×

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

130 comments

Achtung Schweinhund! (-1, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616551)

Ich habe kein Versicherung für meinem Polenüberfallenmittelstoff das Ich habe letzes tag beim Strassenbahnhalestelle verloren!

Re:Achtung Schweinhund! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616633)

NEIN! VERBOTEN!
Vorschrift Z38, Reichskampfstoffministerium, untersagt ausdrücklich die Mitführung von unversicherten Polenübefallmittelstoffmitführungsbehältnissen!
Begeben Sie sich in die Apparatur! Freude wird über Sie kommen!

Re:Achtung Schweinhund! (3, Funny)

snakeplissken (559127) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616853)

Wenn ist das Nunnstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Re:Achtung Schweinhund! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617465)

I showed this to a German friend of mine and he died - is that normal?

Re:Achtung Schweinhund! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617759)

I showed this to a German friend of mine and he died - is that normal?

Yes

Oh who gives a fuck? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616571)

Plagiarism's okay any day. There's nothing wrong with it at all. Think of all the effort they expend copying all that text! Why don't you want innovation? Why are you copyright property violators so smug!?

I've had enough of this time tell bologna!

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616709)

Well, copyright violators don't go around saying that they actually created any of the shit they copy around, in fact most of them go out of their way to tell people who's truly responsible for creating the work. Copy a song, that's copyright violation. Go around saying you fucking wrote the song, that's plagiarism. World of difference between the two.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (2)

metacell (523607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616765)

The Pirate Party is actually clear that they want to retain the creator's right to attribution. It's only the economic rights they want to abolish.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616933)

The Pirate Party is actually clear that they want to retain the creator's right to attribution. It's only the economic rights they want to abolish.

The problem being that the creators sustain them selves by the same economic rights the pirates want to abolish.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617027)

The Pirate Party is actually clear that they want to retain the creator's right to attribution. It's only the economic rights they want to abolish.

The problem being that the creators sustain them selves by the same economic rights the pirates want to abolish.

hah, like those rights benefit anyone but the corporate powers that be.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617085)

Yeah, and I might sustain myself with a right granted to me by law that forces everyone to give me a few dollars every so often for no reason at all. I mean, sure, authors think of new material, but the mere fact that that's the only way they know how to sustain themselves doesn't justify such freedom-violating laws. Find a business model or die.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (2)

Another, completely (812244) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617487)

Find a business model or die.

It is nice to have writers because we like to read books. If there is no business model that allows people to work as full-time authors, then it's not just the would-be authors who suffer.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617701)

Find a business model or die.

It is nice to have writers because we like to read books. If there is no business model that allows people to work as full-time authors, then it's not just the would-be authors who suffer.

I'm generally a political lefty but the idea that content creators are supposed to work, essentially for free, so that pirates can enjoy their material is naive and economically unworkable. This anarchistic/socialistic idea of entire professions working for the common good of the community without recompense has been tested an re-tested since before the Spanish civil war and found not to work any more than rampant rapacious capitalism has. It's a bit like those far left wing types that want to confiscate all privately accumulated pensions, put them into a single pot and then redistribute them equally to everybody regardless of how much they contributed. It kills all incentive to contribute. Not that the far left has a monopoly on stupid ideas, fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum are usually a bunch of morons. Whenever I talk about the issue of abolishing the practice of deriving economic benefit from intellectual property the discussion always ends with me asking the question: "How are writers/filmmakers/developers/musicians supposed to sustain them selves in a world where they are not allowed to sell their works?". The best ideas I have yet heard from our pirate friends is that musicians would be doomed to a lifetime of concert touring, writers to charging for access to book readings, filmmakers to deriving revenues from movie theaters and nobody has yet adequately explained to me how software developers are supposed to make money in a world where they can't charge people for software licenses. You can moan on and on about making software free and charging for the services it gives access to but that brings up the dual problems of people feeling them selves entitled to circumventing the pay portals to those services and the fact that not all software is a gateway to a service you can charge access to.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (3, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617915)

Well, in that case, you can make the same statement to book buyers: Find a funding model, or die. (Although it's not quite that bad, fortunately).

But there is no lack of other potential funding models. The main difficulty, both for authors and readers, is that we aren't used to these other funding models, and thus we're confused by them, scared by them, and unable to take full advantage of them.

Right now something exciting is happening, as Kickstarter is gradually, slowly, wrapping people's minds around the idea that you can approach creative projects as a investments/ventures for non monetary gain.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (4, Interesting)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617635)

Yeah, and I might sustain myself with a right granted to me by law that forces everyone to give me a few dollars every so often for no reason at all. I mean, sure, authors think of new material, but the mere fact that that's the only way they know how to sustain themselves doesn't justify such freedom-violating laws. Find a business model or die.

