×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

Do as I say don't do as I do (4, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208552)

Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (3, Interesting)

Jerrry (43027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208592)

"Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)"

In my experience, that's what all politicians do. As do the cops. They set bad examples for the rest of us.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209154)

"Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)"

In my experience, that's what all politicians do. As do the cops. They set bad examples for the rest of us.

No joke. The constitutions and other founding legal documents of all modern governments should have included a clause stating that when any politician, law enforcement officer, or other government official breaks the law, they will be subject to three times the penalty (fines, duration of incarceration, or both) that an ordinary citizen would suffer had he or she done the same. The reasoning is that when they break the law, it represents a threat to the institution of law and the concept of the rule of law, both of which are fundamental and essential to the functioning of modern society.

Also, if the politicians and particularly the cops really wanted to improve their public image then the honest ones would stop looking the other way when they have knowledge of the corruption of the dishonest ones. Cops in particular are rather brave people; facing an armed assailant is "all in a day's work" for them and a possibility they accept willingly. Therefore, this cannot be a matter of courage or fear of retribution and is instead a matter of complicity. That complicity makes them just as guilty as those whose corruption they ignore. This is one of the main reasons why they are sometimes perceived as thugs who act only in their own self-interests while pretending to protect and serve.

The only other thing that would dramatically improve relations between the general public and government would be to end the War on (some) Drugs. It began for mostly racist reasons and persists as a form of class war. The only reason why the proceeds from drug dealers might fund criminal organizations and create more crime is because there is high demand for these products that is not going away and no legitimate, honest business that can compete in an open market with them. There is also no moral justification for telling adults what they may or may not do with their own bodies and no ethical basis for imprisoning those users who are responsible and do not pose a danger to others with their habit.

The classic example of this is someone who comes home from work and relaxes with a joint, does not drive, does not leave his home, and does not disturb his neighbors. What case is there for putting such a person through the nightmare world of our legal system? He or she is not violating anyone else's civil rights. How does persecuting such a person benefit society or create the perception of good and competent governance? Anyone who doesn't think such abuses foster an adversarial relationship between citizens and government has little grasp of reality.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210484)

We do need to end the War on (all) Drugs. Legalize the ones, such as marijuana, that are relatively harmless. Decriminalizing everything else and making the punishment drug treatment, along with the legalization of relatively benign substances, would reduce the power of organized crime in the Americas to ashes within a year or two.

In Soviet Russia, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32211230)

law plagiarizes you!

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32210650)

Cops in particular are rather brave people; facing an armed assailant is "all in a day's work" for them and a possibility they accept willingly. Therefore, this cannot be a matter of courage or fear of retribution and is instead a matter of complicity.

Turn it around: Perhaps a sort of in-group tribal support (which causes problems later when a member is found to be misbehaving) is necessary to get people to reliably do the whole brave-berserker thing.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210946)

Addendum: A clause stating that when any president, pope or politician declares war, they shall lead the charge themselves physically, and if incapable their spouses, first-born children, brothers, sisters and or parents must take their place on the front line.

Sending other peoples children to fight and die with no measurable sacrifice of your own: fuck that.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211234)

That may be reasonable from an empathy standpoint, but you're completely ignoring the fact that we live in a modern society with specialization of labors. As unfair as it is, some people find that military service is the kind of job that suits them personally, while others do things like law, IT, engineering, or a host of other specializations. Your argument is totally valid for any sort of draft, though. Drafts should start with children of elected officials.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211414)

I can't attribute it unfortunately, but the applicable saying is:

"I've always considered statesmen to be more expendable than soldiers." As in, there's plenty more where those came from.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (2, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211842)

No joke. The constitutions and other founding legal documents of all modern governments should have included a clause stating that when any politician, law enforcement officer, or other government official breaks the law, they will be subject to three times the penalty (fines, duration of incarceration, or both) that an ordinary citizen would suffer had he or she done the same. The reasoning is that when they break the law, it represents a threat to the institution of law and the concept of the rule of law, both of which are fundamental and essential to the functioning of modern society.

How does that fit with another central tenet of justice, that she is blind, and/or "All are equal before the law"?

