Exactly. When you're rich enough, you start to want to whitewash all the evil you did to get that rich using all that money you have from being, well, evil. I'm not sure why they try though, it doesn't work... it's not like people have forgotten how evil Rockefeller was. No one is going to erase from history the damage that the windows monopoly did to the computing industry, or the lives that that ruined or ended.
The thing that is stopping Greece is not the EU, but rather how much worse things would be if the EU didn't bail them out, and the knowledge that without stopping themselves, they wouldn't get bailed out. Rather than ask who will stop us, ask who will bail us out.
Yeah, in truth the part that needs to be fixed is that 1% earning 22% of the money. That is utterly crazy, and taxes is the only way we've found to stamp on that behavior so far, but it clearly doesn't go far enough.
You're not adjusting for inflation and compounding over 20 years, nor the investment deduction (the government can make at least 5% apr over 20 years making home loans if nothing else).
So now they need to pay more like $40,000 over twenty years to make this pay off, so they need an increase of at least $8000/year in earnings.
Note that's something they teach in the public schools, for the peons. If you go to private schools for the rich, they teach you from a whole different book of parables.
There isn't really a big problem with multiple physical runs. Some communities do it, and when it happens, it seems to work out really, really well for them.
The US is currently on schedule to default on its debt for the first time in 2026. I would be pretty confident about the cycle of stupidity ending at that point, because we'll be in Greece's situation, and their government has successfully been forced to stop their cycle of stupidity.
I assume that whole thing was a joke, but you do know its only ex post facto legislation if the legislation is created after the failure, right? The government is capable of writing legislation with performance penalties.
It would work exactly like this: No government agency (city, county, state) is allowed to enter into any exclusivity agreement for provenance of communications systems.
Even better, but unrealistic, all existing exclusivity arrangements could be broken.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Right, either permission or citation (or both, obviously) negate plagiarism.
Reread the definition I cited. Here are the key words:
(1) : to steal It's not stealing if you have permission.
(2) to commit literary theft Again, no theft with permission.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely true. It's just that the violation in question is typically of the 'submit only your own work' ethics code, and not an instance of the very specific issue 'plagiarism'.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure that's in complete agreement with what I wrote.
The conventional difference is between morals, and systems of ethics, since ethics are allowed to mean morals in the most general sense. A system of ethics is typically codified. A doctor, or lawyer, or in this case a student subscribes to a particular ethical code, and there are even specific legal consequences if they fail to do so (for the doctor or lawyer, and there are institutional consequences for the student).
In this specific case, the students are undoubtedly violating a student ethics code (as nearly every college and university in the world has one which would forbid turning in the work of another as your own, and requires you to sign it when you join).
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely nothing moral involved. It's an ethical violation only (because nearly every school has a signed code of ethics prohibiting this). Could be moral if you believe that violation of a signed agreement is immoral, I suppose.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 1
That's a different scenario from the actual offered service, and clearly, the staff of this enterprise might be guilty of plagiarism, but to claim that your contribution amounts to the same is stretching the definition severely.
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly why it's such a popular job. :-)
It does if you label 'please sit at home' as a job.
Exactly. When you're rich enough, you start to want to whitewash all the evil you did to get that rich using all that money you have from being, well, evil. I'm not sure why they try though, it doesn't work ... it's not like people have forgotten how evil Rockefeller was. No one is going to erase from history the damage that the windows monopoly did to the computing industry, or the lives that that ruined or ended.
I don't think we went to war over the bali incident, and they don't bomb your skyscrapers as much when you stop killing their families for oil.
Thanks for the clarification, your 'beg to differ' followed immediately by agreement on the ethical part threw me off.
You typo-ed ethical where you meant moral, apparently, hence my confusion. I agree that most religious people would probably have moral issues there.
The thing that is stopping Greece is not the EU, but rather how much worse things would be if the EU didn't bail them out, and the knowledge that without stopping themselves, they wouldn't get bailed out. Rather than ask who will stop us, ask who will bail us out.
Yeah, in truth the part that needs to be fixed is that 1% earning 22% of the money. That is utterly crazy, and taxes is the only way we've found to stamp on that behavior so far, but it clearly doesn't go far enough.
You're not adjusting for inflation and compounding over 20 years, nor the investment deduction (the government can make at least 5% apr over 20 years making home loans if nothing else).
So now they need to pay more like $40,000 over twenty years to make this pay off, so they need an increase of at least $8000/year in earnings.
Doubtful.
Note that's something they teach in the public schools, for the peons. If you go to private schools for the rich, they teach you from a whole different book of parables.
I'm finding your argument a bit confusing myself:
Buffet unlimited -> eat all you want with a fork and spoon, we will not stop you no matter how much that is.
Internet unlimited -> download all you want with a computer, we will not stop you no matter how much that is.
Congress might be able to argue that any such contract with an operator doing business in multiple states is void. But I'm sure it would go to court.
Congress definitely has the power to hand out those funds only to states with such a law in place.
But in any case, its all a moot argument, nothing is ever going to get better in this area.
There isn't really a big problem with multiple physical runs. Some communities do it, and when it happens, it seems to work out really, really well for them.
The US is currently on schedule to default on its debt for the first time in 2026. I would be pretty confident about the cycle of stupidity ending at that point, because we'll be in Greece's situation, and their government has successfully been forced to stop their cycle of stupidity.
I assume that whole thing was a joke, but you do know its only ex post facto legislation if the legislation is created after the failure, right? The government is capable of writing legislation with performance penalties.
It would work exactly like this:
No government agency (city, county, state) is allowed to enter into any exclusivity agreement for provenance of communications systems.
Even better, but unrealistic, all existing exclusivity arrangements could be broken.
Right, either permission or citation (or both, obviously) negate plagiarism.
Reread the definition I cited. Here are the key words:
(1) : to steal
It's not stealing if you have permission.
(2) to commit literary theft
Again, no theft with permission.
Absolutely true. It's just that the violation in question is typically of the 'submit only your own work' ethics code, and not an instance of the very specific issue 'plagiarism'.
I'm pretty sure that's in complete agreement with what I wrote.
Are you crazy? That guy dresses like a doofus. He looks like Steve Jobs half the time.
I don't care how many copies he had, if you took one from him without permission it was stealing.
Sorry, I thought the practical / real world aspect was made clear by the codification.
The conventional difference is between morals, and systems of ethics, since ethics are allowed to mean morals in the most general sense. A system of ethics is typically codified. A doctor, or lawyer, or in this case a student subscribes to a particular ethical code, and there are even specific legal consequences if they fail to do so (for the doctor or lawyer, and there are institutional consequences for the student).
In this specific case, the students are undoubtedly violating a student ethics code (as nearly every college and university in the world has one which would forbid turning in the work of another as your own, and requires you to sign it when you join).
Absolutely nothing moral involved. It's an ethical violation only (because nearly every school has a signed code of ethics prohibiting this).
Could be moral if you believe that violation of a signed agreement is immoral, I suppose.
That's a different scenario from the actual offered service, and clearly, the staff of this enterprise might be guilty of plagiarism, but to claim that your contribution amounts to the same is stretching the definition severely.