Exactly. I have a research position at a university. I get paid to write scientifical papers that are then available for everyone to download on my website. Why would the same thing be inconceivable for musicians?

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617819)

Sigh. I hope you are pretty young to have such an idealistic world view.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (3, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617591)

And those rights also sustain some grandchildren of the creators. The world needs some IP rights, but they are completely out of control right now. So if any negotiations are to be balanced, the anti-IP side has to start with wanting to abolish IP altogether, since the pro-IP side wants to extend it to eternity.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617681)

Right, like I pay the painter who painted the crossroads every time I cross the street?

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616807)

Just reading the title of her dissertation ("Person and conscience—Studies on conditions, need and requirements of today's consciences.") is enough to give me the giggles. Some of us got our PhD the hard way - by doing actual science or engineering that advanced the state of knowledge in their field. Just spewing some pseudo-intellectual waffle-gab should not count, except maybe towards a pseudo-PhD.

Re:Oh who gives a fuck? (5, Funny)

greentshirt (1308037) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617181)

Much of science is based on pseudo-intellectual waffle-gab. The experimental method, for example, empiricism, skepticism, many basic classificatory schemes, and actually even the groundwork for modern discoveries such as the atom. But what am I doing tell you all of this stuff, obviously you know the value of pseudo-intellectual waffle-gab, because your signature quotes Voltaire and not Newton.

No fun (3, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616577)

I've been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a Proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I'm still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

Re:No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616609)

Get over it, sweetcakes! I need my A's, B's, and C's to recuperate my health fully! I'm tired of you hitchbacked complainers ruining any chances I have of receiving my spindleback!

Re:No fun (4, Interesting)

RogueyWon (735973) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616859)

Plagiarism does seem to be getting more and more common, with people getting ever more casual about it. When I was at University in the 90s, there were a small number of students caught engaging in plagiarism. If it was felt to be deliberate, it was basically immediate expulsion. If it was more likely to be carelessness or ignorance of proper academic processes, the consequences were still severe (being made to redo substantial chunks of work).

Speaking a couple of months ago to a niece who's now at University, I was told that around a third of the students in her year for her subject had been caught copying material from the net. The response, a few sessions where they were sat down and told "Plagiarism is bad, mkay".

I came across a hilarious example of (non academic) plagiarism a couple of months ago, while sifting a pile of job applications.

This was the first sift and I had a pile of about 50 in front of me (which I was aiming to get down to about 15 or so by weeding out the obvious no-hopers). We had three other people sitting down with a similar pile (200 applications for 2 posts - this has been the norm for us over the last couple of years - I guess the job market is a scary place right now).

Anyway, I'm only being fairly cursory about it, but even so, I spot that three of the applications seem to use the exact same stock few (clumsy, badly worded) paragraphs. I tap the first line of one of these paragraphs into google and the first hit is a "how to write a job application" site. A very poorly put together site (think site design that dates from the circa 1998 geocities era), written by somebody whose first language is probably not English. The paragraphs in question aren't even particularly relevant to our job application form (which is fairly specific and focussed).

A quick e-mail around to the other people on the panel turns up a total of 6 forms which use text from that site. Clearly it had somehow managed to get a high ranking for a few of the relevant search terms. But seriously, you're competing against hundreds of other people and you decide to use material you've copy/pasted from something that is only one step away from having animated gifs of dancing cats? Unless said site had itself plagiarised its content from somewhere else, of course..

Re:No fun (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616975)

Plagiarism does seem to be getting more and more common, with people getting ever more casual about it. When I was at University in the 90s, there were a small number of students caught engaging in plagiarism.

Are you sure plagiarism rates are increasing? Maybe it's simply that these days, with everything being digital, it is way easier to uncover plagiarism. I wonder what would happen if one was able to digitize the scientific literature of the last 100 years and then started plagiarism checking Phd. thesis from the same period with a computer.

Wegman and the GMU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617183)

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/category/global_warming/wegman/

If you're connected, plagiarism is accepted, if hidden as far as possible from public knowledge.

Re:No fun (1)

cyberdime (2750427) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617607)

Are you sure plagiarism rates are increasing? Maybe it's simply that these days, with everything being digital, it is way easier to uncover plagiarism.

That or perhaps the many eyes of the Internet, bloggers, anonymous Wikileakers, etc. Maybe we can call it opensource journalism or at best the start of opensource government (ex. the anti-ACTA movement).