The way to punish those who make laws for breaking them is not to spank them three times as hard, it's to spank them. The problem is, most of the time we don't spank them at all.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32208614)

Given it's an unwritten requirement for being a politician, I would suspect almost all of them to be like that, regardless of state or country. Every now and then you get a humane politician that sucks horribly at these unwritten requirements... but not very often.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209320)

Given it's an unwritten requirement for being a politician, I would suspect almost all of them to be like that, regardless of state or country. Every now and then you get a humane politician that sucks horribly at these unwritten requirements... but not very often.

I'd go so far as to say that the purpose of entrenched political parties without whom you have no chance of election, party primary systems, and the inability to even get on the ballot without a great deal of sponsorship is simple. The purpose is to make sure that such humane politicians never make it through the system, since whoring themselves and their beliefs and principles to the highest bidder is anathema to them. Yet watching which way the wind blows and committing yourself to it wholeheartedly, as though the trend of the day was always your most deeply cherished belief, and always knowing on which side your bread is buttered is a requirement of advancing through this system. Thus, the political and monied interests who have the most to lose from a change in the status quo are also the gatekeepers deciding who does and does not stand a chance of holding public office.

It's why nothing ever really changes because "change" has been redefined to mean "becoming more so" or "advancing further down the path we were already on". Again I wish I could attribute that saying about our politics becoming more polar and divisive while our parties become more homogeneous, for this is more evidence of what I am saying.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (4, Funny)

SterlingSylver (1122973) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208650)

"Do as I say don't do as I do, some politicians outside of Argentina also have that attitude ;-)"
-SterlingSylver, May 2010

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208958)

What you did there, I see it.

Em Emalb, May 14, 2010

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209096)

I do! It's all your fucking fault!

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209028)

As an Argentinian (living in Buenos Aires, Argentina), I have to say I'm more embarrassed that I usually am.

In our defense, I must say, the guy is from Tucuman (You can think of Tucuman as our Kentucky), and he's a Peronista ...

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (2, Informative)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209108)

In other news, this guy has already been accused of many crimes, and is hated by most of the people of Tucuman (and elsewhere):

http://www.derf.com.ar/despachos.asp?cod_des=72815&ID_Seccion=34 [derf.com.ar]
http://www.bajandolineas.com.ar/2009/12/diputado-nacional-por-tucuman-geronimo-vargas-aignasse-fpv-bastardo/ [bajandolineas.com.ar]

Nice.

Re:Do as I say don't do as I do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209778)

Dammit, I wish I knew Spanish. Argentina looks cool. Loved that Ohos movie too...

Well, three to eight years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32208598)

He can try again afterwards.

Not yet illegal (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211394)

Actually until the law is actually passed presumably what he has done is not yet illegal. In fact this could be an exceedingly devious scheme to convince people that the law is actually needed...although I highly doubt that is the case.

Enforce the Penalty (4, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208610)

Oh pleaaaaaaaaaaase enforce the penalty!

Re:Enforce the Penalty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209398)

Sorry, Congress must jury him first in order to lose his immunity, so even if an attorney wants to get him to trial, he can't be punished.

While they were at it.... (5, Funny)

AarghVark (772183) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208632)

They should have done a Wikipedia search on the definition of irony.

Re:While they were at it.... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32208692)

So should you...

Re:While they were at it.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32208922)

Nope. This story is indeed ironic. I'm sick and tired of people like you who think that there's NEVER a case where the word "ironic" should be used.

Re:While they were at it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209008)

Alanis thinks you're being ironic. Don't you think?

Re:While they were at it.... (4, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210162)

Isn't it ironic, that a guy who accuses another guy of not understanding irony himself does not understand it? Don't you think?

Also here is what's not ironic: a reply from someone who is pointing this obvious ironic situation out. Isn't that pedantic?

However then this someone making fun of himself for himself being pedantic, is that recursive or redundant?

Guess what this comment is not but do not assign it what it is.

Re:While they were at it.... (2, Insightful)

thepike (1781582) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209002)

From Princeton wordnet: "Irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs"

This is ironic. Alanis Morissette may have ruined it in most situations, but it gets the okay here.

