into an indistinguishable mass of 0s and 1s. The contents of that hard drive will be irretrievably lost. In Reiser's case, a critical piece of data — the location of Nina Reiser — has gone missing. Alameda County prosecutors think there's an explanation for her disappearance; they blame Reiser, a computer expert with a penchant for violent videogames. Reiser denies killing his wife. The two had been separated for 27 months when she disappeared, and her body has not been found. Reiser has so far relied on the Geek Defense. It boils down to this: I may be awkward, a little weird, and prone to convoluted theories about nearly everything. But I am not a killer. + txn_mgr *mgr = &get_super_private + (reiser4_get_current_sb())->tmgr; On the overcast Sunday of Labor Day weekend 2006, Nina Reiser goes shopping at a crowded Berkeley, California, grocery store. Although she has been living in the US for nearly eight years, she was born and raised in Russia at a time when stores like this didn't exist. The place is stocked with heirloom tomatoes and vegan burgers, and Nina loads up her cart. She brings along her son, Rory, 6, and daughter, Niorline, 5. After depositing the groceries in her minivan, she drives to the quiet neighborhood where her husband now lives with his mother. Reiser will have the kids for the rest of the weekend. Rory tells two versions of what happened next: + znode *left_child; + znode *right_child; Version 00 When questioned by police, Rory says he and his sister went down to the basement as soon as they arrived at his grandmother's house, leaving his parents upstairs. A few minutes later, he heard them raising their voices and using "not nice words." He went back upstairs, but his father told him to go back to the basement. Rory turned and walked back downstairs. This was the last time he ever saw his mother. Version 01 On the witness stand during the December hearing to determine whether his father should be tried for murder, Rory tells the court that he came back upstairs and stayed in the entryway with his mother and father. They were not arguing. His mother gave him a hug good-bye. Then she walked out the door and got in the van. He watched her drive away. This was the last time he ever saw his mother. + if (!JF_ISSET(node, JNODE_HEARD_BANSHEE)) + warning("nikita-3177", "Parent not found"; Reiser is crying. He is pale, unshaven, and his stubble is flecked with white. His nose is running. It's hard for him to wipe it with his hands shackled. This is my second visit to the jail, and he has deteriorated in the past six weeks. He tells me that he's tormented by what's happened to his two children. After Nina disappeared, the Alameda County social services agency put Rory and Niorline in a foster home at the urging of police. Two weeks later, the county family court released them to Nina's mother, who took them to Russia for the holidays. It's now late January. They were supposed to return weeks ago. Instead, a letter arrived from a lawyer in Russia, explaining that the kids were terrified of the US and would not return. Reiser is facing other losses as well. Novell, one of the largest Linux distributors to include his software, dropped his file system from its future offerings two days after his arrest. The process of preparing Reiser4, his next-generation code, for inclusion in the Linux kernel has all but stopped as his time and cash have been redirected toward his defense. He can't make payroll for Namesys, his file system company. "Programs are in some sense our children," Reiser tells me. He explains that programs can be discriminated against just like people. That's why he wanted to raise his file system in the open source community, where people and programs are encouraged to interact free of corporate barriers to communication. The point wasn't to make a lot of money. It was to make the world a better place. Reiser4 is built on this principle. It contains a single registry — known as a balanced tree — to organize every piece of data in the operating system. All programs can employ the same nomenclature to access information. In the traditional Windows or Unix file system, each application uses different terminology to track data. As a result, programs don't communicate efficiently with one another, which creates walls between data. In Reiser's idealized vision, a simple search for the word "Nina," for instance, will turn up emails in Outlook, images stored in MyPictures, and credit card charges in Quicken. Google's desktop search and Apple's Spotlight feature can do this, but they're afterthoughts: The ability of Reiser4 to scour every document is embedded in the operating system itself. It lays the foundation for a digital universe where there is no discrimination — nothing is walled off. In this unified space, all things can be known. + context->super = super; + context->magic = context_magic; St. Petersburg, Russia. Winter 1999. An American walks into a warm café looking for a woman he's supposed to meet. He's got piercing dark eyes and a muscular build. He used to think of himself as a wimp. Now he studies judo and already boasts a brown belt. He owns a software company and employs a fleet of Russian programmers. One sign of his newfound confidence: He sports a cowboy hat. Then he spots her. She's beautiful, with dark hair and a smile that makes you hold your breath. But it's her voice that captures him. He finds the Russian inflection in her perfect English enchanting. Plus, she's a doctor, an obstetrician. Her parents, too, are physicians. The other women he met through the Russian bride service on his regular trips here didn't impress him. They weren't like her. He can talk to her. And there's something else, something magical about her. On their first night together, Reiser later tells his father, they conceive a child. Five months later, they are married. + "Wrong magic in tree node: want %x, got %x", + REISER4_NODE_MAGIC, nh40_get_magic(header)); In 2001, the Pentagon's R&D agency awards Namesys a $600,000 grant to build the file system of the future — a hunk of code that will make everything on a computer hard drive searchable, transparent, accessible. Reiser spends long stretches in Moscow working with his team of programmers while Nina stays in the Bay Area to help oversee the company's books. Reiser's father, Ramon, takes a break from teaching high school science and pitches in. Though Reiser's parents are long divorced and Ramon was not around for much of Reiser's childhood, he has made an effort to reconnect with his son. But Ramon soon becomes suspicious of his new daughter-in-law, who has taken the title of CFO at Namesys. Ramon was trained in military interviewing techniques before going to Vietnam and says he knows when he's being lied to. He thinks the cash reserves are shrinking inexplicably fast. Within a year, a check bounces, and Ramon warns his son that Nina may be to blame. Reiser doesn't believe him. To help make payroll, he accepts a loan from Sean Sturgeon, a childhood friend. + #define wrong_return_value( label, function ) + impossible( label, "wrong return value from " function ) Sturgeon drove a recycling truck for years and owns a condo in Oakland's Lake Merritt district. He isn't rich, but the condo has appreciated. After surgery in 2002 for a torn rotator cuff, he was forced into early retirement. He gets by on disability payments, Social Security, some retirement benefits, and the proceeds from a lawsuit he filed after being in a car accident. His friendship with Reiser is a bright spot. They grew up together in Oakland, and Sturgeon wants to help his friend. He's happy to lend the money, which he obtains by taking a loan on the equity in his condo. He writes Reiser a check for $84,000 at the beginning of 2004. Reiser thinks of Sturgeon as a brother but is concerned about his friend's taste for bondage and sadomasochism. Reiser once watched Sturgeon carve the letters R-A-G-E into his arm, and was alarmed when his friend told him he went to the ER after an S&M experience led to a burst blood vessel in his chest. Reiser is worried that Sturgeon is trying to teach Rory and Niorline that pain can be fun and is furious when Sturgeon gives them what Reiser refers to in a sworn court filing as "gender confused alternative sexuality dolls." Reiser is also upset that Sturgeon has introduced Nina to the drug ecstasy. When she asks Reiser if he wants to try it, he says no but senses she thinks less of him for refusing. "Nina and Sean both seem to be searching for more and more excitement, and going farther and farther to find it," Reiser writes in the court papers. Sturgeon doesn't understand why Reiser is upset. It's true that he was involved in the "leather" community and that he's bisexual. But Sturgeon has started going to