Re:No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616889)

You've been plagiarized from twice. Looks like you're pretty mad about that 'tsa' thing too.

Re:No fun (5, Funny)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616901)

I have been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I am still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

Re:No fun (4, Funny)

Inda (580031) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617895)

I have been copied just the once. This bastard had duplicated a single of my articles I typed about the events of a symposium, with images and the whole lot, and used it in a general idea piece of writing. The most unpleasant part of it is that my university lecturer didn't worry about it. I am still round the bend, and it occurred 15 durations previously.

Re:No fun (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616945)

I've been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a Proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I'm still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

I've had a student in a class plagiarize my own articles back at me. In retrospect it was both funny and sad, but at the time I was very exasperated that they could be that stupid. No, they didn't get a pass in the class. Nor did they get an opportunity to retake; their original work was even worse too, so much so that if they're reading here, I'd advise them to keep on plagiarizing instead of trying to have original thoughts.

Re:No fun (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617065)

I've been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a Proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I'm still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

I've had a student in a class plagiarize my own articles back at me. In retrospect it was both funny and sad, but at the time I was very exasperated that they could be that stupid. No, they didn't get a pass in the class. Nor did they get an opportunity to retake; their original work was even worse too, so much so that if they're reading here, I'd advise them to keep on plagiarizing instead of trying to have original thoughts.

It could have been even funnier if one of your colleagues marked it without realising before you saw it!

Re:No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617349)

I can't thinking anything worse than one of my students getting a bad mark for work they stole from me.

Re:No fun (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617447)

It could have been even funnier if one of your colleagues marked it without realising before you saw it!

To be honest, I forget whether it was myself or one of my colleagues who first saw this paper. The plagiarism was really obvious; it was a truly incompetent hack job that cribbed without citation from quite a few important papers in the field, and the student didn't even bother to make the formatting styles consistent. The indentation and font changed between paragraphs. Anyone knowledgeable enough to mark the subject on which the paper was supposed to be would have given similar marks.

But the big fat zero for plagiarism would still beat the outright negative for the original parts of the paper, which managed to be wrong in every way I can conceive of, sufficiently so that I could be sure it was original. The depth of lack of understanding (let alone ability) was profound. Before you ask, the rest of the class had no real problems producing reasonable work. Heck, the other times we've run the course even students who failed it did far better than this one guy; he was that stand-out bad. Sometimes, you've got to just fail someone utterly for the good of everyone else.

Considered from now, many years later, I'd guess that the part I'm angriest about is that he made it onto the course at all. He was a total waste of my time, time that could have been spent helping other students who did work and did try to understand and would have benefited from a little more guidance. (The work some of them did was amazing, and made me proud to have had some hand in teaching them.)

Re:No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617539)

"To be honest, I forget whether it was myself or one of my colleagues who first saw this paper. The plagiarism was really obvious; it was a truly incompetent hack job that cribbed without citation from quite a few important papers in the field, and the student didn't even bother to make the formatting styles consistent. The indentation and font changed between paragraphs."

Yeah, I've seen that too, mainly for stuff cribbed with cut-and-paste from web pages. The font changes, spacing, etc. all changed abruptly from paragraph to paragraph, and sometimes between sentences. Those ones are pretty pathetic. Easy to notice and easy to find on the web. Apparently they never heard of "Paste Special->without formatting". They can't even do a good job of plagiarism!

Make that twice! (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617059)

I've been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a Proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I'm still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

I've been plagiarized once. This bitch had copied one of my articles I wrote in a Proceedings of a conference, with pictures and everything, and used it in an overview article. The worst part of it is that my professor didn't care about it. I'm still mad, and it happened 15 years ago.

(Make that twice)

Re:No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617061)

Did it affect you negatively? Apart from negative feelings that is.
Captcha: puberty

Re:No fun (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617245)

Yesss!!! It does not matter that public is deceived by a plagiarist. It does not matter that plagiarist is given credit and authority based on things he copied from somewhere else! It does not matter that real author is deprived of recognition for his work.
It's about FEEEEEEELings!

Please kill all your friends, then yourself.

Re:No fun (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617601)

Please kill all your friends, then yourself.

Dude, that is not cool.

It's kill all your relatives, not friends.

She should step down. (4, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616587)

Seriously, what example does that set that your Minister for Science and Education is a cheat?

Go Germany!!!!!!

Re:She should step down. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616605)

While I agree that it's inexcusable, Bush cheated the elections, so...

Go USA!!!!!