Re:While they were at it.... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209156)

I thought it was good that she apologized saying she knows now that it isn't ironic but rather a malaproprism.... Which it also isn't unless you think unlucky rhymes with ironic.

Re:While they were at it.... (1, Informative)

thepike (1781582) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209326)

Maybe it's a malamanteau!

She's a pop singer, I don't expect her to have the firmest grasp on the English language. Though she did play a good God.

Re:While they were at it.... (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209442)

If you expect politicians to not be hypocrites, you're delusional, and the meaning of "irony" is the least of your problems.

Re:While they were at it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209864)

From Princeton wordnet: "Irony: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs"

A politician being a hypocrite is hardly unexpected. Therefore the situation is NOT ironic.

Re:While they were at it.... (3, Informative)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210784)

No she did NOT... bloody hell... everybody stops reading after the first definition.

Irony has THREE definitions in any decent dictionary.
The third one dates right back to ancient greek tragic theater. It's the case where despite all human endeavour a good person nevertheless gets fucked over at the whim of the gods. And the name for that is IRONY. Drop the greek religious bit (which is acceptable ever since we STOPPED living in ancient greeks) and voila, you have tragic irony.
Every single line of that song is a perfect example of that type of Irony.

Yes indeed, when it comes right down to it "shit out of luck" IS one of the valid meanings of the word "ironic".
When you throw in that these were SONG lyrics - that means she had poetic freedom, and tragic irony coming out of theater is a clear case of poetry (the line is not as wide as we think - remember Aristotle's groundbreaking paper on theater was called 'the poetics' - and that third meaning was FIRST defined in that same paper).

That's the really ironic bit ... the meaning of "irony" that smart-ass geeks always complain about is the oldest and MOST accurate use of the word ! (Can you guess which of the three meanings I'm of irony I used there ?)

So what do you call it when smart-assedness turns into a mass-advertisement of your ignorance ?

Re:While they were at it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209198)

They should have done a Wikipedia search on the definition of irony.

[[WP:NOTDICT|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]

I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (0, Flamebait)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208638)

Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent, or an outright violation of copyright as well, and I'm perfectly okay with that. Plagiarism is primarily an academic offense, and by and large The Real World (tm) doesn't need the same level of rigorous academic standards that Academia does.

Also not generally illegal (save for fraud, promissory estoppel, etc): lying.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32208766)

Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent, or an outright violation of copyright as well, and I'm perfectly okay with that. Plagiarism is primarily an academic offense, and by and large The Real World (tm) doesn't need the same level of rigorous academic standards that Academia does.

What you've written is pretty much true for the United States. You might also want to add the word "yet." Obviously the bill being introduced would make plagiarism illegal in Argentina.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208854)

Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent

Plagiarism is always fraudulent. Its taking credit for work you did not do.

If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.

Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.

Avoiding plagiarism doesn't mean you can't copy. It just means you can't take credit when you do.

Avoiding plagiarism is as simple as crediting the source.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (4, Interesting)

john83 (923470) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209024)

Is there really room for crediting wikipedia in a legal bill? That seems silly to me. A law isn't an artistic endeavour. It has no direct commercial value. Applying the notion of IP to it makes no sense. I would have thought that the groupthink on Slashdot would lean towards disgust at this assumption of the blanket application of IP as a concept, but perhaps schadenfreude comes first.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32210682)

"It has no direct commercial value"
Yikes! That is naive. Many many many laws exist solely to enrich certain segments of society (be they corporations, politicians or just friends of the family)

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211280)

You missed the point. I am still disgusted with blanket application of IP. It is not hypocritical to cite the hypocrisy and use it for justification of why blanket application of IP is bad. He just shouldn't have made the law on plagiarism, and if he did he needs to stick to it. The problem is that everything is plagiarized. Did you invent fire? Did you cite Ug for his knowledge of fire? I didn't think so. We're all in this together and the more we share information the better off we'll all be. Ideas are a dime a dozen, having the know how to build it is where the commercial value is.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32211598)

Is there really room for crediting wikipedia in a legal bill?