church, and by the beginning of 2002 he had sworn off kinky sex parties. He's left that life behind. Either way, Reiser stayed friends with him all those years and didn't seem to mind it at the time. Reiser even watched him carve those letters into his arm — it happened back in 1996. It was just body art — Sturgeon saw a lot of people doing it at the time. It was no big deal. Over the course of 2004, Sturgeon feels he is growing apart from his friend. At the same time, he feels a deep connection with Nina. "She told me that wolves mate once for life and asked me if I was her wolf," he says. "I said yes." Reiser fears that Nina is sleeping with Sturgeon and that the two are mixing sex with sadomasochism. Nina confirms his suspicion that they are having an affair when she files for divorce. In court filings, Reiser accuses her of being seduced by a "lewd tattooed drug addicted BDSM pimp/whore" with multiple personality disorder. Sturgeon admits to the affair — he's fallen in love with Nina — but denies that S&M is a part of the relationship. He also thinks Reiser has mismanaged Namesys and squandered its financial resources. He asks for his $84,000 back. Reiser refuses to return the money. Sturgeon files suit in December, and Reiser lodges a cross-complaint claiming that Sturgeon intentionally seduced Nina in an effort to "show that he was a better man than I and to convince my wife, Nina, to conspire with him to steal the Namesys, Inc. company assets." Sturgeon feels that Reiser has cast aside their friendship because of greed. "You find out who your true friends are when you stop giving them money," he says. Sturgeon believes that Reiser's judgment has become clouded by megalomania and the belief that he is the world's greatest programmer. The friendship is over. Reiser agrees that the friendship is finished. He tells the divorce court that Sturgeon "has many wonderful qualities, but as he has gotten older the dark side has triumphed in him." And as for Nina, he thinks the children need to be "protected from what appears to be a mother spiraling downwards in mental stability." + request = &owner->request; + node = request->node; Reiser wants me to do something. It's late March, and this is my third visit to the locked meeting room inside the jail. It's raining today; a bucket collects water in the hallway. Reiser is out of solitary, so his hands are no longer cuffed. He puts them on the table and leans toward me. "I would like to talk you into doing something that will involve a lot of work on your part," he says. He pauses and stares intently at me before explaining that he feels he has been discriminated against because he's a computer geek. He wants me to investigate his custody fight and, among other things, validate his belief that violent videogames are not bad for kids. I agree to look into it and obtain a sheaf of custody filings from the case. I pore through the pages and discover that the issue of videogame violence has taken up a lot of his time over the past few years. + done_load_count(&left_parent_load); + done_load_count(&right_parent_load); At the end of 2004, as the divorce and custody proceedings get under way, Nina asks Reiser to stop playing violent videogames like Battlefield Vietnam with young Rory. In that game, napalm explosions envelop villages in fire, bodies are hurled through the air, and, when shot, characters collapse to the ground and choke on their own blood, realistic sound effects included. "Hans has a deeply held unreasonable belief that it is good to show children, no matter how young, violent videos and movies," Nina writes to the court. She wants him to stop. For Reiser, this is not about videogames; it's about life and death. "Little boys take to violent computer games like monkeys take to trees," he says in a court filing. " do not have instincts that favor combat rehearsal activities for no reason, they have them because they affect whether they live or die a significant amount of the time." Violent videogames are an ideal way to hone these survival skills, for several reasons, he says. A kid is clearly not going to become battle-hardened in the quiet, idyllic neighborhoods of the Oakland hills. Reiser believes that history — in, for instance, an Electronic Arts videogame set in Vietnam — is the best teacher, though he is quick to point out that the learning process will not necessarily be easy. "Becoming a man normally is psychologically traumatic for boys," he says. What matters most, he says, is that the exercise "allows him to achieve results in defending family and country." Rory has nightmares. When he's awake, he spends time drawing monsters and soldiers, and he tells his mother that he and his father have a secret. Nina thinks that Reiser is still playing videogames with their son and worries that Rory is developing a condition called sensory integration dysfunction, which can make the smallest sound or touch overwhelming. In the coming months, Rory is frequently sick with a high fever and a sore throat. A year earlier, he was diagnosed with fluid in his ear and treated with five courses of antibiotics, but his condition persists. Nina uses a low-voltage portable laser — a device commonly used in Russia — to zap his inflamed tissue. Rory's health does not improve. Reiser claims that Nina may be consulting with "memory creation specialists" in order to implant memories in Rory's mind. He insists that he never told Rory to hide the fact that they play Battlefield Vietnam together and is convinced that the specialist created this memory. "I am just lucky these memories only involve a computer game so far," Reiser writes to the court. "I don't want to find out that my child remembers being satanically sacrificed by me in a past life." On December 22, 2004, the dispute intensifies. Reiser arrives to pick up the kids at the house Nina is renting, and, according to Nina, he shoves her to the ground. The next day, she files a request for a restraining order against Reiser — quickly granted — and reports that he threatened to "make me hurt for the rest of my life." Reiser is amused by the implication that he is violent. "In reality I am just a computer gamer, and when someone says I have been demented as a result of combat the laughter comes easily," he writes. He believes mental health professionals scorn people who "teach the culture of manhood to little boys, with all of its inherent opposition to wallowing in wimpiness." Reiser delves into this "culture of manhood" in a 32-page filing he submits to the court after Nina accuses him of hurting her. In it, he explains the difference between appropriate and inappropriate violence. Grand Theft Auto, for instance, demonstrates inappropriate violence because players can get away with killing innocent people. "Many other computer games heavily penalize shooting the wrong person, and I prefer those," Reiser says. He also has a simple solution for Rory's nightmares: magical dynamite. "I explained to him that he could learn to fight the monsters in his dreams and blow them up with the magical dynamite," Reiser recounts. "I did this in terms that expressed a quiet confidence that he could handle the job. "Note the similarities between how an effective army sergeant would rally frightened men to learn to attack the enemy and the technique I used to teach a small boy to deal with monsters in his dreams," Reiser adds. "One of the sad facts of dream life is that monsters who are lots of joy to blow up will start to leave one's dreams and not want to return." Reiser says he has a right to blow up monsters, whether in dreams or videogames. The government — in the guise of family court — should have no place prohibiting him or his son from playing Battlefield Vietnam or Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, a fantasy strategy game featuring elves, dwarves, zombies, and wizards. "Should the government be keeping me from showing my son how to direct brave goblin suicide bombers against their elven oppressors?" he asks. To Reiser, a fundamental bias is at work. "Male geeks, such as myself, are one of America's most hated cultural minorities," he writes. "Unlike racial hatred, it is considered socially acceptable to indulge in such hatred." Nina, he feels, has exploited this bias. "I am tired of being the punching bag," he concludes. "I could forgive the fighting, and even the mental instability and unfaithfulness, but not the scamming and the lying. Let the children and I leave this all behind. Leave them to me, and let Nina go her way." In December 2005, the court awards full legal custody to Nina. + reiser4_status_write(REISER4_STATUS_DAMAGED, 0, + "Filesystem error occured"; Six days after Nina's disappearance, Oakland police find her minivan parked 3 miles from the house where Reiser lives