Re:She should step down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616663)

Actually, no he didn't. Bush went to court to make sure the same rules at the start of the election were in place at the finish of the elections. That is what the Supreme Court ruled on and said had to happen. You would have a hard time claiming that the person wanting the rules to be the same when they finished as when they started is a cheat in any other way. Just because keeping the same rules was to his advantage does not make him a Cheat. Just because you do not like him does not make him a cheat.

This is besides the point that every study done on the recounts have declared Bush to be the rightful winner. Including one done with actual access to the ballots that the hanging chads and dimples and everything was being counted.

Re:She should step down. (5, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616797)

Actually, no. In fact, the supreme court found that the rules that were in place before the election were unconstitutional. In particular, the rules regarding recounts were unconstitutional because there was no statewide standard for counting ballots, and thus ballots could be counted differently in different counties. This, the Supremes ruled, was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Those counting rules were in place prior to the election, but the SCOTUS ruled that the recount had to be stopped because (in part) of this violation. The other part was that putting a statewide standard in place would take too long, and would prevent certification of the vote in time to meet the mandated date that certification was required (December 12th, which was also the date of the decision).

Basically, it was all a huge cluster fuck, with conflicting rulings, laws, standards, etc.. In fact, because the counting process was ruled to be in violation of the 14th amendment, SCOTUS should have ruled that the original count was not valid as well, and forced the SCOFL to mandate a standard and then do a full recount by that standard. That way, the rules in effect prior to the legitimate count would have been the same as after the legitimate count.

Re:She should step down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617133)

SCOTUS should have ruled that the original count was not valid as well, and forced the SCOFL to mandate a standard and then do a full recount by that standard

Absolutely, but you make the mistake of supposing the courts were after justice. The Florida Supreme Court gave out a tongue-in-cheek ruling favoring Gore. The US Supreme Court then showed the Florida Supreme Court their place with a tongue-in-cheek ruling of another magnitude.

In America, the Supreme Court isn't there to rule objectively from law and overarching principles. Rather, the Supreme Court consists of political players who use their expertise to dress their whims in legalese.

A good example is the idea that the Constitution guarantees everybody legal presentation (it doesn't, but the Supreme Court is who decides). Then, somebody got a death penalty because their public defender slept through the proceedings and appealed. The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, ruled that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that your guaranteed legal representation must be awake...

Re:She should step down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617937)

The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, ruled that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that your guaranteed legal representation must be awake if you're black.

FTFY

Re:She should step down. (1)

metacell (523607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616829)

I'm not contesting that Bush turned out to be the rightful winner in the end, but both sides did use a lot of dirty tricks to make the decision go their way.

Re:She should step down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617205)

This is no “versus”. The USA has horribly bad government science committee chairmen too.

Both our politicians are evil pieces of shit. Both our citizens love to complain but hate to change anything, or they couldn't complain anymore. Let's leave it at that. (France, and other countries: You're welcome to join in too.)

Re:She should step down. (1)

will_die (586523) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617259)

USA is still number one, the head of the department in charge of our taxes, aka IRS, is a tax cheat.

Re:She should step down. (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617445)

Well sometimes it takes a crook to catch the cheaters, but in that case they probably just settle things with a nice campaign donation.

State of the question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616615)

As an university teacher once told me: Copy from 1 is plagiarism, from 5 is an analysis, from 92 is summarizing the state of the question

Re:State of the question (5, Informative)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616635)

Funny, but fundamentally wrong. Copy and give credit = standard scientific proceeding. Copy and say it's yours = plagitism. It quite easy, really.

Re:State of the question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616651)

Get on over it, you blimey little bastard! I've revealed the Truth of Things! I've revealed the Truth of Things at once!

Re:State of the question (1)

metacell (523607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616839)

Well, if something is generally known to experts in the field, there's no need to give credit; everyone already knows who discovered it and won't believe it's you.

Re:State of the question (1)

Endovior (2450520) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617169)

Emphatically NOT true. 'Generally Known' and 'Known to Experts' are two entirely different sets, with very minimal intersection; at the levels of doctoral research, even the experts don't have time to read all the papers, and there really isn't a lot that can be said to be 'Generally Known'... so 'Generally Known to Experts' isn't a useful criteria. And even if something was so 'Generally Known to Experts' that citation really would be redundant, it's still useful to have the citation. That makes it easier for your expert readers to look up the original for cross-referencing, for non-expert readers to have access to background info they lack, and for keeping track of relevant statistics like 'How many works have cited this work?' All that's ignoring the fact that it's impolite to not cite, but that much goes without saying.

