The academic definition of plagiarism has been expanded to include "unintentional" plagiarism for the sake of the institution, but it's a perversion.
There are two kinds of unintentional plagiarists, those that have read "their idea" somewhere else, and those that haven't. Strictly defined, unintentional plagiarism describes those instances where you read some material and used the words or ideas in your paper without citation, but inadvertently. However, you can get accused of plagiarism even for independent generation of those very words or ideas if you're unfortunate enough to have generated an idea that isn't unique enough. That's not plagiarism--you simply can't copy what you never saw in the first place.
However, because the aim of the project at the graduate level is usually produce independent scholarship, the unintentional plagiarism doctrine serves the function of the institution. It enforces the level of research required to ensure you've exposed yourself to every idea you might have hoped you had independently generated.
In a scholarly context, it's not an persuasive defense to an accusation of plagiarism to say you never read the original material, even when it's true! You're just admitting to sloppy research, a crime arguably worthy of the same punishment as those who did the research but didn't cite properly. That's the real sting of unintentional plagiarism--the presumption that you've read all the relevant material. Even if you can prove the negative to establish your defense, you're damning your abilities as a scholar.
In order to avoid being labeled plagiarists, some law students as they write articles for law review come up with their ideas first, find the source that idea is most likely to have been plagiarised from, and cite to it. Problem solved. Combining unoriginal ideas in a novel fashion is sufficiently original to satisfy the beast of legal academia.
It took Sony to to pump $150 million into 20th century vibration technology to make it a next generation technology. Through the power of this licensed technology, every vibration you'll feel while playing the PS3 will literally come from the future.
I don't see Adobe or Intuit or anyone else in a great big hurry to release a new version of their software just because Microsoft has started selling Vista. Why should Apple be held to a different standard (i.e. that software released to work with one OS is expected work with the new OS the moment it hits the street)?
The system requirements pages for Adobe Premiere and Intuit's Quicken Deluxe don't mention Vista. If either application doesn't work quite right under Vista, dag gummit, it must be a plot to RUIN MICROSOFT!... and not just the ordinary course of development for supporting new OS releases.
I hear you. I used to have a Visorphone, and taking out the old AAAs was sometimes the only cure. Resynching to get all my software back was a treat!
There needs to be a way to hard reset the iPhone, I think, regardless of whether Apple is the only software provider. I've had to reset my iPod more than once, and it has nothing but stock software.
The iPod has a soft-reset that works most of the time, but there is further hope for the iPhone. It has a few hardware buttons that the iPod does not.
Most of the criticisms of the iPhone sound petty and idiosyncratic to me. No user-replacable battery! I don't know the last time I removed the battery to my cellphone. Locked to Cingular! Well, I already use Cingular, so a 2-year contract is not an obstacle at all to me, and I realize that every cell phone company sucks in one way or another so it makes no difference to me to whom I send my check every month. These are all highly specific needs that only really matter to a few people that value a certain aspect of their phone that to other people is completely insignificant.
But the third-party development issue transcends the idiosyncratic. Development for the iPhone will create an ecosystem of possible uses and fill a variety of mobile phone needs. Apple can choose to have a robust ecosystem that provides the most diverse user experience possible, or an anemic ecosystem. Opening development, in the end, is the easiest way for Apple to allow the iPhone to meet the most needs for the most people. As a result... they would sell more phones. Without a permissive development ecosystem, the iPhone is not so much a smartphone as a cleverphone.
The article makes a mistake comparing open iPhone development to the chaos of Linux development. Linux development is chaotic because fundamental Linux structures and APIs themselves exist in an open development ecosystem. This would plainly not be the case for the iPhone, which has one maufacturer and one set of APIs. The author suggests the iPhone would suffer from unclear commercial incentives and support issues? It's just an inapt analogy, when the analogy to smartphone (Palm, Symbian) market is obviously better: developers make money and user support just isn't a big deal. This is not good argument against wide open development.
As others have pointed out, though, it remains to be seen what development ecosystem Apple will permit.
The more it costs to develop for the iPhone, the more expensive that $500/$600 price tag is going to become, at least for people replacing a smartphone.
Anyone think they aren't going to be pissed when the realization sinks in they are stuck with it until June 2009 as new higher spec units roll out every six months?
Yeah. That's why I'm waiting to get a cell phone until they stop releasing new ones. I also refuse to get a mortgage until everyone's done building new houses and don't even get me started on cars.
A hold is an implied promise to filibuster. So when a senator places a hold on the bill, the senate generally agrees to move on rather than force the issue of an ugly, inconvenient showdown. They're then traded, logrolled, and used as bargaining chips in the legislative process.
To answer your question, it doesn't happen constantly because if it did the hold system wouldn't be an effective means of negotiations. The senate would constantly be in filibuster (if the people issuing holds follow through on their threats) and voting for cloture (to end the debate). It works because in general the senate at least wants to appear to get things done--and perhaps actually wants to get things done--and not waste a bunch of time on filibusters and attempted filibusters.
or at least thirty really, really new movies and then shelves of drek.
