Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 0) 416

by fredprado (#48603617) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
Oh, a hell lot of those students didn't fuck the professor in question to learn (about all of them) and nobody would need to do that, my dear, even if the professor in question had asked for it in the cases reported, which he, in all likelihood did not.

If anybody wants to give a blowjob in payment for a doctor's and the doctor accepts she should be able to it without prejudice. It is a consensual relation and it is not your business, the government's or anybody else but of those who agreed to do it.

You are a fanatical book burner. A thing that should be shunned on sight by anyone with a brain. We should deport people like you to Islam. That is the place where you belong, my dear. Go back to your hole.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 0) 416

by fredprado (#48600151) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
Oh, I am not upset at all. I am far beyond the level at which such material would help me. The people that should be upset are all the students that will be deprived of knowledge because people like you like to burn books because their authors offended your sensibilities.

But by all means, keep being an hypocrite. It suits you.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by fredprado (#48591405) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
Sorry, but that is not power. He has no way of making her fail or succeed. He can help her, but so can a lot of other people. He is in no position of power as legally defined, and the law defines it this way because it is waaaay more sensible than people like you. ;)

Regarding making oneself a fool, in your case you don't even need to take action to accomplish this. You are a fool and a whiny one.

Comment: Re: Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by fredprado (#48586851) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
Ethics is a group concept. The global ethics to which he is subjected in this case is the law. We, as a society draw the line where the law does. Whatever else you find ethical or not is your problem not his.

Adult people are responsible for themselves and fully able to do whatever they think it is better for them, even if it is selling the use of their bodies for benefits. If a person is emotionally dependent on you it is her problem to deal with, People do not have a right to think that they are entitled to force their problems and insecurities over others and that they aren't responsible for their own lives or their own bad choices.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 0) 416

by fredprado (#48583199) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
First what exactly did he do? You don't know, and nobody knows.

I do believe, though, that as long as people stay within the law their private lives are not in any way the business of any institution or person but themselves.

Regarding of it being "unethical". Even in my extreme example, which is most certainly not what happened in this case, there is no ethical violation, because there is no code of ethics by which the person in question is bound, retired as he is. Trying to say the opposite is trying to impose your own code of ethics over other people, which is tyrannical, to say the least.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 0) 416

by fredprado (#48581845) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
It is not harassment because the law says it is not, because the word "harassment" implies that you are actively pursuing someone, not proposing anything when consulted among at least a dozen other motives, none of which has anything to do with my personal opinion about the matter.

Comment: Re:Just wondering... (Score 1) 416

by fredprado (#48578921) Attached to: MIT Removes Online Physics Lectures and Courses By Walter Lewin
He does not work in the University anymore. He is retired. If some girl looks for my help in something I did in the past and I tell this girl that I will help in exchange for sex, she can say no and that is it. I will not be "harassing her" in any sensible way of defining the term. Let's stop being hysterical, please.

Comment: Re:It's now assured destruction. (Score 1) 342

by fredprado (#47971669) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal
In this case it should be and most likely will be treated with other means than a massive second strike, because there isn't even a target for it. This threat must be dealt in different ways. The second strike capabilities are the deterrence against nuclear powers, not against sole bombs that terrorist groups may be able to procure somehow, and the need for this deterrence will keep existing regardless of the presence or absence of terrorists.

Comment: MAD is still the best alternative (Score 0) 342

by fredprado (#47971647) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal
Yes, mutually assured destruction has its shortcomings and limitations, but it is still the only possible way to prevent nuclear wars in a world where this technology has been developed. Any other idea of equilibrium based on good will and niceness is even more far fetched and delusional than the idea of a permanent MAD equilibrium.

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Working...