Re:State of the question (1)

ThreeKelvin (2024342) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617923)

Thank you!

I spent two months of my PhD, first trying to find an elusive proof for an obscure bit of math that I needed, that, according to the papers on the topic, was "available in the litterature", and then, after I finally gave it up, I painfully reconstructed the proof.

"Available in the litterature" ticks me off, almost as much as "... from this, it is easily seen that ...".

Re:State of the question (1)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year and a half ago | (#41618009)

Well, if something is generally known to experts in the field, there's no need to give credit; everyone already knows who discovered it and won't believe it's you.

It's safer to err on the side of precaution. Why risk being called a plagiarist when all that's needed to avoid trouble is to change from this:

Blah blah blah blah.

To this:

"Blah blah bah blah." (Author, "Title", p. Page)

?

My guess is that most plagiarism out there is more a case of laziness than of anything else.

Hmm... perhaps there's an unexplored market out there for auto-quoting services for lazy researches, who knows? Submit your unpublished paper, get all unintentional plagiarisms marked for review, click a button and have them turned into proper quotations in any style your paper uses, either all at once or individually, and download the result.

Science?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616657)

Schavan received her doctorate in educational science in 1980 from the University of Düsseldorf; her dissertation was entitled: "Person and conscience—Studies on conditions, need and requirements of today's consciences.

This isn't science anyway, just brabra like most lawyers write about...

Re:Science?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616729)

Rape is perfectly acceptable. You've been indoctrinated by the cows-come-home elites to believe otherwise. It's perfectly normal to spew your seed into an unwilling victim's vagina. Why wouldn't it be? It's natural!

Re:Science?!? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617015)

Which is why I find most of these scandals pointless. Her PhD is worthless regardless whether she copied it or not.

Not tolerable in this level (1)

Tharindu_Rusira (2749951) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616671)

This is really bad in the perspective of the country more than as a personal disgrace to a minister, if she is proved to be guilty.

Re:Not tolerable in this level (2)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617491)

It might be, if she had been the first this year. I have lost count on just how many PhD scandals involving ministers or high ranking politicians there have been in Germany in the last two years (double digits). The whole thing started last year when the minister of defence and current shooting star of the ruling party was found guilty of plagiarism in his PhD. After that, people started to take a closer look on other prominent figures PhDs. Guess what happened next...

Everything worth saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616757)

Everything worth saying has been said. The merit of ideas should be independent of the source.

Plagiarism is just a branch of the immoral concept of copyright.

Re:Everything worth saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617017)

Everything worth saying has been said.

Post-modernism is a dead end, exactly because of this.

But, OK, you have an expensive sounding excuse for your lack of originality.

Seems to become a national hobby... (4, Informative)

Fusselwurm (1033286) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616805)

... after Mr Guttenberg had to quit as Defence Minister because of plagiarism, it seems to have become a sport [wikipedia.org] to topple politicians this way. It's a fun thing to watch.

Re:Seems to become a national hobby... (2)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617515)

Just as it became customary for politicians to get a PhD and a fancy "Dr." to the name, a part of the public has decided to read their theses. This is how a democracy works.

AVG LiveCD with TrueCrypt + daily updates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616857)

AVG Antivirus for Linux â" Official Free LiveCD, DVD, USB â" daily updated virus database, latest development version, GPG sigs, includes TrueCrypt!
11 October, 2012

You may have heard about AVG Antivirus for Linux:

http://free.avg.com/ww-en/download.prd-alf.tpl-stdfull [avg.com]

And you may know of AVGâ(TM)s Antivirus for Linux bootable LiveCD:

http://www.avg.com/us-en/avg-rescue-cd-download [avg.com]

â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"-

But did you know they also have a Live CD/DVD/USB with a daily updated virus database and the latest development version?

Did you know each release is signed with a GPG signature?

That it comes with TrueCrypt?[1]

Did you also know they provide instructions for, âoeBuilding AVG Rescue CD GNU/Linux?â

From the site:

âoeAVG Technologies will provide for each AVG Rescue CD GNU/Linux release a makefile and a AVG Rescue CD GNU/Linux package with all resources allowing you to build and customize the AVG Rescue CD GNU/Linux.â

Amazing â" they provide this daily free resource and go so far as to provide instructions on how to build it yourself!

What are you waiting for? Go check it out:

https://share.avg.com/arl [avg.com]

â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"â"-
[1] http://www.truecrypt.org/ [truecrypt.org]

Re:AVG LiveCD with TrueCrypt + daily updates (1)

KevReedUK (1066760) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617449)

Hmmm... I wonder... SPAM, or an example of plagiarism for comedy value? If the latter, kudos for getting it in under the radar!