Was the plagiarism in the bill, or just in the explanation of it (as the summary says)? Only if it's the former do you have a point.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209102)

However being punished for plagiarism is completely discrediting all the work that you did do. I am always worried about my citations in college because of the EVIL PLAGIARISM which has all the consequences including failing the class. If the professor was a real dick, they will find a error in your process and then fail you because of this. Ignoring all you work.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209216)

"I am always worried about my citations in college because of the EVIL PLAGIARISM which has all the consequences including failing the class. If the professor was a real dick, they will find a error in your process and then fail you because of this."

What institution do you go to? I'm astonished that they'd look at technical errors in citation format (is this what you're referring to?) rather than if the intent of the student was to claim credit for the work of others. I certainly couldn't imagine any major institution failing someone due to a mere technical error.

Please explain, I'm especially curious what you mean by 'error in your process'.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209150)

Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone else's work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.

Yes! But just because it's wrong, that doesn't mean we laws against it to send people to jail. Honor code violations, sure, expulsion from your university for egregious and blatant cases, yes. (Though I'd avoid the academic fundamentalists who would kick you out of school for getting the italics wrong on a citation and call that "plagiarism"... okay, I exxagerate, but only slightly.) Public ridicule? Bring it on. (Hey, look, we're bringing it on right now!) As for other things which can be equally "wrong", again: where's the law against lying?

If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.

Hey, this is Slashdot, remember? The atmosphere here tends to be seriously skeptical of the stronger notions of legal protection of "intellectual property."

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209578)

Hey, this is Slashdot, remember? The atmosphere here tends to be seriously skeptical of the stronger notions of legal protection of "intellectual property."

Seriousl skepticism is a virtue for any rational subject. That is, it's the wrong tool for questions like "do you love this person" but the absolutely correct tool for questions like "should this group enjoy stronger special legal protections?" If the concept is valid, it will survive skepticism because its merits will be demonstrable. The skepticism you witness here towards the stronger notions of IP law are due to a simple fact: they benefit a small minority of business interests at the expense of the rest of society. That does not constitute demonstrable merit; it is mere selfishness and exploitation and is unworthy of our support.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (2, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209264)

If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.

I disagree. Plagiarism is morally wrong, but that doesn't mean it has to be illegal. There are lots of things that are morally wrong but not illegal (e.g. cheating on your spouse). That's the way it should be: for the vast majority of things, social norms and consequences (including public outcry, shaming, damage to reputation, etc.) are more than sufficient. Laws should only be enacted in those rare cases where the public safety or public good needs more protection. To do otherwise gives the lawmakers/enforcers too much power, and tends to turn every person into a criminal. (Does it really make sense to prosecute a college student who cheats on an essay? Or is flunking him sufficient?)

Really, we have far too many laws at present, and could stand to have many repealed. (The various "intellectual property" laws could certainly stand to be pruned-down, for instance.) I see no pressing social need for plagiarism to be illegal. (Plagiarism may be part of some larger fraud, but in those cases there are already other good laws (anti-fraud, truth-in-advertising, etc.) to address the real transgression.)

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209446)

Avoiding plagiarism is as simple as crediting the source.

Citation Needed

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209610)

Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.

Failing to cite a source is not the same as taking credit for the idea. When people talk to me every day I do not assume that they invented everything that comes out of their mouths. That would make me an idiot.

Stealing credit for something is, in my opinion, morally repugnant. Failing to cite a source, but not in such a way that I get the false impression that you created something? Really, I could not give less of a shit about that. I care about citations from the standpoint of being able to verify your claim, that's all. If I trust you, then I don't need citations.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208988)

As a rule of thumb never go into something where the worst thing that could happen is that you succeed. Plagiarism is not illegal. But is what this legislator wants. If he succeed, he should be penalized by his own law.

Fortunately there are laws that takes precedence. Murphy's laws in general, and Hanlon's Razor in particular should apply in this case: never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209036)

never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity

Congratulations. In one sentence you have just removed all trace of malice from human endeavors.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209436)

> Congratulations. In one sentence you have just removed all trace of malice from human endeavors.