with his mother. The groceries are still in it, tipped over and rotting. Her purse sits on the front passenger seat and contains $94.07 in cash and her cell phone, though the battery has been removed and sits loose in the purse. The van's console holds another $24.60 and one euro. There are no fingerprints other than Nina's. Reiser's Honda Civic CRX has also disappeared. Beverly, Reiser's mother, reports that her son took her car, a Honda hybrid, the weekend Nina disappeared. At the time, Beverly, 64, was in the Nevada desert at the Burning Man festival. She's a conceptual artist and had gone there to show her Hopeandfearometer, a video kiosk that asks two questions: "What makes you glow?" and "What dangers do you delight in?" The device records responses and then, according to an online description, plays them back in "a cacophonous medley of random hopes and fears." On her return to Oakland, Beverly is confronted with her own set of hopes and fears. She asks for her car back, but her son refuses, saying that his isn't working. Reiser also tells her that Nina has gone missing. Her ex-husband, Ramon, has warned their son to be careful; he thinks Nina might have gotten involved with the Russian mafia. The Oakland police think otherwise and unleash a surveillance team to track Reiser. Unmarked cars trail him as he drives his mother's hybrid. They follow him to his children's school, as he gets coffee, and along the winding roads in the Oakland hills. An airplane is dispatched to track him, and his phone is tapped. Still, police cannot locate the missing CRX. There are two explanations for Reiser's reaction to the surveillance: + if (in_panic == 0) { + in_panic = 1; Version 00 Though the police believe Reiser is unaware that they are following him, they observe him taking countersurveillance measures. He accelerates slowly on the freeway that skirts the edge of Oakland and then floors it, only to take the next exit at the last possible moment. He drives in circles through a residential neighborhood. He acts like someone who has something to hide. Version 01 Reiser calls his dad and explains that unmarked cars and maybe an airplane are tracking him. In Ramon's opinion, it's an operation beyond the scope of local police. It sounds like the Russian mafia, Ramon says, or maybe the Russian spy agency, the FSB. He tells his son to take evasive action: Exit freeways without warning, drive in circles. "Do anything you can to lose them and protect yourself." + ->trace_flags + ->debug_flags On September 13, the Oakland police get a search warrant to scour the Reiser household. They find a drop of blood on a support post in the entry. Oakland's crime lab identifies the sample as a mix of Nina's and Reiser's, though it can't determine how old the blood is. Five days later, the police follow Reiser to the CRX, which is parked on a quiet street in nearby Berkeley. He moves it to a secluded, wooded area of Oakland and dashes uphill toward his mother's house 3 miles away. Police search the CRX and find that the front passenger seat has recently been removed. The floor is soaked, as if it had been washed. There are heavy-duty garbage bags, cloth towels, masking tape, and two books: Masterpieces of Murder and Homicide. Police also find another drop of blood and match it to Nina. + warning("Target found unexpectedly"; + result = RETERR(-EIO); It's a warm Sunday morning in May, and I'm in the last pew at All Nations Presbyterian Church in an Oakland suburb. Light streams through stained glass and illuminates floating motes of dust. A smattering of congregants stand and recite prayers. I've come here because Sean Sturgeon — Reiser's childhood friend and Nina's ex-lover — has invited me, though I've yet to spot him. He wants me to understand that he is a Christian now. He is eager for me to know this because last week, on the phone, he told me he had killed eight people. "The taste of death will not defile us," the congregation chants. I think back to the previous Sunday. My phone rang late at night. The caller ID read prison. It was Reiser. His defense team had just gotten a call from a deputy district attorney, who told them that Sturgeon had confessed to a number of killings but denied any connection to Nina's case. The confession had come months ago, early in the investigation of Nina's disappearance. Reiser sounded giddy. Surely this would raise reasonable doubt in jurors' minds. The next afternoon, Sturgeon called me. I had been trying to reach him for two months. Now he was breathing into my ear. If I knew all the details of his friendship with Reiser, he said, I "would weep piss and blood." I didn't know where to begin. If he'd actually killed eight people, the police would have arrested him, right? Why hadn't this come out before? Was he fantasizing? When I called the DA, he refused to comment, citing a gag order issued three days earlier by the judge in the Reiser case. Oakland police also refuse to comment, citing the gag order. "We are the raisers of the dead," intones a woman standing in the chancel. "The power of death will not defy us." I sense Sturgeon before I see him. He has appeared to my left, staring at me with pale blue eyes. He is unshaven, and the skin around his right eye twitches. "Hello," he says and then turns his attention to the service. "The spirit of death will not destroy us," the crowd mutters in a monotone. We sit silently, side by side for the hour-long liturgy and, when it is over, stand in the lobby and talk about the people Sturgeon says he killed; the rest of the congregation sips coffee and chats. He explains that he was abused as a child. As an adult, he targeted those who had hurt him. "If you aren't one of those people," he says, "you have nothing to fear." And now that he's a Christian, he is no longer violent. He says he stopped killing in 1995 and made a full confession to the police investigating Nina's disappearance. He did it without a lawyer because he wanted to prove that he had nothing to hide. Even so, he won't tell me anything that might help confirm the killings, like the names of his victims, claiming that the information would draw attention away from the facts in Reiser's case. But he continues to cooperate with the police, even inviting them to check his gun collection and test whether the weapons had recently been fired. "Give me some sodium pentothal or any truth serum, put a little ecstasy in there and ask me if I killed Nina," he says. "I have never been a threat to her." The last time he called Nina was the Friday before she disappeared. He wanted to find a good time to drop off some money. He hadn't seen her for four months — as part of the court-approved divorce agreement, Sturgeon was barred from visiting the kids, who stayed mostly with Nina. The enforced separation strained their relationship, until they finally broke up. Still, Sturgeon wanted to help her financially. Reiser was often late with child-support payments, and Nina didn't have a full-time job. "I was her ‚maid of honor' when she married Hans; I wasn't going to let her down," Sturgeon says, explaining that he dressed up as a woman for the wedding and stood beside Nina for the service. After their friendship turned romantic, Sturgeon felt even more compelled to chip in. "I don't just sleep with a woman and say, ‚See you later, I had my fun.'" He wouldn't abandon her. Nina, he explains, thought of him as her mate for life, her wolf. The coffee hour ends, and we file out into the sun with the other congregants. We talk for a few more minutes, and then I watch Sturgeon get into his Subaru and drive away. The car has two large images of wolves stuck on the hatchback. + "Looking for page %lu of file %llu (size %lli). " + "No file items found (%d). File is corrupted?\n", Reiser's lips are chapped, cracked, and peeling. It is my fourth and final visit, and I have asked him to tell me where he thinks Nina is. He doesn't answer. He wants to talk about his file system again. While he launches into the intricacies of database science, I'm thinking, "Where is the front passenger seat of your car?" He has never explained this. It seems a fundamental hole in his defense. But he won't stop talking. When I try to interrupt, he insists I let him finish. It's as if the file system holds all the answers. So I take the hint, and that night, in my office, I start scouring the 80,496 lines of the Reiser4 source code. Eventually I stumble across a passage that starts at line 78,077. It's not part of the program itself — it's an annotation, a piece of non-executable text in plain English. It's there for the benefit of someone who has chosen to read this far into the code. The passage explains how memory structures are born, grow, and eventually die. It concludes: "Death is a complex process."