No actual plagiarism (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41616931)

This is actually old news... And it has been quickly determined that the accusations are bogus. It's a desperate plot by political enemies against the minister.

For example, the first instance of alleged plagiarism is the following text:
Schavan's thesis:

Dabei haben sich – vergröbernd dargestellt – zwei unterschiedliche Verhältnisbestimmungen herauskristallisiert: [...]

Allegedly plagiarised text:

Er hat nachgewiesen, daß jedes Tier mit seiner artspezifischen Umwelt in einem Funktionskreis verbunden existiert.

Even if you don't understand German, it should be obvious that no text has been copied. The accusators of schavanplag call this "concealed" plagiarizing. There would be some truth to this if Schavan had actually known the source and paraphrased the text without citing. It is, however, equally likely that she had just came to the same conclusions based on the same sources.

Some minor quality problems have been found, too. For example, some citations contain typos. While that should not happen, it's far from plagiarism. (Furthermore, the thesis was published in 1980. Without computers, it's much harder to avoid such errors.)

Re:No actual plagiarism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617079)

You are a liar. The text you are calling "allegedly plagiarised" does not appear on the wiki page [wordpress.com] having your quotation from the thesis.

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617137)

Oh, it sems that I switched tabs and copied the wrong text:

For the following text from Schavan's thesis:

Dabei haben sich – vergröbernd dargestellt – zwei unterschiedliche Verhältnisbestimmungen herauskristallisiert: [...]

the text claimed to be the original is:

Man kann drei verschiedene Ansichten über das Verhältnis des Menschen zum Tier unterscheiden[FN 2].

The conclusion is exactly the same.

The text I have accidentally copied seems to have come from the next page with alleged plagiarisms [wordpress.com], which was open in another browser tab.

Sorry for that.

Please refrain from calling other people names, btw. Thank you!

Re:No actual plagiarism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617229)

You are still lying by severly distorting the facts and taking things out of context. On the page you mention, Schavan obviously paraphrased the source without giving any attribution, including literal copying of the phrases "unüberbrückbare Kluft", "unter Naturzwang stehendes Tier", "gradueller Unterschied". While this might not count as criminal copyright infringement, it is still a violation of established scientific practice, and thus has no place in a PhD thesis.

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617099)

Bullcrap.

See: here [wordpress.com]

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617217)

anything that is typed there, I could have typed as well (perhaps not in so perfect German). Without ever having read either of these previous works.

Re:No actual plagiarism (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617113)

This is actually old news... And it has been quickly determined that the accusations are bogus.

Do you have a reference to this?

Re:No actual plagiarism (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617287)

This is actually old news... And it has been quickly determined that the accusations are bogus.

Do you have a reference to this?

He doesn't because this is wrong as well. The news is that the amount of plagiarism that had been detected has increased substantially since the original accusations. And even back then, several leading experts on plagiarism talked of "grave scientific misconduct", "scientifically worthless work", "suffcient for revoking her degree" [spiegel.de].

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618135)

He doesn't because this is wrong as well. The news is that the amount of plagiarism that had been detected has increased substantially since the original accusations. And even back then, several leading experts on plagiarism talked of "grave scientific misconduct", "scientifically worthless work", "suffcient for revoking her degree" [spiegel.de].

This story of SPIEGEL online is clearly marked with a date: "5.05.2012

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618179)

He doesn't because this is wrong as well. The news is that the amount of plagiarism that had been detected has increased substantially since the original accusations. And even back then, several leading experts on plagiarism talked of "grave scientific misconduct", "scientifically worthless work", "suffcient for revoking her degree" [spiegel.de].

This story of SPIEGEL online is clearly marked with a date: "5.05.2012

So what? Do you think the additional instances of plagiarism will lead these guys to soften their judgement?

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617125)

I hope this gets modded up.

I have nothing against people who paraphrase a common sentence. There are only so many times a certain thing can be said, and I think it is silly to blame people for using a clear 5-word sequence that they _might_ have seen elsewhere. Especially when millions of non-native speakers write scientific papers, I prefer they steal a clear sentence, then that they invent a sentence that nobody understands.

I also have nothing against paraphrasing a few sentences or an idea that was published elsewhere, if attribution is given.

Most automatic "plagiarism-detecting software" fails miserably at these two things.

What I do not like is people who clearly steal an idea, then even manage to write it down in nearly the same words as the original author, but without attribution. It happened to me, and it is quite frustrating.