Er, no. Hanlon may have, but not the poster, who merely quoted the line and acknowledged the source.

Congratulations for failing to notice that something was quoted and attributed, in a discussion on plagarism and lack of attribution...

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210368)

Er, no. Hanlon may have, but not the poster, who merely quoted the line and acknowledged the source.

And did he do that randomly for no purpose whatsoever, or did he do that because he agrees with it and it supports the point he was trying to make? I don't see where he is contesting Hanlon...

Congratulations for failing to notice that something was quoted and attributed, in a discussion on plagarism and lack of attribution...

That's immaterial to a discussion about whether malice should be discounted in favor of incompetence when strong evidence of either is not forthcoming. That is a matter of general principle applicable to many issues and is not limited to plagarism. Therefore, the discussion about plagarism is an instance of this greater theme and not worthy of the fixation you are showing. In other words, I doubt he failed to notice and instead I believe he rightly regarded that as trivial in the face of a much larger issue.

But, the law appears to be a Copyright Violation (2, Informative)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209136)

From Wikipedia's Terms of Use:
"Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works."

If he didn't cite Wikipedia (snicker) then he's at least violated their Terms of Use specifying a "Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0".. which I assume would be a copyright violation. But, IANAL.

Re:I'm glad that plagiarism is not illegal. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210830)

If it's legal, it's called "fair use". The very use of the word "plagiarism" implies it's illegal.

Just a foolish man (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208688)

This is more a case of stupidity in that he apparently confused plagiarism with copyright infringement. The more important aspect (to me) is that he is such a foolish person that he couldn't even explain the reasoning for himself. Not only did he require copying wikipedia, but he didn't even justify the new law. According to the article, he simply took the paragraphs that DEFINED plagiarism. This shows he has a complete misunderstanding of the topic, and worse, is apparently not smart enough to gather his own thoughts about a subject he wants to legislate.

I'm sure he will stay in office, as he is probably very good at winning popularity wars with opponents. I wish I could say that my own elected officials were better, but I know that isn't the case. Politicians in the US are only slightly better at disguising their ignorance.

Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take IP (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208724)

Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take any IP that they want?

Re:Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take (1)

causality (777677) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210414)

Doesn't Argentina have like a free pass to take any IP that they want?

Like, totally.

Wikipedia's sources? (0, Redundant)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208808)

The bulk of his explanation is three paragraphs that are taken, verbatim, from Wikipedia

Are those three paragraphs original to the Wikipedia - or do they quote or paraphrase other sources?

Re:Wikipedia's sources? (4, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208842)

From TFA: Just to make sure someone didn't do the opposite and take the text of the introduction and make it the Wikipedia page, I looked, and as I'm typing this, the Wikipedia page hasn't been updated since April -- and it looks like the bulk of that page has actually been in place for quite some time. The bill was introduced on May 6th.

Re:Wikipedia's sources? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209106)

The bill was introduced on May 6th.

The introduction of a bill isn't the same thing as the drafting of a bill.

relevant to the current RIAA issues in the US (1)

grahamsaa (1287732) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208830)

This makes me wonder how many politicians who favor strong copyright enforcement and huge windfalls for the RIAA download music illegally? Or about how many have children that do. Would G.W. Bush have favored the industry in the same way if his daughters had been sued for copyright infringement? I'm not sure, but I find it difficult to believe that legislators don't download songs illegally and believe themselves to be immune.

Once upon a time... (5, Funny)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 3 years ago | (#32208938)

While I was in seventh grade, I missed a week of school due to an illness. My first day back in English class, we were told spend the hour writing an essay about the evils of plagiarism. In retrospect, it's obvious what happened in my absence, but at the time I didn't know what the word meant, just that it was bad. So, I wrote an essay on the evils of communism, substituting the word plagiarism throughout. Yes, I discussed the possibility of godless plagiarists taking over the country and forcing a plagiarist regime upon the American people. I don't think we got a grade for it, but the teacher thought it was pretty hilarious.

Re:Once upon a time... (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209044)

I wrote an essay on the evils of communism, substituting the word plagiarism throughout

So how many terms did you serve as class president?

