I think that the way plagiarism is handled definitely varies from place to place. I went to school with someone who was involved in a paper that was co-authored by about 3 other people. One of them plagiarized and his co-authors didn't catch it. I don't know what happened to the one that did the deed, but the others were forced to do a lot more work on replacement papers, and they weren't even the ones who were at fault.
There was also during my time there a very high profile instance of plagiarism involving one of the school's professors. His work was plagiarized by another revered author. That author's reputation is now forever tarnished by this act.
It's a shame that other places pay plagiarism only lip service, but at least that's not the case everywhere.
"All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation."
Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, it seems much more likely that you'll find only one instance of plagiarism at a time than second order plagiarism (one person that plagiarized a site, that in turn plagiarized another site). Not to mention that if Star Bulletin was being investigated, any other instances of plagiarism probably would have come to light just because there was an investigation going on (e.g. from googling it).
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to find a fair number of instances of plagiarism on wikipedia (perhaps both intentional instances and those that happened by accident from people who don't understand correct citation methods), but it's no more likely to have occurred with this passage than with any other.
I've read about half of it and found it a fairly fast read, when I bothered. I think that's because it's very layman-oriented (hence the lack of anything that looks like evidence, citation, etc., making the whole thing smell of pseudo-science/research rather than The Real McCoy) It's been a while since I picked it up but that's more my laziness than anything else.
I think the idea behind it hardware-wise seems good. It would be so much more convenient to be able to have every piece be interchangable, not to mention the fact that the amount of space you have to work with would be limited only by your shelf space, and not the case size. However, I highly doubt it will work.
First, since the components are so completely different from anything that's out now, it will be difficult to get people to adopt it simply because of intercompatibility.
Second, it's operating under the erroneous assumption that computer and entertainment system are synonymous. What effect will this DRM-focused machine have on its other functions? And will it be any good at doing non-DRM related functions.
Third, to design a computer primarily around the concept of "big brother is watching you" is just a bit creepy.
First, you're making an unproven leap in logic to compare less communication to slower thinking and more communication to better thinking. While it may *seem* like an obvious and logical conclusion, there are many things in the world that seem like they should logically be one way but in reality are the exact opposite. For example, while ritalin is a stimulant, it calms the behavior of people with ADHD. There is of course a logical and scientific explanation for this effect, but from a layman's perspective the cause and effect seem to contradict each other.
But let's look at the quote from the article:
"At normal concentrations, glutamate acts as a neurotransmitter that nerves use to communicate. However, at excessive levels glutamate is toxic, resulting in over stimulation of nerve cells, known as excitotoxicity, and causing excessive stress on the nerve cells eventually ending in cell death."
Let's assume that, all other things equal, your belief that more communication = better thinking is true. The reason your argument still wouldn't work is because all other things are *not* equal. While the extra communication may lead to better thinking, the extra stress and eventual cell death lead to worse thinking. You don't gain the benefit of one because you are at the same time paying the cost of the other.
Not to mention the fact that many of these diseases such as Alzheimers and Lou Gerhigs disease are slow and progressive, so that if you start showing early signs and are diagnosed, you still have time to take potentially "preventive" medicines to stop any further progression, even if you can't reverse what's already happened.
What's your evidence that overstimulation of nerve cells = higher mental capacity? Considering that this overstimulation is occurring in stroke and Alzheimers victims, and their mental capacity (or at the very least their ability to make use of their mental capacity) ultimately plummets, I'd say that's just wild speculation.
I would expect this kind of talk about issues relating to sacrificing one life (or potential life) to save another, but not over just some new drug. Yes, it may seem at times that a person is suffering more than living, and that maybe in that state they would rather just let life take its course, but that doesn't mean we can't still strive for a future where that condition or disease can be combatted. It may not be now, but if we did everything for the now, then nothing would get done.
It seems in this situation, such a complaint is jumping the gun a bit. First of all, this *is* talking about treating specialized diseases (as it says in the article, "stroke and neurodegenerative disorders". And in these cases, the brain is already "doing something it normally shouldn't." The drug is merely trying to restore it to a state of functioning normally.
Second, while the possibility of resistance is always looming, a stroke or Alzheimer's patient may be willing to take that risk if it means even a slightly longer period of lucidity. Would you rather risk the *possibility* of the drug eventually causing problems or losing its effectiveness, or take instead the *certainty* of a progressive and insidious neurological disease?
Certainly a new drug should not be taken lightly. For example, it may not yet be appropriate for someone who has learned of their diagnosis but have not yet degenerated very far. But once you've reached such a hopeless condition as to be completely debilitated, you (or those caring for you) may ask "What's the worst that could happen? At least with this there's hope."