However, the world does not end with this. There are much worse crimes. I would prefer we teach people the right mentality, then to witch-hunt people who might have copied a half sentence.

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617243)

I would prefer we teach people the right mentality, then to witch-hunt people who might have copied a half sentence.

What about people who have copied a half sentence 92 times? And what if these people are actually in charge of setting the standards for teaching the right mentality?

Re:No actual plagiarism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617553)

If you read more of the alleged instances of plagarism, the pattern is pretty clearly that she copied structure and content including footnotes and references but mostly re-worded everything. I still think this qualifies as plagarism. One pretty clear example of plagarism, or at least "scientific mis-conduct" is e.g. this part [wordpress.com] which is written to look like 4 books were used to write the section, with titles of the books given in the foot nodes. But apparently only a single secondary source was used, with all foot notes lifted from that source, as indicated by multiple errors and inaccuracies that were copied as well (with no mention of the secondary source itself).

Re:No actual plagiarism (1)

ericloewe (2129490) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617875)

While that particular passage is very, very far from plagiarism, there are others that are a bit closer. A quick check did not yield any verbatim copies, though.

The Germans are self-policing... (4, Insightful)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41616991)

... as shown by the website here: http://de.vroniplag.wikia.com/wiki/Home/English [wikia.com]

As an academic who earned a PhD in the US and worked as faculty in Sweden and now Germany, you're being quite naïve if you don't think this happens in every country including the US. The difference is that the Germans self-police (in standard volunteer wiki-style), while the US and Sweden do not, to my knowledge.

As far as it being a "sport", that's ridiculous. Being that we (Germany's inhabitants) take titles very seriously, with good reason, as the Chancellor has a doctorate in Quantum Chemistry, every thesis should be thoroughly scrutinized.

I would wager my degrees that the percentage of pages plagiarized are very similar between the US, Sweden and Germany. We just find the plagiarism over here and hold politicians (and all others) accountable.

Here are the "overall statisctics"... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617111)

http://de.vroniplag.wikia.com/wiki/%C3%9Cbersicht

The graphics at the bottom clearly translate for a non-German audience ... as do the lines through the "type" of doctoral degree directly above the graphic.

For a non-German perspective, I now see how someone could perhaps see this "as sport" as nothing like this has happened anywhere else to my knowledge (and definitely not in the US, where you'd probably be DCMA'd or immediately sued for slander).

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (3, Informative)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617127)

The difference is that the Germans self-police (in standard volunteer wiki-style), while the US and Sweden do not, to my knowledge.

Even in Germany, this is quite new, and only started when one infamous dazzler (who I'm not going to name because it would only improve his Google rankings) was uncovered, denied everything and went on the offensive as PR experts tell you to do in such cases - except that the Internet geeks banded together and ripped his PhD thesis apart page-by-page showing massive abuse so much that he not only lost his PhD but also had criminal investigations for copyright violations launched against him and public pressure forced him to give up all his political positions.

He's since twice tried a comeback, both times the public made it clear that we don't like liars and fraudsters.

That was a part of recent history that makes me proud, but it is very recent history.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (2)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617165)

Sure, it's a new phenomenon.

But you must admit that the time between the technology being available (all dissertations being publicly available in electronic PDF form and OCR being widely implementable, the wiki framework for crowd-sourcing a problem, and the media being willing to really hang a prominent member of a prominent noble family out to dry) and the rise of self-policing websites has been extremely fast.

Also, he has 12 names plus a von and zu trailer. That alone would prevent me from typing his name.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617865)

criminal investigations for copyright violations launched against him

Liar. Copyright is a purely civil manner.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617177)

Last time I checked, twelve of the then sixteen members of the German federal cabinet held earned doctorates, and two of the other four had comparable advanced academic credentials in law. Scanning politicians' dissertations is more of a sport in Germany because there's a lot of subject material.

It's also a fact of life in Germany that a few people enjoy playing 'Anzeiger', and bringing the sins of their neighbors to the attention of the authorities. Very few Germans are like this, and the others all groan about them, but there are enough of these folks to plague politicians, and maybe that's at least a constructive outlet for their obnoxiousness. So Germany has political plagiarism scandals the way other countries have political sex scandals.

Of course, poring over what a cabinet minister wrote thirty years ago, on a narrow topic unrelated to their current work, may not have much more relevance to their performance in office than keeping careful track of their bodily fluids. Still, the difference from the perspective of a headline reader is somehow refreshing.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617185)

I checked some of the so-called plagiarism from that site.

This seems partially an automatic checker. To give an example in English, if two people write "The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution", flags go up, you have just plagiarized 8 words!