What's worse, Blockbuster seems to have the new movies and two genres for old releases: Action and comedy. And half of their floor space is now devoted to selling movies, rather than to movies available for rental.
I've been pounding my palm into my temple, trying to force myself to imagine why in the world Rockstar Games created and published a table tennis simulator.
It makes perfect sense to me now--it's so obvious! It's just a proof-of-concept of their new GTA engine.
They didn't make table tennis and think to themselves: "hey, it turns out we've got a great new foundation for our 3d sandbox franchise!" It's been the other way around the whole time. "we need a great new foundation for our 3d sandbox franchise... but let's do something small and simple first to get all the kinks out."
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a ping-pong minigame in the next GTA.
Well, this is where some of my complaint comes from. My fiancee would play with me, but she doesn't want to simulate chick fights, driving, or sports (or play an FPS, I should add). The current library is 100% testosterone-fueled. Okay, except Geometry wars.
If there were better legacy support, the odds would be much improved that there's a game out there we can both enjoy. For instance, I'm excited that the upcoming update will let us play Lego Star Wars.
I hope they're working on some universal code that will support a bunch of games with one release. This nickel-dime approach will have them finished with the library in about 2037.
Meantime, tons of popular XBox games (Platinum Hits) aren't supported on the 360. As far as native games go, if I don't want to have a chick fight, drive, or play a sport, I don't have much reason to turn on my 360 at all.
Either one would please me: extensive backwards compatibility or a worthwhile native library. Right now the 360 offers neither. I just hope one or the other happens before I get bored with Burnout.
A contract isn't a persuasive form of communication. If the results of the study say that caffeine makes a person more susceptible to persuasion, presenting a caffeinated person with a non-persuasive document could not disprove that conclusion.
Now, what about the sales pitch leading up to the presentation of the contract...
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, so I can't really respond to you. The only major battle I know of in the Senate is over appelate court nominations, and I haven't read anything yet about changes to how nominations are handled.
Under Bush, NASA will be an arm of the military and the Mars money will go toward developing star wars technologies. Anybody expecting high-minded science to come out of this development will be sorely disappointed. The administration is anti-empiricist, and all appointments and decisions are in that vein.
Tucker Carlson's ego was the true guest of that episode of Crossfire, and it got shot down.
He's jealous that Stewart got to interview Kerry on his fake news show, and utterly devestated that Stewart would state that Carlson's not a true journalist. All in front of a live, studio audience.
Slashdot Mirror
The academic definition of plagiarism has been expanded to include "unintentional" plagiarism for the sake of the institution, but it's a perversion.
There are two kinds of unintentional plagiarists, those that have read "their idea" somewhere else, and those that haven't. Strictly defined, unintentional plagiarism describes those instances where you read some material and used the words or ideas in your paper without citation, but inadvertently. However, you can get accused of plagiarism even for independent generation of those very words or ideas if you're unfortunate enough to have generated an idea that isn't unique enough. That's not plagiarism--you simply can't copy what you never saw in the first place.
However, because the aim of the project at the graduate level is usually produce independent scholarship, the unintentional plagiarism doctrine serves the function of the institution. It enforces the level of research required to ensure you've exposed yourself to every idea you might have hoped you had independently generated.
In a scholarly context, it's not an persuasive defense to an accusation of plagiarism to say you never read the original material, even when it's true! You're just admitting to sloppy research, a crime arguably worthy of the same punishment as those who did the research but didn't cite properly. That's the real sting of unintentional plagiarism--the presumption that you've read all the relevant material. Even if you can prove the negative to establish your defense, you're damning your abilities as a scholar.
In order to avoid being labeled plagiarists, some law students as they write articles for law review come up with their ideas first, find the source that idea is most likely to have been plagiarised from, and cite to it. Problem solved. Combining unoriginal ideas in a novel fashion is sufficiently original to satisfy the beast of legal academia.
You've been spending too much time pulling up cinemas.
Dear Consumer,
Thank you for noticing our ad in your video game. We appreciate the glowing praise, as we pride ourselves on our outstanding advertising program.
In answer to your question "what's [it doing] there:" Thank you for noticing our ad in your video game.
Sincerely,
Axe Marketing
It took Sony to to pump $150 million into 20th century vibration technology to make it a next generation technology. Through the power of this licensed technology, every vibration you'll feel while playing the PS3 will literally come from the future.
The system requirements pages for Adobe Premiere and Intuit's Quicken Deluxe don't mention Vista. If either application doesn't work quite right under Vista, dag gummit, it must be a plot to RUIN MICROSOFT!... and not just the ordinary course of development for supporting new OS releases.
I hear you. I used to have a Visorphone, and taking out the old AAAs was sometimes the only cure. Resynching to get all my software back was a treat!
There needs to be a way to hard reset the iPhone, I think, regardless of whether Apple is the only software provider. I've had to reset my iPod more than once, and it has nothing but stock software.
The iPod has a soft-reset that works most of the time, but there is further hope for the iPhone. It has a few hardware buttons that the iPod does not.
