|
Congratulations, you are up tomorrow! 
coinsurer / recursion are anagrams, and recursion means recursion (see recursion for details).
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm against plagiarism - we should work together to stamp it out!
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
but some maybe unintentional.Because nowadays there are lots of articles on same topic some people may have same views and ideas.So we can't always say its stealing(plagiarism).
|
|
|
|
|
Whooooooooosh! 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Laiju k wrote: some maybe unintentional.
Plagiarism is never unintentional: you cannot accidentally type CTRL-A, CTRL-C, CTRL-TAB, CTRL-V then tick a box marked "this is all my own work" and press a "Submit" button.
And it is theft: all of us who write articles know how damn hard it is to get the words right - it's normally a lot more effort than the code that accompanies them - so when someone decides "I want the credit for that" they are genuinely stealing the effort that another has put into the job.
Think of it this way: You write an app, I see it, take a copy, file the serial numbers off, change the name to "Flappy Birds" and slam it up iTunes & the Play Store. Soon, I'm pulling down $50,000 a day in advertising revenues. Are you a happy bunny? Or are you hot-footing it to a solicitor?
(That isn't what happened with "Flappy Birds" - that was not plagiarised in any way, I'm, sure - but that was the money it was earning)
That's what plagiarism is: theft. The "I didn't mean to", "I didn't plagiarise, I just copied", and such like arguments are total bull.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
if we write something on our name and it is not published or copyrighted.And we use it on social network/media all can use that content is that come under theft?
|
|
|
|
|
If you are saying "I wrote this" then yes, it's theft. Credit the original source, and it's not - you aren't claiming authorship.
"Writing something" is not the same as "finding something and copying it".
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Understood
|
|
|
|
|
We have had a number of lawsuits in the copyright area where the lawyers have been fighting fiercely to prove that a motif in one tune is in fact identical to (read: stolen from) a motif in another tune. But motifs are so simple that you do not have that many choices - you could by accident happen to make a motif similar to that of another song, without knowing the other.
I don't know of any case where a single motif was the only subject; it is just used as a foundation for the next step: If you vary that motif of yours (and the other) in roughly the same four ways, in the same order, as the other, then it is plagiarism. It used to be a sequence of eight (well, really 8 bars, but very often a motif has the length of a bar), but he last few years, four has been the norm.
Varying a motif can also be done in a rather limited number of ways, at least if you stay within one musical style. Learning composition, you also learn patterns of varying / repeating motifs. It is not that improbable that two composers make similar variations even if they don't know each other's works. The two 4-bar sequences may end up being 100% identical, by luck and chance, but that is certainly not required to make a lawsuit! Even if the harmonies make them appear very different, the preceeding and following bars are completely different, the third is lowered making it a minor rather than a major scale melody, ...
Can it be proven that the four bars nevertheless were "stolen"? Or if not deliberately stolen, should the second composer have known that this theme already was annexed by the first composer, now being his private property?
Is a composer required to investigate all music ever composed, to ensure that no other composer anywhere has used the same motiv, varying it over four bars, in a way similar to how he now wants to use it in his own composition? Actually, for technical inventions, that is the way it works: Before you start making money on your invention, you must check if the mechanism is already patented. But to be patented, it should be non-trivial, so that others do not accidentally do the same; it should have a certain "invention height" (that's a Norwegian term, I don't know if it is used in other laguages) - but more so in Europe than in the US, it seems. For music, it has moved in the other direction: From being non-trivial, it is reduced to the trivial where you certainly by accident may create the same note sequence as someone did before you in some other part of the world.
We have had a few similar cases in litterature: One novel accused of being a remake of an old story. Occasionally, paintings are accused of being plagiats.
For text, you do have a right to quote other works, within certain limits. If the purpose of your text is e.g. an asessment of the other, the limits are quite wide. But: You are expected to identify your source. I guess that is where the grossest mistakes are made.
Some texts are published for being quoted. Commercial companies make press releases to hundreds of media institutions, as a way to get free advertising. Often, they prefer nor to be quoted as the source, but appear as editorial stuff.
Bottom line: Plagiarism is rarely a clear cut issue.
|
|
|
|
|
How true. And captains on a sinking ship also accidentally stumble into lifeboats.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
|
|
|
|
|
“I have lived with many Zen masters, all of them cats.” – Eckhart Tolle
Just quoting not personal these type of things happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Copy that!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm against plagiarism - we should work together to stamp it out!
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to log into Google on a new system.
They want to send a verification code to my phone. OK.
I go outside to check my phone (can't have a phone in this building). I never get the code, but I get a notice that SOMEONE HAS MY PASSWORD!
Duh. Yeah. Me.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
if someone have copied some answers of my fellow students long ago and may have earn marks with it maybe more than the original person because had added something of their own.Is this theft too?
modified 15-Feb-18 5:27am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. That's cheating.
If you go
Original source: stuff I found that is relevant
Stuff I added to extend that
That's different: you are referencing original material without claiming ownership and - provided the originator allows you to do that - that's fine.
Try it: copy and paste an article here and submit it as your own work. Your account will be closed very, very quickly by the moderators - and you will not get it back.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't started to write an article yet.I am waiting for a nice and in depth knowledge topic come on to my mind still then no worries for me. 
And cant mention someone else name on exam papers. 
|
|
|
|
|
Have a little think about it. There is a very simple and universal concept of an original idea. If that idea is taken by another without acknowledgement of the source it is theft pure and simple. What is difficult here?
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to log into Google on a new system.
They want to send a verification code to my phone. OK.
I go outside to check my phone (can't have a phone in this building). I never get the code, but I get a notice that SOMEONE HAS MY PASSWORD!
Duh. Yeah. Me. 
Send the code to the phone again. Go outside. Nope. No code shows up, but I get another notice. On the phone. The phone they can't seem to send a verification code to.
"Want to try another method?"
Sure. The choices are Send a code to the phone, Call the phone, or Tap on the phone.
So I click the "Can't use your phone?" link.
Which takes me to a page telling me to use my phone to log in...
Did they miss the part about the phone not being the most convenient method at the moment?
|
|
|
|
|
Why have you not configured Authenticator yet? You can get that from Play store. No need for phones after that.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Had a similar problem recently. The system took more than 15 minutes to email or text me the code and the code lasted only 15 minutes. It wasn't fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently beef stew is not an effective remedy for man-flu because its just not stroganof.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