Fuente: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html# Atheists and Anger I want to talk about atheists and anger. This has been a hard piece to write, and it may be a hard one to read. I'm not going to be as polite and good-tempered as I usually am in this blog; this piece is about anger, and for once I'm going to fucking well let myself be angry. But I think it's important. One of the most common criticisms lobbed at the newly-vocal atheist community is, "Why do you have to be so angry?" So I want to talk about: 1. Why atheists are angry; 2. Why our anger is valid, valuable, and necessary; And 3. Why it's completely fucked-up to try to take our anger away from us. So let's start with why we're angry. Or rather -- because this is my blog and I don't presume to speak for all atheists -- why I'm angry. ***** I'm angry that according to a recent Gallup poll, only 45 percent of Americans would vote for an atheist for President. I'm angry that atheist conventions have to have extra security, including hand-held metal detectors and bag searches, because of fatwas and death threats. I'm angry that atheist soldiers -- in the U.S. armed forces -- have had prayer ceremonies pressured on them and atheist meetings broken up by Christian superior officers, in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that evangelical Christian groups are being given exclusive access to proselytize on military bases -- again in the U.S. armed forces, again in direct violation of the First Amendment. I'm angry that atheist soldiers who are complaining about this are being harassed and are even getting death threats from Christian soldiers and superior officers -- yet again, in the U.S. armed forces. And I'm angry that Christians still say smug, sanctimonious things like, "there are no atheists in foxholes." You know why you're not seeing atheists in foxholes? Because believers are threatening to shoot them if they come out. I'm angry that the 41st President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush, said of atheists, in my lifetime, "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." My President. No, I didn't vote for him, but he was still my President, and he still said that my lack of religious belief meant that I shouldn't be regarded as a citizen. I'm angry that it took until 1961 for atheists to be guaranteed the right to serve on juries, testify in court, or hold public office in every state in the country. I'm angry that almost half of Americans believe in creationism. And not a broad, "God had a hand in evolution" creationism, but a strict, young-earth, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" creationism. And on that topic: I'm angry that school boards all across this country are still -- 82 years after the Scopes trial -- having to spend time and money and resources on the fight to have evolution taught in the schools. School boards are not exactly loaded with time and money and resources, and any of the time/ money/ resources that they're spending fighting this stupid fight is time/ money/ resources that they're not spending, you know, teaching. I'm angry that women are dying of AIDS in Africa and South America because the Catholic Church has convinced them that using condoms makes baby Jesus cry. I'm angry that women are having septic abortions -- or are being forced to have unwanted children who they resent and mistreat -- because religious organizations have gotten laws passed making abortion illegal or inaccessible. I'm angry about what happened to Galileo. Still. And I'm angry that it took the Catholic Church until 1992 to apologize for it. I get angry when advice columnists tell their troubled letter-writers to talk to their priest or minister or rabbi... when there is absolutely no legal requirement that a religious leader have any sort of training in counseling or therapy. And I get angry when religious leaders offer counseling and advice to troubled people -- sex advice, relationship advice, advice on depression and stress, etc. -- not based on any evidence about what actually does and does not work in people's brains and lives, but on the basis of what their religious doctrine tells them God wants for us. I'm angry at preachers who tell women in their flock to submit to their husbands because it's the will of God, even when their husbands are beating them within an inch of their lives. I'm angry that so many believers treat prayer as a sort of cosmic shopping list for God. I'm angry that believers pray to win sporting events, poker hands, beauty pageants, and more. As if they were the center of the universe, as if God gives a shit about who wins the NCAA Final Four -- and as if the other teams/ players/ contestants weren't praying just as hard. I'm especially angry that so many believers treat prayer as a cosmic shopping list when it comes to health and illness. I'm angry that this belief leads to the revolting conclusion that God deliberately makes people sick so they’ll pray to him to get better. And I'm angry that they foist this belief on sick and dying children -- in essence teaching them that, if they don't get better, it's their fault. That they didn't pray hard enough, or they didn't pray right, or God just doesn't love them enough. And I get angry when other believers insist that the cosmic shopping list isn't what religion and prayer are really about; that their own sophisticated theology is the true understanding of God. I get angry when believers insist that the shopping list is a straw man, an outmoded form of religion and prayer that nobody takes seriously, and it's absurd for atheists to criticize it. I get angry when believers use terrible, grief-soaked tragedies as either opportunities to toot their own horns and talk about how wonderful their God and their religion are... or as opportunities to attack and demonize atheists and secularism. I'm angry at the Sunday school teacher who told comic artist Craig Thompson that he couldn't draw in heaven. And I'm angry that she said it with the complete conviction of authority... when in fact she had no basis whatsoever for that assertion. How the hell did she know what Heaven was like? How could she possibly know that you could sing in heaven but not draw? And why the hell would you say something that squelching and dismissive to a talented child? I'm angry that Mother Teresa took her personal suffering and despair at her lost faith in God, and turned it into an obsession that led her to treat suffering as a beautiful gift from Christ to humanity, a beautiful offering from humanity to God, and a necessary part of spiritual salvation. And I'm angry that this obsession apparently led her to offer grotesquely inadequate medical care and pain relief at her hospitals and hospices, in essence taking her personal crisis of faith out on millions of desperately poor and helpless people. I'm angry at the trustee of the local Presbyterian church who told his teenage daughter that he didn't actually believe in God or religion, but that it was important to keep up his work because without religion there would be no morality in the world. I'm angry that so many parents and religious leaders terrorize children -- who (a) have brains that are hard-wired to trust adults and believe what they're told, and (b) are very literal-minded -- with vivid, traumatizing stories of eternal burning and torture to ensure that they'll be too frightened to even question religion. I'm angrier when religious leaders explicitly tell children – and adults, for that matter -- that the very questioning of religion and the existence of hell is a dreadful sin, one that will guarantee them that hell is where they'll end up. I'm angry that children get taught by religion to hate and fear their bodies and their sexuality. And I'm especially angry that female children get taught by religion to hate and fear their femaleness, and that queer children get taught by religion to hate and fear their queerness. I'm angry about the Muslim girl in the public school who was told -- by her public-school, taxpayer-paid teacher -- that the red stripes on Christmas candy canes represented Christ's blood, that she had to believe in and be saved by Jesus Christ or she'd be condemned to hell, and that if she didn't, there was no place for her in his classroom. And I'm angry that he told her not to come back to his class when she didn't convert. I'm angry -- enraged -- at the priests who molest children and tell them it's God's will. I'm enraged at the Catholic Church that consciously, deliberately, repeatedly, for years, acted to protect priests who molested children, and consciously and deliberately acted to keep it a secret, placing the Church's reputation as a higher priority than, for fuck's sake, children not being molested. And I'm enraged that the Church is now trying to argue, in court, that protecting child-molesting priests from prosecution, and shuffling those priests from diocese to diocese so they can molest kids in a whole new community that doesn't yet suspect them, is a Constitutionally protected form of free religious expression. I'm angry about 9/11. And I'm angry that Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, the