Plagarism.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/29/rand_paul_gattaca_did_rachel_maddow_catch_rand_paul_plagiarizing_wikipedia.html
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/section-of-rand-pauls-book-plagiarized-forbes-article
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/11/05/rand_paul_plaigerism_buzzfeed_catches_gop_senator_ripping_of_the_week_column.html
I'm appalled that people think no one will check up on them.
His supporter's excuses will be DELICIOUS. :lulz:
At least one of them was in a published book -- isn't there some sort of penalty that gets imposed for stuff like that?
Can't be loss of credibility, otherwise he'd be in negative numbers.
It looks like he almost made a half-assed attempt at paraphrasing. Sort of.
Betcha anything the reason he does it is because he thinks he's above getting in trouble for things they tell the little people not to do, though.
Well, when he was offered the job by the patron sponsors of the ultra-right, he was told:
1) We'll tell you what to say
2) We'll write the legislation that you bring to the floor
3) We'll send you talking points and slogans from our researchers on the daily
4) Outside of that, talk out of your ass, so long as the core summary of what you say is "fuck everyone who isn't a billionaire. "
He was under the mistaken impression he was "CTRL-C then CTRL-V" in human form. The best part is during the one interview where he kept referring to it as "footnoting" or "footnoted" in reference to his papers in school. Um Rand, did you mean "cite" and "citations"? Was it MLA or APA? Or do you have absolutely no clue because you paid someone to do that for you, as well?
Judging by your complete lack of comprehension of reality in all of its forms, I'll assume that was the case.
Can't spell free market with out FREE.
You know, out of the corner of my eye it looked like the title was "Rand Paul finally commits suicide" and I was like, damn dude, that's cold.
Same thing.
Come on now.
Does anyone believe Rand Paul actually wrote that book? Really?
No, some staffer (probably secessionist loon and Confederate supporter Jack Hunter (http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/perhaps-rand-paul-didnt-technically-plagiarize-scholarship-highly-lacking/)) decided to crib pages from old Heritage Foundation papers, and Paul's sin is being stupid enough to plaster his name over something he didn't get independently checked first.
Like father, like son, I suppose.
No, Ron Paul was perfectly capable (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/yeah-ron-paul-is-racist-after-all-sorry) of writing his own distorted ideas down, as it turned out.
Quote"[People] close to Paul's operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the [racist] newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
"It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,'' said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul's company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
Oh, lovely.
It's a goddamn rat king.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Ratking.jpg)
What exactly am I looking at, here?
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_king_(folklore)In The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents by Terry Pratchett, Keith skeptically notes that the filth associated with supposedly tying the young rats together at a young age is not found in a rat's nest, and suspects that a rat king is created as a sort of project by a rat catcher himself. In an author's note at the end of the novel, Pratchett ventures the theory that "down the ages some cruel and inventive people have had altogether too much time on their hands".
http://www.kirj.ee/public/Ecology/2007/issue_1/bio-2007-1-7.pdf
QuoteAccording to the third hypothesis, for the formation of a rat king, rats should
first huddle together as they usually do when sleeping in the nest chamber,
especially when it is cold. If their tails become glued or frozen together, animals
try to free themselves by moving in different directions. These chaotic movements
may result in their tails becoming entangled in a tight knot. Even after removal of
the initial cause (sticky substance or ice), they are no longer able to escape from
the knot. The sticky substance may be blood, food items, nesting material, etc.
The Estonian finds support the last hypothesis. In two cases for which relevant
information is available, the kings were created in the shelter, not outside
(animals tried to get out, not in). In both cases the weather was frosty. Indeed, the
rat king of Saru was found after a sudden drop in the air temperature from above
to below zero. The gluing/freezing hypothesis is also causally supported by the
worldwide geography of rat king finds: rat kings are very rare in regions with
warm climates, where the freezing of tails is completely ruled out. Apart from the
king of Java, all finds were made in Central and Eastern Europe. Why there? It
seems that rat kings occur in regions where two factors coincide: cold winters and
the presence of the black rat. Indeed, the black rat is more common in Southern
Europe, but there are mild winters there. Winters are severe in Northern Europe
and Canada, but there are no black rats or they are very rare. There are large
numbers of brown rats, R. norvegicus, in Northern Europe and North America,
but they do not create rat kings. This is obviously due to their relatively shorter,
thicker, and less flexible tails than in R. rattus.