Most of the criticisms of the iPhone sound petty and idiosyncratic to me. No user-replacable battery! I don't know the last time I removed the battery to my cellphone. Locked to Cingular! Well, I already use Cingular, so a 2-year contract is not an obstacle at all to me, and I realize that every cell phone company sucks in one way or another so it makes no difference to me to whom I send my check every month. These are all highly specific needs that only really matter to a few people that value a certain aspect of their phone that to other people is completely insignificant.
But the third-party development issue transcends the idiosyncratic. Development for the iPhone will create an ecosystem of possible uses and fill a variety of mobile phone needs. Apple can choose to have a robust ecosystem that provides the most diverse user experience possible, or an anemic ecosystem. Opening development, in the end, is the easiest way for Apple to allow the iPhone to meet the most needs for the most people. As a result... they would sell more phones. Without a permissive development ecosystem, the iPhone is not so much a smartphone as a cleverphone.
The article makes a mistake comparing open iPhone development to the chaos of Linux development. Linux development is chaotic because fundamental Linux structures and APIs themselves exist in an open development ecosystem. This would plainly not be the case for the iPhone, which has one maufacturer and one set of APIs. The author suggests the iPhone would suffer from unclear commercial incentives and support issues? It's just an inapt analogy, when the analogy to smartphone (Palm, Symbian) market is obviously better: developers make money and user support just isn't a big deal. This is not good argument against wide open development.
As others have pointed out, though, it remains to be seen what development ecosystem Apple will permit.
The more it costs to develop for the iPhone, the more expensive that $500/$600 price tag is going to become, at least for people replacing a smartphone.
Anyone think they aren't going to be pissed when the realization sinks in they are stuck with it until June 2009 as new higher spec units roll out every six months?
Yeah. That's why I'm waiting to get a cell phone until they stop releasing new ones. I also refuse to get a mortgage until everyone's done building new houses and don't even get me started on cars.
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine."
A hold is an implied promise to filibuster. So when a senator places a hold on the bill, the senate generally agrees to move on rather than force the issue of an ugly, inconvenient showdown. They're then traded, logrolled, and used as bargaining chips in the legislative process.
To answer your question, it doesn't happen constantly because if it did the hold system wouldn't be an effective means of negotiations. The senate would constantly be in filibuster (if the people issuing holds follow through on their threats) and voting for cloture (to end the debate). It works because in general the senate at least wants to appear to get things done--and perhaps actually wants to get things done--and not waste a bunch of time on filibusters and attempted filibusters.
What's worse, Blockbuster seems to have the new movies and two genres for old releases: Action and comedy. And half of their floor space is now devoted to selling movies, rather than to movies available for rental.
I've been pounding my palm into my temple, trying to force myself to imagine why in the world Rockstar Games created and published a table tennis simulator.
It makes perfect sense to me now--it's so obvious! It's just a proof-of-concept of their new GTA engine.
They didn't make table tennis and think to themselves: "hey, it turns out we've got a great new foundation for our 3d sandbox franchise!" It's been the other way around the whole time. "we need a great new foundation for our 3d sandbox franchise... but let's do something small and simple first to get all the kinks out."
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a ping-pong minigame in the next GTA.
Well, this is where some of my complaint comes from. My fiancee would play with me, but she doesn't want to simulate chick fights, driving, or sports (or play an FPS, I should add). The current library is 100% testosterone-fueled. Okay, except Geometry wars.
If there were better legacy support, the odds would be much improved that there's a game out there we can both enjoy. For instance, I'm excited that the upcoming update will let us play Lego Star Wars.
It was a gift.
I hope they're working on some universal code that will support a bunch of games with one release. This nickel-dime approach will have them finished with the library in about 2037.
Meantime, tons of popular XBox games (Platinum Hits) aren't supported on the 360. As far as native games go, if I don't want to have a chick fight, drive, or play a sport, I don't have much reason to turn on my 360 at all.
Either one would please me: extensive backwards compatibility or a worthwhile native library. Right now the 360 offers neither. I just hope one or the other happens before I get bored with Burnout.
I had nothing to do with the new feature.
A contract isn't a persuasive form of communication. If the results of the study say that caffeine makes a person more susceptible to persuasion, presenting a caffeinated person with a non-persuasive document could not disprove that conclusion.
Now, what about the sales pitch leading up to the presentation of the contract...
The Onion isn't using it "any way they see fit." They're using it for satire, a uniquely protected form of speech.
Then you're not paying attention. Don't bother responding, though, I suspect your opinion will be ill-informed.
Under Bush, NASA will be an arm of the military and the Mars money will go toward developing star wars technologies. Anybody expecting high-minded science to come out of this development will be sorely disappointed. The administration is anti-empiricist, and all appointments and decisions are in that vein.
The memos may have been faked but they contained truthful information as verified by the person that typed the original memos.
The government has a word for that sort of event, and more than one agency willing and able to do it.
Tucker Carlson's ego was the true guest of that episode of Crossfire, and it got shot down.
He's jealous that Stewart got to interview Kerry on his fake news show, and utterly devestated that Stewart would state that Carlson's not a true journalist. All in front of a live, studio audience.
frist psot
How about People Against Normalcy and Goodness?
You must own You Don't Know Jack.