Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 23 2017, @10:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the IRL-there-is-no-respawn dept.

A man in Russia has been convicted of murder and sentenced to nine and a half years in prison for repeatedly stabbing his friend to death after a heated argument over AMD and Nvidia graphics card coolers.

[...] two Russian friends started arguing over which Graphics processor is better, nVida[sic] or AMD, and one of them ended up being killed in the most gruesome manner.

Aleksander Trofimov, 37, hacked his friend to death [in Russian] with a knife, after hitting him twice in the head. His friend, Evgeny Lylin, died instantly as a result. The murderer was so offended at the victim, he stabbed his dead body 11 times after a while.

The incident took place in the quite[sic] town of Saransk, Russia. The friends used to work together as colleagues a few years ago, and kept in touch ever since. Aleksander invited his friend for a few drinks, and both of them got drunk.

This led to the discussion about which cooler of a GPU is better [sic], nVidia or AMD. The discussion soon took a turn for the worst and Aleksander ended up murdering his friend for claiming that AMD was better.

Although the incident took place over an[sic] year ago, Aleksander got convicted and sentenced only recently. He was handed a nine and a half year prison sentence for the crime.

Additional coverage, in Russian, at http://by24.org/2017/02/17/russian_programmer_killed_and_burned_collegue_because_of_nvidia_features/.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:10PM (#470890)

    It's non-obscure English. I assume most native English readers would be able to parse it without too much trouble...

    for repeatedly stabbing his friend to death

    Read this as "for (repeatedly stabbing) his friend to death," not "for repeatedly (stabbing his friend to death." In other words, the person was stabbed repeatedly, and died as a result. It's like the redundant-sounding (but not really redundant)"shot to death." Just because you are shot doesn't mean you necessarily die, and just because you are stabbed repeatedly doesn't mean you necessarily die.

    hacked his friend to death [in Russian] with a knife, after hitting him twice in the head. His friend, Evgeny Lylin, died instantly as a result.

    He died from being "hacked to death," so it was specifically the hacking which killed him. The being hit on the head twice couldn't have helped, and they may have been lethal injuries on their own, but the proximate cause of death was the hacking.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:12PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday February 23 2017, @09:12PM (#470893)

    The point still stands that you can't really die "instantly" from a drawn-out assault.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @11:56PM (#470964)

      The point still stands that you can't really die "instantly" from a drawn-out assault.

      Oh[sic], I[sic] dunno[sic] 'bout[sic] dat[sic]... I definitely feel the sting of a thousand tiny cuts when I'm made to suffer an "editor's" misunderstanding of how, when, and where to use the technical editorial scalpel that is [sic].

      The moment I finally die from all these drawn-out a-salts[sic]-in-my-literacy-wounds will seem pretty damn instantaneous to me. It's kind of like "death by bees". Although each sting stung... I'll still be quite surprised when it inescapably kills me.

      An editor would edit the submission and avoid it. An "editor" would get all pissy, brand his critics with a ridiculous nazi epithet and never ever reach for the local copy of Strunk & White.

      I do, however feel the pain of present-day competent editors who must deal with the following:

      The President said, "(**)[sic]"

      They must be pretty sick of [sic] by now.

      **insert some unbelievably incoherent gibberish here
      • (Score: 2) by martyb on Friday February 24 2017, @04:29AM

        by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 24 2017, @04:29AM (#471011) Journal

        In the days of setting type by hand, it was not uncommon for errors to be introduced when attempting to quote another source verbatim. There were cases, though, when the quoted source contained errors of its own. In those cases, one used [sic] to denote that the mistake appeared in the original and has been faithfully copied here, EXACTLY as it originally appeared.

        In other words, don't blame us! (We did our job properly!) Blame the source, Luke!

        Don't just take my word for it, though... here is what Wikipedia has to say about sic [wikipedia.org]:

        The Latin adverb sic ("thus"; "just as"; in full: sic erat scriptum, "thus was it written")[1] inserted after a quoted word or passage, indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription.

        The usual usage is to inform the reader that any errors or apparent errors in quoted material do not arise from errors in the course of the transcription, but are intentionally reproduced, exactly as they appear in the source text. It is generally placed inside brackets to indicate that it is not part of the quoted matter.

        --
        Wit is intellect, dancing.