Good lord.
Fascinating, but I'm oddly squicked by that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 08, 2013, 05:25:19 PM
Good lord.
Fascinating, but I'm oddly squicked by that.
It's one of Nature's most disturbing little treats.
Personally I'm ok with plagiarism. To say otherwise would be to support the concept of intellectual property, and that is something that I absolutely will not do.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 16, 2013, 04:40:38 AM
Personally I'm ok with plagiarism. To say otherwise would be to support the concept of intellectual property, and that is something that I absolutely will not do.
Yes, artists should all fucking starve or get day jobs.
You entitled fuckwad.
Because getting ripped off by your record label/film studio/tech company because you didn't read all of the fine print or misunderstood the legalese is so much better than getting ripped off by actual people.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 16, 2013, 06:09:21 AM
Because getting ripped off by your record label/film studio/tech company because you didn't read all of the fine print is so much better than getting ripped off by actual people.
Because YOUR crime is okay, and a contractual agreement isn't.
Again, you hate artists. Move to North Korea.
"THE LABEL IS JUST GONNA RIP THEM OFF ANYWAY, LET'S STEAL THEIR SHIT"
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 08, 2013, 06:43:57 AM
It's a goddamn rat king.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Ratking.jpg)
Apropos, somehow.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 16, 2013, 06:17:43 AM
"THE LABEL IS JUST GONNA RIP THEM OFF ANYWAY, LET'S STEAL THEIR SHIT"
When it comes right down to it, the justification is "because it's easy to do". Which is sort of like mugging old ladies.
The argument is that it's actually the label I'm ripping off since they're the only one that actually profits.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 16, 2013, 07:01:08 AM
The argument is that it's actually the label I'm ripping off since they're the only one that actually profits.
You are an idiot.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 16, 2013, 04:40:38 AM
Personally I'm ok with plagiarism. To say otherwise would be to support the concept of intellectual property, and that is something that I absolutely will not do.
You're a fucking idiot. plagiarism isn't even about ip.
Its an impressive level of ignorance.
'The way the concept of intellectual property has been applied in the case of one particular industry means that I will never support it'.
Ignoring that intellectual property covers literary work, artwork, all forms of design and innovation. In fact, pretty much anything that involves creating something is covered under intellectual property law. But the examples people immediately jump to are music, tv ,film and video games because these are the things people want to steal.
Yes, some rights holders act like douchebags. But this also ignores the fact that the internet is allowing us to directly support artists like never before. But clearly, we should ignore the growing direct participation movement in the creative arts and scrap their ability to say 'Hey, I made that!' Because corporations, man, the fuckin' corporations.
Also, bear in mind that for a lot of these projects - especially video games, TV and film - the 'label' (or publisher or investor or whateverthefuck) that soaks up all these profits away from these 'true' artists, are the only reason the project gets made at all. The massive amount of up-front production cost in all these areas is prohibitive for allowing a bunch of people to get together and 'just make' a top-quality product. In a surprisingly large number of cases, these 'evil corporations' wind up pissing away millions of dollars because the final product just isn't up to standard and never sees the light of day.
So the only way to make that art is with millions of bucks up front and the skilled artists don't have that money. So, they accept a wage, and in return, they get access to more resources than 'whatever me, Joel and Francine can pull together in our bedroom after we've finished our shifts at the Kwik-e-Mart'.
That seems like a fair trade off to me.
You know, when I'm poring through the fifteenth pivot table of the day, calculating the received cost basis on an exchange that involves code 1035 of the IRS regulations at 8:00 in the morning, I am SO THANKFUL I never sold out to the Man to become a professional musician.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on November 16, 2013, 04:40:38 AM
Personally I'm ok with plagiarism. To say otherwise would be to support the concept of intellectual property, and that is something that I absolutely will not do.
You know, I have some pretty radical opinions on copyright and IP...
...and even I think you're a fucking idiot. :fuckoff:
Plagiarism is an ethical question, not a legal copyright one. It's not just borrowing an idea or image and remixing it into a new piece of art, its simply stealing the expression of one author and presenting it as your own without proper attribution. Its two distinctly different issues.
Yes, unless you're PDS.
In which case, everything is about copyright. You know that saying about what defines a fanatic...