ACLU, and the People For the American Way. I'm angry that the theology of a wrathful God exacting revenge against pagans and abortionists by sending radical Muslims to blow up a building full of secretaries and investment bankers... this was a theology held by a powerful, widely-respected religious leader with millions of followers. I'm angry that, when my dad had a stroke and went into a nursing home, the staff asked my brother, "Is he a Baptist or a Catholic?" And I'm not just angry on behalf of my atheist dad. I'm angry on behalf of all the Jews, all the Buddhists, all the Muslims, all the neo-Pagans, whose families almost certainly got asked that same question. That question is enormously disrespectful, not just of my dad's atheism, but of everyone at that nursing home who wasn't a Baptist or a Catholic. I'm angry about Ingrid's grandparents. I'm angry that their fundamentalism was such a huge source of strife and unhappiness in her family, that it alienated them so drastically from their children and grandchildren. I'm angry that they tried to cram it down Ingrid's throat, to the point that she's still traumatized by it. And I'm angry that their religion, which if nothing else should have been a comfort to them in their old age, was instead a source of anguish and despair -- because they knew their children and grandchildren were all going to be burned and tortured forever in Hell, and how could Heaven be Heaven if their children and grandchildren were being eternally burned and tortured in Hell? I'm angry that Ingrid and I can't get legally married in this country -- or get legally married in another country and have it recognized by this one -- largely because religious leaders oppose it. And I'm angry that both religious and political leaders have discovered that they can score big points exploiting people's fears about sexuality in a changing world, fanning the flames of those fears... and giving people a religious excuse for why their fears are justified. I'm angry that huge swaths of public policy in this country -- not just on same-sex marriage, but on abortion and stem-cell research and sex education in schools -- are being based, not on evidence of which policies do and don't work and what is and isn't true about the world, but on religious texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago, and on their own personal feelings about how those texts should be interpreted, with no supporting evidence whatsoever -- and no apparent concept of why any evidence should be needed. I get angry when believers trumpet every good thing that's ever been done in the name of religion as a reason why religion is a force for good... and then, when confronted with the horrible evils done in religion's name, say that those evils weren't done because of religion, were done because of politics of greed or fear or whatever, would have been done anyway even without religion, and shouldn't be counted as religion's fault. (Of course, to be fair, I also get angry when atheists do the opposite: chalk up every evil thing done in the name of religion as a black mark on religion's record, but then insist that the good things were done for other reasons and would have been done anyway, etc. Neither side gets to have it both ways.) I'm angry at the believers who put decals on their cars with a Faith fish eating a Darwin fish... and who think that's clever, who think that religious faith really should triumph over science and evidence. I'm angry at believers who have so little respect for the physical world their God supposedly created that they feel perfectly content to ignore the mountains of physical evidence piling up around them about that real world; perfectly content to see that world as somehow less real and true than their personal opinions about God. (Note: The litany of specific grievances is now more than halfway over. Analysis of why anger is necessary and valuable is coming up soon. Promise.) I get angry when religious leaders opportunistically use religion, and people's trust and faith in religion, to steal, cheat, lie, manipulate the political process, take sexual advantage of their followers, and generally behave like the scum of the earth. I get angry when it happens over and over and over again. And I get angry when people see this happening and still say that atheism is bad because, without religion, people would have no basis for morality or ethics, and no reason not to just do whatever they wanted. I get angry when religious believers make arguments against atheism -- and make accusations against atheists -- without having bothered to talk to any atheists or read any atheist writing. I get angry when they trot out the same old "Atheism is a nihilistic philosophy, with no joy or meaning to life and no basis for morality or ethics"... when if they spent ten minutes in the atheist blogosphere, they would discover countless atheists who experience great joy and meaning in their lives, and are intensely concerned about right and wrong. I get angry when believers use the phrase "atheist fundamentalist" without apparently knowing what the word "fundamentalist" means. Call people pig-headed, call them stubborn, call them snarky, call them intolerant even. But unless you can point to the text to which these "fundamentalist" atheists literally and strictly adhere without question, then please shut the hell up about us being fundamentalist. I get angry when religious believers base their entire philosophy of life on what is, at best, a hunch; when they ignore or reject or rationalize any evidence that contradicts that hunch or calls it into question... and then accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth. And I get angry when believers glorify religious faith without evidence as a positive virtue, a character trait that makes people good and noble... and then continue to accuse atheists of being close-minded and ignoring the obvious truth. I get angry when believers say that they can know the truth -- the greatest truth of all about the nature of the universe, namely the source of all existence -- simply by sitting quietly and listening to their heart... and then accuse atheists of being arrogant. (This isn't just arrogant towards atheists and naturalists, either. It's arrogant towards people of other religions who have sat just as quietly, listened to their hearts with just as much sincerity, and come to completely opposite conclusions about God and the soul and the universe.) And I get angry when believers say that the entire unimaginable enormity of the universe was made solely and specifically for the human race -- when atheists, by contrast, say that humanity is a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, an infinitesimal eyeblink in the vastness of time and space -- and yet again, believers accuse atheists of being arrogant. I get angry when believers say things like, "Yes, of course, the human mind isn't perfect, we see what we expect to see, we see faces and patterns and intention when they aren't necessarily there... but that couldn't be happening with me. The patterns I see in my life... they couldn't possibly be coincidence or confirmation bias. I'm definitely seeing the hand of God." (And then, once again, those same believers accuse atheists of being close-minded and only seeing what we want to see.) I get angry when believers treat the gaps in science and scientific knowledge as somehow proof of the existence of God. I get angry when, despite a thousands-of-years-old pattern of supernatural explanations being consistently and repeatedly replaced with natural ones, they still think every single unexplained phenomenon can be best explained by God. And I'm angry that, whenever a gap in our knowledge does get filled in, believers either try to suppress it (see above re: evolution in the schools), or else say, "Okay, that part of the world isn't supernatural... but what about this gap over here? Can you explain that, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist? You can't! It must be God!" I get angry when believers say at the beginning of an argument that their belief is based on reason and evidence, and at the end of the argument say things like, "It just seems that way to me," or, "I feel it in my heart"... as if that were a clincher. I mean, couldn't they have said that at the beginning of the argument, and not wasted my fucking time? My time is valuable and increasingly limited, and I have better things to do with it than debating with people who pretend to care about evidence and reason but ultimately don't. I'm angry that I have to know more about their fucking religion than the believers do. I get angry when believers say things about the tenets and texts of their religion that are flatly untrue, and I have to correct them on it. I get angry when believers treat any criticism of their religion -- i.e., pointing out that their religion is a hypothesis about the world and a philosophy of it, and asking it to stand up on its own in the marketplace of ideas -- as insulting and intolerant. I get angry when believers accuse atheists of being intolerant for saying things like, "I don't agree with you," "I think you're mistaken about that," "That doesn't make any sense," "I think that position is morally indefensible," and "What evidence do you have to support that?" And on that point: I get angry when Christians in the United States -- members of the single most powerful and influential religious group in the country, in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world -- act like beleaguered victims, martyrs being thrown to the lions all over again, whenever anyone criticizes them or they don't get their way. I get angry when believers respond to some or all of these offenses by saying, "Well, that's not the true faith. Hating queers/ rejecting science/ stifling questions and dissent... that's not the true faith. People who do that aren't real (Christians/ Jews/ Muslims/ Hindus/ etc.)