> Utterly crippling in the low margin, high volume USB storage market (especially at the low end)
I realize that $0.25 can add up to a significant chunk of change, but it seems to me that as far as USB storage/digital cameras/etc are concerned, most can pass that kind of cost on to the consumer. Especially when you consider a) there's a cap on how high the royalties can get (i.e. good for high volume) and b) many of these manufacturers also make other non-applicable devices that can also go up in price slightly to offset.
I don't mean to trivialize the effect this will have or defend MS for doing so, I am just raising one issue.
Of course, this issue doesn't address those products that are affected but are not generally sold for a profit (Linux, various OSS projects involving FAT, etc). But then even Red Hat sells things (manuals and whatnot). And I imagine that most projects that don't have enough funds to pay the royalties are too "small potatoes" for MS to pursue. But that's just a guess on my part.
I've bought two different batteries for two different electronic devices so far that were "cheap." Both were advertised as being "for" the brand of device I used, but were not necessarily passed off as made by that brand's manufacturer. When I got the devices, they looked exactly the same as the OEM, except there was no brand label on them. Otherwise they look and feel just like The Real Thing(r), but for perhaps half the cost.
Of course, there is the chance that one day these sorts of purchases will blow up in my face (either figuratively or literally), but so far I've had a good experience. Then again, this isn't exactly what the article is talking about, so this is somewhat OT.
Not only that, members of a class action can choose to "opt out" and sue Sony directly if they desire. Though it probably would not be easy to do for an average individual.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/settlement_faq. php#10
I don't like this settlement. How do I opt out?
If you don't want to participate in the settlement and get the settlement benefits, and you want to keep the right to sue Sony BMG on your own about any of the claims that this settlement resolves, then you must take steps to opt out. If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail clearly indicating your name, address and telephone number and stating that you "request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in the Sony BMG CD Technologies Litigation," and you must sign the letter. You also must state the title of the XCP CD or MediaMax CD that you bought, received or used. More information about opting out will be included in the settlement notices that will go out by February 15, 2006.
Important Note: You must opt-out by MAY 1, 2006.
Slashdot Mirror
So much for google. I knew I had spelled it wrong originally but google's suggested spelling was way off.
I think that the way plagiarism is handled definitely varies from place to place. I went to school with someone who was involved in a paper that was co-authored by about 3 other people. One of them plagiarized and his co-authors didn't catch it. I don't know what happened to the one that did the deed, but the others were forced to do a lot more work on replacement papers, and they weren't even the ones who were at fault.
There was also during my time there a very high profile instance of plagiarism involving one of the school's professors. His work was plagiarized by another revered author. That author's reputation is now forever tarnished by this act.
It's a shame that other places pay plagiarism only lip service, but at least that's not the case everywhere.
"All things being equal, the most simple explanation is probably the correct explanation."
Unless there's good reason to think otherwise, it seems much more likely that you'll find only one instance of plagiarism at a time than second order plagiarism (one person that plagiarized a site, that in turn plagiarized another site). Not to mention that if Star Bulletin was being investigated, any other instances of plagiarism probably would have come to light just because there was an investigation going on (e.g. from googling it).
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised to find a fair number of instances of plagiarism on wikipedia (perhaps both intentional instances and those that happened by accident from people who don't understand correct citation methods), but it's no more likely to have occurred with this passage than with any other.
I've read about half of it and found it a fairly fast read, when I bothered. I think that's because it's very layman-oriented (hence the lack of anything that looks like evidence, citation, etc., making the whole thing smell of pseudo-science/research rather than The Real McCoy) It's been a while since I picked it up but that's more my laziness than anything else.
I think the idea behind it hardware-wise seems good. It would be so much more convenient to be able to have every piece be interchangable, not to mention the fact that the amount of space you have to work with would be limited only by your shelf space, and not the case size. However, I highly doubt it will work.
First, since the components are so completely different from anything that's out now, it will be difficult to get people to adopt it simply because of intercompatibility.
Second, it's operating under the erroneous assumption that computer and entertainment system are synonymous. What effect will this DRM-focused machine have on its other functions? And will it be any good at doing non-DRM related functions.
Third, to design a computer primarily around the concept of "big brother is watching you" is just a bit creepy.
First, you're making an unproven leap in logic to compare less communication to slower thinking and more communication to better thinking. While it may *seem* like an obvious and logical conclusion, there are many things in the world that seem like they should logically be one way but in reality are the exact opposite. For example, while ritalin is a stimulant, it calms the behavior of people with ADHD. There is of course a logical and scientific explanation for this effect, but from a layman's perspective the cause and effect seem to contradict each other.
