This link is inaccurate. Regarding the Minsky/Epstein thing, the facts are:
Minksy was friends with Epstein, and visited his island in 2002, organizing a conference there. Epstein funded some of Minsky's research to the tune of $100k.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex of
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
2011 > 2008. That's why he should have thought otherwise.
The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise
The "incident" in question where the "thinking otherwise" was suggested to Minsky didn't happen in 2011. If anything happened there (for which there's not even any evidence), it still happened way before Epstein's conviction. "Thinking otherwise" based on future events is physically impossible.
PL/I -- "the fatal disease" -- belongs more to the problem set than to the
solution set.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra, SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 17, Number 5
EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:5, Insightful)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
"serious accusations of misconduct"
Accusations are not enough, especially when most of them are transparently false.
for anyone looking for the facts - rather than the slander - this was covered only yesterday:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
This link is inaccurate. Regarding the Minsky/Epstein thing, the facts are:
Minksy was friends with Epstein, and visited his island in 2002, organizing a conference there. Epstein funded some of Minsky's research to the tune of $100k.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex of
Re: (Score:1)
In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise, given Epstein's conviction for child prostitution.
Minsky had reason to think in 2002-2003 otherwise because Epstein would be convicted in 2008? How exactly does that work?
Re:EFF Puts its finger on it (Score:3)
You stopped reading 1/2 way down.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of prostituting a child and spent time in jail for it. He was also banned from donating to MIT. Minsky must have been aware of this.
In 2011 Minksy organized another conference on Epstein's island. He did not distance himself from a registered sex offender who had admitted prostituting children.
2011 > 2008. That's why he should have thought otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
The most controversial is that *if* Minsky had sex with an underage girl, RMS said that she would have presented herself as willing and Minsky would have had no reason to think otherwise. In fact Minksy would have every reason to think otherwise
The "incident" in question where the "thinking otherwise" was suggested to Minsky didn't happen in 2011. If anything happened there (for which there's not even any evidence), it still happened way before Epstein's conviction. "Thinking otherwise" based on future events is physically impossible.