." As if they had a fucking pipeline to God. As if they had any reason at all to think that they know for sure what God wants, and that the billions of others who disagree with them just obviously have it wrong. (Besides -- I'm an atheist. The "They just aren't doing religion right" argument is not going to cut it with me. I don't think any of you have it right. To me, it all looks like something that people just made up.) On that topic: I get angry when religious believers insist that their interpretation of their religion and religious text is the right one, and that fellow believers with an opposite interpretation clearly have it wrong. I get angry when believers insist that the parts about Jesus's prompt return and all prayers being answered are obviously not meant literally... but the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination, that's real. And I get angry when believers insist that the parts about hell and damnation and gay sex being an abomination aren't meant literally, but the parts about caring for the poor are really what God meant. How the hell do they know which parts of the Bible/ Torah/ Koran/ Bhagavad-Gita/ whatever God really meant, and which parts he didn't? And if they don't know, if they're just basing it on their own moral instincts and their own perceptions of the world, then on what basis are they thinking that God and their sacred texts have anything to do with it at all? What right do they have to act as if their opinion is the same as God's and he's totally backing them up on it? And I get angry when believers act as if these offenses aren't important, because "Not all believers act like that. I don't act like that." As if that fucking matters. This stuff is a major way that religion plays out in our world, and it makes me furious to hear religious believers try to minimize it because it's not how it happens to play out for them. It's like a white person responding to an African-American describing their experience of racism by saying, "But I'm not a racist." If you're not a racist, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and listen to the black people talk? And if you’re not bigoted against atheists and are sympathetic to us, then can you shut the hell up for ten seconds and let us tell you about what the world is like for us, without getting all defensive about how it's not your fault? When did this international conversation about atheism and religious oppression become all about you and your hurt feelings? But perhaps most of all, I get angry -- sputteringly, inarticulately, pulse-racingly angry -- when believers chide atheists for being so angry. "Why do you have to be so angry all the time?" "All that anger is so off-putting." "If atheism is so great, then why are so many of you so angry?" Which brings me to the other part of this little rant: Why atheist anger is not only valid, but valuable and necessary. ***** There's actually a simple, straightforward answer to this question: Because anger is always necessary. Because anger has driven every major movement for social change in this country, and probably in the world. The labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women's suffrage movement, the modern feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the anti-war movement in the Sixties, the anti-war movement today, you name it... all of them have had, as a major driving force, a tremendous amount of anger. Anger over injustice, anger over mistreatment and brutality, anger over helplessness. I mean, why the hell else would people bother to mobilize social movements? Social movements are hard. They take time, they take energy, they sometimes take serious risk of life and limb, community and career. Nobody would fucking bother if they weren't furious about something. So when you tell an atheist (or for that matter, a woman or a queer or a person of color or whatever) not to be so angry, you are, in essence, telling us to disempower ourselves. You're telling us to lay down one of the single most powerful tools we have at our disposal. You're telling us to lay down a tool that no social change movement has ever been able to do without. You're telling us to be polite and diplomatic, when history shows that polite diplomacy in a social change movement works far, far better when it's coupled with passionate anger. In a battle between David and Goliath, you're telling David to put down his slingshot and just... I don't know. Gnaw Goliath on the ankles or something. I'll acknowledge that anger is a difficult tool in a social movement. A dangerous one even. It can make people act rashly; it can make it harder to think clearly; it can make people treat potential allies as enemies. In the worst-case scenario, it can even lead to violence. Anger is valid, it's valuable, it's necessary... but it can also misfire, and badly. But unless we're actually endangering or harming somebody, it is not up to believers to tell atheists when we should and should not use this tool. It is not up to believers to tell atheists that we're going too far with the anger and need to calm down. Any more than it's up to white people to say it to black people, or men to say it to women, or straights to say it to queers. When it comes from believers, it's not helpful. It's patronizing. It comes across as another attempt to defang us and shut us up. And it's just going to make us angrier. And when believers tell passionate, angry atheists that extremism is never right and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle, they're making a big, big mistake. Not just because they're making us want to spit in their eye. They're making a mistake because they're simply mistaken. Read this piece from Daylight Atheism on The Golden Mean. Read the quotes from the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the American Revolution. And then come tell me that the moderate position is usually the right one. And you know what else? I think we need to have some goddamn perspective about this anger business. I mean, I look at organized Christianity in this country -- not just the religious right, but some more "moderate" churches as well -- interfering with AIDS prevention efforts, trying to get their theology into the public schools, actively trying to prevent me and Ingrid from getting legally married, and pulling all the other shit I talk about in this piece. And I look at atheists sometimes being mean-spirited and snarky in blogs and books and magazines. And I think, Can we please have some goddamn perspective? Because the other thing I'm angry about is the fact that, in this piece, I've touched on -- maybe -- a hundredth of everything that angers me about religion. This piece barely scratches the surface. I know, almost without a doubt, that within five minutes of hitting "Post" and putting this piece on my blog, I'll think of six different things that I'd wished I'd put in. I could write an entire book about everything that angers me about religion -- other people certainly have -- and still not be finished. Are you really looking at all of this shit I'm talking about, a millennia-old history of abuse and injustice, deceit and willful ignorance -- and then on the other hand, looking at a couple of years of atheists being snarky on the Internet -- and seeing the two as somehow equivalent? Or worse, seeing the snarky atheists as the greater problem? If you're doing that, then with all due respect, you can blow me. We now return you to your regularly scheduled attempts at civility. Fuente: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html#