Other cases are basically "XX claimed that the president would not be able to exercise his veto power if..." which is compared to work XX (which was probably cited): "The president would not be able to exercise his veto power if ...".

Of course I did not check every single example, but I think many of these are not plagiarism, if you would forbid this thing, people would just start turning words around to make the checkers fail. And if even that is not allowed: look, they are talking about the same subject, they credit the original, must you really require them to write a sentence totally different for making the exact same point?

There is something as being too purist....

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (1)

bradley13 (1118935) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617401)

If you have a couple of identical phrases, that's no big deal. When you have pages and pages of such phrases, it indicates a problem. Identical phrases happen by coincidence, but it is surprisingly rare.

I check my students' work regularly for plagiarism. If you use a bit of sense, and pick out a phrase that contains specifics but is not standard (i.e, not "the fourth amendment"), you almost *never* find an exact match.

Here's a negative example: take the first sentence of the previous paragraph: "I check my students' work regularly for plagiarism". Google currently returns zero exact matches for this phrase, even though it doesn't seem like anything particularly special.

Here's a positive example (sorry, it's in German): "ein Speichermedium, das wie eine herkömmliche magnetische Festplatte". This phrase appeared in a homework assignment last year, and returns zillions of Google hits. Examining the hits, and it turns out that they are all copied from the Wikipedia article describing SSDs. This isn't yet proof of plagiarism, but when I find 10 or 15 paragraphs have been copied into the homework, well, the situation becomes clear.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617201)

As far as it being a "sport", that's ridiculous. Being that we (Germany's inhabitants) take titles very seriously

The Germans' attitude toward titles and formalities is ridiculous.

In California, I had two German coworkers. Everybody from CEO down went by the first name. I asked one of these German coworkers what would happen if the two of them made a business trip to Germany together. Upon landing in Germany, would they continue addressing each other informally as "du?" He said that would probably be awkward and they would automatically slip into addressing each other "Sie" (= "sir"). After all, we are talking about 30-year-old engineers.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617225)

"Sie" doesn't really indicate "Sir." Also, it's very environmentally conditional. The same person could be "du" at home and "Sie" at work. I have to admit that the workplace is much more formal in Germany than in the US and I'm not sure that's actually bad ... unless one can't handle the formality.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (2)

bradley13 (1118935) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617269)

That seems odd, especially from younger engineers. In Germany, co-workers in a business situation go by "du" and first-names very quickly; certainly as soon as they are working on a project together. This is even true for geezers like me (far side of 50). It's just not completely automatic, like in English.

In English *everybody* is on a first-name basis, which is extreme in the other direction. When you first meet someone, why should you immediately pretend to be friends? Especially if one of you is in a position of authority over the other? Unless you are in a tiny company where you are in daily contact, addressing the CEO of your company as Mr./Ms. Smith seems like simple politeness. Calling everyone by their first-name is pretending to a familiarity that just doesn't exist.

The fun begins in German-speaking countries where companies use lots of English internally. Find a situation where the English-language culture requires first names, but the German-language culture requires last names, put in a mix of people speaking a mix of languages, and watch our heads explode.

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617797)

"In California, I had two German coworkers. Everybody from CEO down went by the first name."

Were their firstnames 'Doktor'?

Re:The Germans are self-policing... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617455)

Has got nothing to do with the chancellor having a doctorate in quantum chemistry. She has supported the fraudster Guttenberg as long as it was possible.

Germans are thiefs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41617609)

Nothing new here, this has been known thorughout history, they are but thiefing animals.

Just a nutcase blogger with a grudge? (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about a year and a half ago | (#41617789)

I have yet to see even one example of plagiarism among the 92 examples given. The blogger seems unable to understand that it is common academic praxis to sum up e.g. a theory from a work. Of course such a summery will bear some resemblance to the original work, otherwise it wouldn't be a summery. But as long as there are good footnotes documenting this, it isn't a problem.

One could in fact argue, that since the blogger doesn't seem to have found even one good clear case of plagiarism, the dissertation comes out strengthened.

Here in Portugal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41618243)

Politicians don't plagerize a PhD, but rather buy they bachelor's degree in the nearest "friendly" university. Former PM, José Socrates, finished his degree on a Sunday (when the uni is closed) and current Minister, Miguel Relvas, obtained a 3year bachelor's just by doing 4 subjects and getting the rest of the credit in exchange for "work experience".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Relvas#Academic_qualifications [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_S%C3%B3crates#S.C3.B3crates.E2.80.93Independente_affair

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...