Re:Once upon a time... (2, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209152)

Class president? I was wondering which Senate seat he was elected to.

Re:Once upon a time... (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211200)

Class president? I was wondering which Senate seat he was elected to.

I didn't want to be rude and prevent him from stroking his ego by telling us all about how he overcome adversity to become the ______ elected to _______ before becoming ________ over at _________.

Trying to work on my social skills and make friends...

Re:Once upon a time... (1)

Chysn (898420) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211012)

While I was in seventh grade, I missed a week of school due to an illness. My first day back in English class, we were told spend the hour writing an essay about the evils of plagiarism. In retrospect, it's obvious what happened in my absence, but at the time I didn't know what the word meant, just that it was bad. So, I wrote an essay on the evils of satanism, substituting the word plagiarism throughout. Yes, I discussed the possibility of godless satanists taking over the country and forcing a satanist regime upon the American people. I don't think we got a grade for it, but the teacher thought it was pretty hilarious.

Copyright law to a politician (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209004)

I remember other stories like this with congresscritters and senator types putting up copyrighted songs or text on their websites and being surprised when it's pointed out. It seems that they generally have a subconscious understanding of fair usage and consider it common-sense... thinking that copyright law is the realm of printed book and pirated movies being sold on street corners. It would explain a lot if they're pushing for harsher penalties without understanding the frequency that common people unknowingly violate copyright laws everyday.

AHHHG! Techdirt! (0, Offtopic)

honestmonkey (819408) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209094)

You made me go read a Techdirt article. I don't do that anymore. Bad /.

Mike is a hypocritical jerk who likes the sound of his own typing, apparently. Occasionally he even has a point, but usually he belabors stuff so much the point gets lost in the miasma. Most often things break down into the fanboys ("Is too!") and the haters ("Is not!") camps, and nothing much comes of it. Are there any filters on /. for Techdirt articles?

Let's get fractal (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209104)

They should now pass a law that prohibits passing laws that contain plagiarized materials containing this one as an example.

New word (2, Funny)

identity0 (77976) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209140)

I propose a new word to describe this - wikiflagarism, the flagrant plagarism of wikipedia.

It is an portmanteau of a malapropism with a neologism, or a Malamanteau. [xkcd.com]

Does the Wikipedia license require attribution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209180)

i thought it was one of the licenses that didn't.

Lawmakers exempt themselves (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209202)

Remember when employment discrimination due to gender and race was outlawed? Not for Congress, as they excluded themselves! As far as copyrights and patents go, most governments that enforce such rules write exemptions for "public use." For example, the US government can implement any patent as long as the patent holder is reasonably compensated. The fact that Representatives act irresponsibly in regard to handling such exemptions is just another proof that power corrupts.

Plagiarizing Wikipedia? (2, Interesting)

Mr. Gunn (1205446) | more than 3 years ago | (#32209516)

Plagiarizing Wikipedia is like singing Happy Birthday without paying royalties.

Soviet Argentina (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32209530)

In Soviet Argentina, laws plagiarize you!

It's not a plagiarism bill, actually. (5, Informative)

baldusi (139651) | more than 3 years ago | (#32210186)

I live in Argentina and have read the original proposal. In fact he's proposing to up the penalties for misrepresenting, selling fake property as the original or selling property without that you don't own. Basically, you could sell fake goods, but you'd have to state it, thus, you'll be infringing on copyright. It's not so much about plagiarism as about misrepresentation and selling of fake goods as originals.
Having said that, I still think what he did was despicable and I seriously doubt his wits to be a representative. But which country is proud of its politicians? I would seriously consider moving there!

Laugh but don't take it too seriously (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#32211694)

Yes, it's sort of funny but no big deal.

The explanation was simply an explanation of the bill. It doesn't really need to be credited. And this is the sort of the Wikipedia is for - explaining and summarising sometimes fairly complex information for the layman. If the explanation credited Wikipedia it would distract from the explanation. It's not like he was claiming to have created this clever prose himself (unless I completely misunderstand the situation). He just wanted to share the knowledge.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...