Definición El ateísmo es la no creencia en divinidades. El término proviene del adjetivo griego "azeós" que significaba ‘sin dios’ (o sea, carente de la creencia en Dios); siendo a la partícula negativa ‘no’ o ‘sin’ y zeós: ‘dios’ (literalmente Zeus). --- DIOS NO EXISTE. Nietzsche NIETZSCHE NO EXISTE. Dios NI DIOS NI NIETZSCHE EXISTEN. Filomeno QUIEN CARAJO ES FILOMENO? Dios y Nietzsche --- jajaja lo encontre en un foro y me causo gracia... Citas a celebridades "La verdad os hará libres, la mentira creyentes." Anonima (EDIT) "La ignorancia como la religión, cuanto más lejos mejor." Anonima (EDIT) "La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde".Piotr Kropotkin «La verdad no demanda creencias. Los científicos no unen sus manos cada domingo, cantando “¡Sí, la ley de gravedad es real! Creo en mi corazón que todo lo que sube tiene que bajar. ¡Tendré fe! ¡Seré fuerte! ¡Amén!”. Si lo hicieran, pensaríamos que no están bastante seguros de ello» (Dan Barker). «Por simple sentido común no creo en Dios, en ninguno» (Charlie Chaplin). «Los dioses son cosas frágiles; pueden ser asesinados con un atisbo de ciencia o una dosis de sentido común» (Chapman Cohen). «La ignorancia genera confianza más frecuentemente que el conocimiento. Son los que saben poco, y no los que saben más, quienes afirman tan positivamente que este o aquel problema nunca será resuelto por la ciencia» (Charles Darwin). «Pero para esta época, 1836 a 1839, yo había comenzado a ver, gradualmente, que el Viejo Testamento, desde su manifiesta falsa historia del mundo, con su Torre de Babel, el arcoiris de señal, etc., etc., y desde atribuirle a Dios los sentimientos de un tirano vengativo, no era más de confiar que los libros sagrados de los hindúes o las creencias de cualquier bárbaro» (Charles Darwin). «Todos somos ateos respecto a la mayoría de dioses en los que la humanidad ha creído alguna vez. Algunos simplemente vamos un dios más allá» (Richard Dawkins). «La realidad es aquello que, cuando dejas de creer en ella, no desaparece» (Philip K. Dick). «Mi mente es incapaz de concebir una cosa como el alma. Puede ser que yo esté errado y que el hombre realmente tenga alma, pero yo simplemente no lo creo» (Thomas Edison). «Detrás de cada puerta que la ciencia logra abrir, la gente encuentra a Dios» (Albert Einstein, científico y humanista alemán). «Era, por supuesto, una mentira lo que leíste acerca de mis convicciones religiosas, una mentira que ha sido sistemáticamente repetida. No creo en un Dios personal y nunca lo he negado [este descreimiento], por el contrario, lo he expresado claramente. Si algo hay en mí que puede ser llamado religioso es entonces la admiración sin límites hacia la estructura del mundo hasta donde la ciencia nos lo ha podido revelar por el momento» (Albert Einstein). «No puedo imaginarme a un dios que premia y castiga a los objetos de su creación, cuyos propósitos han sido modelados bajo el suyo propio; un dios que no es más que el reflejo de la debilidad humana. Tampoco creo que el individuo sobreviva a la muerte de su cuerpo: esos no son más que pensamientos de miedo o egoísmo de lo más ridículo» (Albert Einstein). «¿Dios está dispuesto a prevenir la maldad pero no puede? Entonces no es omnipotente. ¿No está dispuesto a prevenir la maldad, aunque podría hacerlo? Entonces es perverso. ¿Está dispuesto a prevenirla y además puede hacerlo? Si es así, ¿por qué hay maldad en el mundo? ¿No será que no está dispuesto a prevenirla ni tampoco puede hacerlo? Entonces, ¿para qué lo llamamos Dios?» (Epicuro). «Un mito es una religión en la que ya nadie cree» (James Feibleman). «La religión es comparable con la neurosis infantil» (Sigmund Freud). «No, nuestra ciencia no es una ilusión. Pero sí sería una ilusión suponer que lo que la ciencia no puede darnos lo podemos encontrar en otro lugar» (Sigmund Freud). «Los sentimientos de “amor y temor de Dios” no tienen su origen en Dios, si no en los seres humanos. Son sentimientos de frustración dirigidos por el hombre a un ser imaginario que pretende que sea su padre...» (Freud). «La mayoría de los hombres prefiere y encuentra más fácil creer que tomarse el trabajo y la preocupación de investigar» (León de Gandarías). «El sufrimiento religioso es la expresión del sufrimiento real y al mismo tiempo la protesta contra el sufrimiento real. La religión es el suspiro de la criatura oprimida, el corazón de un mundo sin corazón y el alma de las condiciones más desalmadas. Es el opio del pueblo» (Karl Marx). «Los seres humanos pueden vivir sin dioses pero los dioses le deben la vida a los seres humanos, es decir, son una extensión imaginaria de la realidad, el resultado de una insatisfacción» (Luís García Montero). «Lo que he hecho es mostrar que es posible que la forma en que comenzó el universo esté determinada por las leyes de la ciencia. En ese caso, no sería necesario apelar a Dios para entender cómo comenzó el universo. Esto no prueba que no exista Dios, sino solamente que Dios no es necesario» (Stephen Hawking). «La teología nunca ha sido de gran ayuda. Es como buscar —a medianoche y en un sótano oscuro— a un gato negro que no está ahí» (Robert A. Heinlein). «Ya vendrá el día en que el engendramiento de Jesús por el Supremo Hacedor como su padre, en el vientre de una virgen, será clasificado junto a la fábula de la generación de Minerva en el cerebro de Júpiter» (Tomás Jefferson). «Intercambiar argumentos con una persona que ha renunciado a la lógica es como darle medicinas a un muerto» (Thomas Paine). «Los seres humanos nunca hacen el mal de manera tan completa y feliz como cuando lo hacen por una convicción religiosa» (Blaise Pascal, 1623-1662, matemático y filósofo ateo). «Cuando una persona padece de delirio, a eso se le llama locura. Cuando muchas personas padecen de delirio, a eso se le llama religión» (Robert M. Pirsig). «Yo creo que ambos somos ateos. Sólo que yo creo en un Dios menos que tú. Cuando entiendas por qué tú deshechas todos los otros posibles dioses, entonces entenderás por qué yo deshecho el tuyo» (Stephen F. Roberts). «La vida es sólo un vistazo momentáneo de las maravillas de este asombroso universo. Es triste que tantos estén malgastando su vida soñando con fantasías espirituales» (Carl Sagan). «¿Por qué no puedes convencer a un creyente de nada? Porque sus creencias no están basadas en evidencias, sino en una enraizada necesidad de creer» (Carl Sagan). «Si quieres salvar a tu hijo de la poliomielitis puedes rezar o puedes vacunarlo contra la polio... Aplica la ciencia» (Carl Sagan). «El hecho que un creyente pueda ser más feliz que un escéptico es tan cierto como decir que el borracho es más feliz que el hombre sobrio» (George Bernard Shaw). «No hemos perdido la fe: la hemos transferido de Dios a la profesión médica» (George Bernard Shaw). «Si le hablas a Dios estás rezando; si te responde tienes esquizofrenia» (Thomas Szasz). «Yo creo en Dios, sólo que lo llamo Naturaleza» (Frank Lloyd Wright, 1867-1959, arquitecto estadounidense).) Ateos reconocidos del pasado (en orden cronológico) Leucipo (450-370 a.C., filósofo atomista griego. Demócrito de Abdera (460-370 a.C., filósofo griego, discípulo de Leucipo. Epicuro (341-270 a.C., filósofo griego. Lucrecio, filósofo y poeta. Lucrecio (99-55 a.C.) poeta romano (De la naturaleza de las cosas) Omar Jayyam (c. 1050-1122), poeta, matemático y astrónomo iraní Löffler (? - 1375), de la escuela Hermanos del Espíritu Libre, que al ser quemado en Berna por la Inquisición dijo que los religiosos no tenían suficiente madera para quemar a «el azar, que mueve el mundo». Charvaka, filósofo indio fundador de una escuela de filosofía abiertamente atea y empírica (que tuvo seguidores por lo menos hasta 1578). Christopher Marlowe (1563–1593) dramaturgo británico contemporáneo de Shakespeare Denis Diderot (1713-1784), escritor y enciclopedista francés. Paul Henri d’Holbach (1725-1789), filósofo y enciclopedista alemán. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), filósofo alemán. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856), filósofo alemán. Auguste Comte (1798-1857), filósofo francés, fundador del positivismo Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), filósofo alemán («la religión sólo se justifica si satisface una necesidad psicológica») Mijaíl Bakunin (1814-1876), revolucionario y anarquista ruso. Iván Turguéniev (1818-1883) novelista y poeta ruso. Karl Marx (1818-1863), filósofo alemán creador del socialismo científico. Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), filósofo alemán, compañero de Marx. Charles Bradlaugh (1833–1891) político librepensador británico (fue elegido varias veces parlamentario pero no se le permitía ocupar su sitio debido a su ateísmo). Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens, 1835-1910), escritor y humorista estadounidense. Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), filósofo y biólogo que popularizó en el darwinismo en Alemania. Ernst Mach (1838-1916), físico y filósofo checo-austriaco. Thomas Hardy (1840-1928), novelista y poeta naturalista británico (Lejos del mundanal ruido) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), filósofo, poeta y filólogo alemán. John Dewey (1859-1952), filósofo, psicólogo y educador progresista estadounidense. Joaquín Dicenta (1863-1917), dramaturgo español. Douglas Adams, filósofo. Richard Dawkins, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), creador del psicoanálisis. Lenin (1870-1924), político ruso. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), filósofo, matemático y escritor británico, Premio Nobel de Literatura (1950) Pío Baroja (1872-1956), escritor y novelista español. Upton Sinclair (1878-1968) novelista y crítico social estadounidense (La jungla) Rudolph Carnap (1891-1970) filósofo alemán exponente del positivismo lógico, según el cual las preguntas religiosas («¿Existe Dios?») no tienen sentido, como «¿De qué color es el sábado?». Mao Zedong (1893-1976), revolucionario chino. Serguéi Eisenstein (1898-1948), cineasta y director de teatro soviético Luis Buñuel (1900-1983), cineasta español. Paul Dirac (1902-1984), físico teórico británico, premio Nobel (investigador del positrón y de la teoría cuántica) Karl Popper (1902-1994), filósofo de la ciencia austro-británico (teoría del método científico y crítica al determinismo histórico) Ayn Rand(1905-1982)Filósofa y novelista ruso-norteamericana. Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), filósofo, dramaturgo, novelista y periodista político existencialista francés. Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1989), filósofo británico exponente del positivismo lógico, opuesto al existencialismo (Lenguaje, verdad y lógica, 1936). Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) escritor estadounidense de ciencia ficción Antony Flew, filósofo británico (The Presumption of Atheism, 1984) John Mackie, filósofo australiano (El milagro del teísmo: argumentos a favor y en contra de la existencia de Dios, Oxford, 1982) Michael Martin, filósofo estadounidense (La imposibilidad de Dios, 2003) Ateos destacados en la actualidad (en orden alfabético) Woody Allen, cineasta y actor estadounidense Peter William Atkins David Attenborough Clive Barker Ingmar Bergman Björk, cantante y música islandesa Marlon Brando, actor estadounidense John Carpenter, cineasta estadounidense Fidel Castro, presidente de Cuba Noam Chomsky, lingüista y crítico político estadounidense Chumbawamba David Cronenberg David Cross Alan Cumming Brian Eno, músico Harvey Fierstein, activista gay estadounidense Jodie Foster, actriz estadounidense Janeane Garofalo Bill Gates, creador del sistema operativo Windows Bob Geldof, músico de rock Katharine Hepburn, actriz estadounidense Billy Joel, cantautor estadounidense Angelina Jolie, actriz estadounidense Diane Keaton, actriz estadounidense Michael Kinsley, médico e investigador estadounidense Milan Kundera, escritor Bruce Lee, karateca y actor nacionalizado estadounidense Stanislaw Lem, escritor polaco de ciencia ficción H. P. Lovecraft, escritor estadounidense John Malkovich, actor estadounidense Barry Manilow, músico y cantante Todd McFarlane Sir Ian McKellen, actor británico (Gandalf en El Señor de los anillos) Arthur Miller, dramaturgo y novelista estadounidense Frank Miller (Sin City) Julianne Moore, actriz estadounidense Desmond Morris filósofo conductista estadounidense (códigos de señas entre personas y el aparente origen animal de la conducta humana). Randy Newman, músico de películas estadounidense Jack Nicholson, actor estadounidense Camille Paglia Terry Pratchett, novelista británico (Mundodisco y La Bromelíada) Ron Reagan Jr. conductor de programas de televisión estadounidense Keanu Reeves, actor estadounidense Gene Roddenberry, autor de Star Trek Salman Rushdie (Mumbai, 1947- ), novelista musulmán británico de origen indio Captain Sensible Steven Soderbergh cineasta (Sexo, mentiras y vídeo, 1989) George Soros Linus Torvalds creador del sistema operativo Linux Paul Verhoeven cineasta (Instinto básico, 1992) Gore Vidal (1925- ), novelista y ensayista estadounidense Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (1922- ), novelista estadounidense Andy Warhol (c. 1928-1987), pintor y cineasta estadounidense, líder del movimiento Pop Art Religión y ciencia (EDIT) para los que aún no tienen en claro los conflictos ciencia-religión yo siempre recomiendo no embrollarse y sencillamente leer el diccionario. ciencia. (Del lat. scientĭa). 1. f. Conjunto de conocimientos obtenidos mediante la observación y el razonamiento, sistemáticamente estructurados y de los que se deducen principios y leyes generales. fe. (Del lat. fides). 5. f. Creencia que se da a algo por la autoridad de quien lo dice o por la fama pública. soy yo o eso suena ciertamente contradictorio ? Fuentes: es.Wikipedia.org - es.Wikiquote.org - www.rae.es

Robert "Crotale" Kihlberg reaches 6GHz at DreamHack Our very own overclocking guru Robert "Crotale" Kilhberg has as usual spent a lot of his time at DreamHack in NordicHardware's booth doing some extreme overclocking attempts. Last summer it was a Celeron 2.53 which was overclocked to 5.2GHz with dry ice. This year the goal was 6GHz with a Pentium 4 660 (3.6 GHz) and to reach this magical number we used a cascade compressor system, which you could take a peak at in our booth, when and where it lowered the temperature to about -100 degrees Celsius on the processor. Unfortunately not everything went as planned at DreamHack Winter 2005 and the motherboard Crotale had prepared for the overclocking tests gave up way too early. Thanks to some quick assistance by ABIT, which lent us the board they had in their demo computer (ABIT AW8-Max) Robert could start again and after many attempts he finally managed to go past 6GHz. The final result was 6009MHz and after all the commotion it is a pretty nice result. If there was anyone who was even happier than Robert it might have been Peter Billing who had the best guess and could go home with a water cooling kit by Corsair. Below you can see some nice pictures from the overclocking attempts. Video [20.6MB .mov] Fuente: http://www.nordichardware.com/news,2518.html

intenten agarrarle la mano... al principio es confuso pero es una masa y podes sumar, restar y multiplicar (al menos eso es lo que yo logré aprender a hacer... se podrá dividir ? Fuente para verlo en grande: Un poco de historia.... (Wikipedia) El Curta era una calculadora mecánica introducida en 1948. Era pequeña, y tenía una manivela para ser operada. Tenía un diseño brillantemente compacto, un pequeño cilindro que cabía en la palma de la mano. Podía ser usada para realizar operaciones de adición, sustracción, multiplicación, división, y con más dificultad, raíces cuadradas y otras operaciones. El diseño de Curta fue una variante del aritmómetro de Gottfried Leibniz, acumulando valores en ruedas dentadas, que eran sumados o complementados por un mecanismo de tambor de paso (Stepped Reckoner). El inventor [editar] El Curta fue inventado por Curt Herzstark mientras era un prisionero en el campo de concentración de Buchenwald. Herzstark sobrevivió al campo, y terminó y perfeccionó el diseño después del final de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Las calculadoras fueron hechas por Contina AG Mauren en Liechtenstein, y fueron ampliamente consideradas las mejores calculadoras portables disponibles, hasta que fueron desplazadas por las calculadoras electrónicas en los años 1970. Los números eran introducidos usando deslizadores en el lado del dispositivo (un deslizador por dígito). El contador de revolución y el contador de resultado estaban en la tapa. Una sola vuelta de la manivela agregaría el número de la entrada al contador de resultado, en cualquier posición, y en consecuencia, incrementa el contador de revolución. Tirar de la manivela levemente hacia fuera antes de darle vuelta realizaría una sustracción en vez de una adición. La multiplicación, la división, y otras funciones requirieron una serie de operaciones de la manivela. La calculadora Curta era conocida cariñosamente como la "moledora de pimienta" debido a su forma física y manera de operar. Ella literalmente "molía" las respuestas. Había dos calculadoras Curta. El Curta Tipo I tenía deslizadores para representar 8 dígitos, un contador de revolución de 6 dígitos, y un contador del resultado de 11 dígitos. El Curta Tipo II, más grande, introducido en 1954, tenía deslizadores para representar 11 dígitos, un contador de revolución de 8 dígitos, y un contador de resultado de 15 dígitos. Fueron hechas (se estima) 140.000 calculadoras Curta (80.000 Tipo I y 60.000 del Tipo II). El último Curta fue producido en noviembre de 1970. El Curta era popular entre los competidores de los rallies de automóviles deportivos durante los años 1960, años 1970 y en los años 1980. Incluso después de la introducción de la calculadora electrónica para otros propósitos, las Curtas fueron usadas en rallies de tiempo-velocidad-distancia (TSD) para la ayuda en el cómputo de tiempos a los puntos de comprobación, distancias fuera de curso, etc. Los competidores que usaban esas calculadoras eran llamados frecuentemente "Curta-crankers" por los que estaban limitados a papel y lápiz, o los que usaban computadoras ligadas a las ruedas del automóvil. El Curta es una figura en la novela Reconocimiento de Patrón (Pattern Recognition) de William Gibson, donde uno de los personajes de menor importancia tiene un interés en ellos. Página dedicada a las curtas: http://www.vcalc.net/cu.htm

Left: All the water in the world (1.4087 billion cubic kilometres of it) including sea water, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, clouds, etc. Right: All the air in the atmosphere (5140 trillion tonnes of it) gathered into a ball at sea-level density. Shown on the same scale as the Earth. Se los traduzco... Izquierda: Toda el agua del planeta (1408.7 millones de km cúbicos) incluyendo los mares, hielos, lagos, rios, napas, nubes, etc. Derecha: Todo el aire de la atmósfera (5140 billones de toneladas) condensadas en una bola a densidad de nivel del mar. Representado en la misma escala que el planeta. Fuente: http://blog.phiffer.org/post/27344630 Dan Phiffer (http://phiffer.org/)