But let's look at the quote from the article:
"At normal concentrations, glutamate acts as a neurotransmitter that nerves use to communicate. However, at excessive levels glutamate is toxic, resulting in over stimulation of nerve cells, known as excitotoxicity, and causing excessive stress on the nerve cells eventually ending in cell death."
Let's assume that, all other things equal, your belief that more communication = better thinking is true. The reason your argument still wouldn't work is because all other things are *not* equal. While the extra communication may lead to better thinking, the extra stress and eventual cell death lead to worse thinking. You don't gain the benefit of one because you are at the same time paying the cost of the other.
Not to mention the fact that many of these diseases such as Alzheimers and Lou Gerhigs disease are slow and progressive, so that if you start showing early signs and are diagnosed, you still have time to take potentially "preventive" medicines to stop any further progression, even if you can't reverse what's already happened.
What's your evidence that overstimulation of nerve cells = higher mental capacity? Considering that this overstimulation is occurring in stroke and Alzheimers victims, and their mental capacity (or at the very least their ability to make use of their mental capacity) ultimately plummets, I'd say that's just wild speculation.
I would expect this kind of talk about issues relating to sacrificing one life (or potential life) to save another, but not over just some new drug. Yes, it may seem at times that a person is suffering more than living, and that maybe in that state they would rather just let life take its course, but that doesn't mean we can't still strive for a future where that condition or disease can be combatted. It may not be now, but if we did everything for the now, then nothing would get done.
It seems in this situation, such a complaint is jumping the gun a bit. First of all, this *is* talking about treating specialized diseases (as it says in the article, "stroke and neurodegenerative disorders". And in these cases, the brain is already "doing something it normally shouldn't." The drug is merely trying to restore it to a state of functioning normally.
Second, while the possibility of resistance is always looming, a stroke or Alzheimer's patient may be willing to take that risk if it means even a slightly longer period of lucidity. Would you rather risk the *possibility* of the drug eventually causing problems or losing its effectiveness, or take instead the *certainty* of a progressive and insidious neurological disease?
Certainly a new drug should not be taken lightly. For example, it may not yet be appropriate for someone who has learned of their diagnosis but have not yet degenerated very far. But once you've reached such a hopeless condition as to be completely debilitated, you (or those caring for you) may ask "What's the worst that could happen? At least with this there's hope."
> Utterly crippling in the low margin, high volume USB storage market (especially at the low end)
I realize that $0.25 can add up to a significant chunk of change, but it seems to me that as far as USB storage/digital cameras/etc are concerned, most can pass that kind of cost on to the consumer. Especially when you consider a) there's a cap on how high the royalties can get (i.e. good for high volume) and b) many of these manufacturers also make other non-applicable devices that can also go up in price slightly to offset.
I don't mean to trivialize the effect this will have or defend MS for doing so, I am just raising one issue.
Of course, this issue doesn't address those products that are affected but are not generally sold for a profit (Linux, various OSS projects involving FAT, etc). But then even Red Hat sells things (manuals and whatnot). And I imagine that most projects that don't have enough funds to pay the royalties are too "small potatoes" for MS to pursue. But that's just a guess on my part.
How do I choose between Google DRM, Microsoft DRM, Apple DRM, Real DRM, or whatever the DRM du jour is?
Oh wait, that's easy. I choose none. See how they like that.
Same here.
I've bought two different batteries for two different electronic devices so far that were "cheap." Both were advertised as being "for" the brand of device I used, but were not necessarily passed off as made by that brand's manufacturer. When I got the devices, they looked exactly the same as the OEM, except there was no brand label on them. Otherwise they look and feel just like The Real Thing(r), but for perhaps half the cost.
Of course, there is the chance that one day these sorts of purchases will blow up in my face (either figuratively or literally), but so far I've had a good experience. Then again, this isn't exactly what the article is talking about, so this is somewhat OT.
Not only that, members of a class action can choose to "opt out" and sue Sony directly if they desire. Though it probably would not be easy to do for an average individual. http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/settlement_faq. php#10
I don't like this settlement. How do I opt out?
If you don't want to participate in the settlement and get the settlement benefits, and you want to keep the right to sue Sony BMG on your own about any of the claims that this settlement resolves, then you must take steps to opt out. If you want to exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail clearly indicating your name, address and telephone number and stating that you "request to be excluded from the Settlement Class in the Sony BMG CD Technologies Litigation," and you must sign the letter. You also must state the title of the XCP CD or MediaMax CD that you bought, received or used. More information about opting out will be included in the settlement notices that will go out by February 15, 2006.
Important Note: You must opt-out by MAY 1, 2006.
Not to mention the "Well, you are making me wait" comment.