It almost appears that Professor Jeff Hancock is purposefully helping to kill the State's case instead of trying to defend it. He's too smart to be this incompetent. I think it's part of the plan to defeat the law.
When I was going up for a promotion, I had a professor who didn't like that I was young and already achieving his same rank. He reviewed my materials and claimed that I had self plagiarized. He was pointing to a study I had published and then the follow-up to that study (i.e., a part 2). Inevitably, I referenced the first study and relied on the work I had done previously to extend it for the new study. He could see that my literature review, in parts, relied on the exact same sources. New literature didn't exist between the month I submitted one paper and when I submitted paper 2. The "essence" of what I published was what I found and reported, and that was completely new. The review committee agreed with me. Far too often, we use plagiarism as a gotcha. I think the author here gets it partly right in that sense, but I don't think we should abandon our efforts to detect and punish plagiarism. The banal stuff should not be punished the same way as plagiarizing the essence. Slap on the wrist versus serious punishment. We have yet to figure out how to differentiate these things, though.
We're talking past each other as you're reading into my comments something I am not intending. I am suggesting that people desiring checks and balances need to vote in a way that works in the electoral college instead of hanging our hats on winning a majority that does not ensure victory.
I don't disagree; unfortunately, the electoral college does not need a majority as we've learned a few times in the past 5 presidential elections. Our process is broken if we want to have the will of the people heard.
We are getting the public accountability that we deserve. Americans apparently desire having a 1 party system being in power across the board with the President trying to discredit the remaining bastion of oversight (e.g., the free press). When Americans get tired of this level of accountability then perhaps they'll vote for individuals who want to provide actual checks and balances to the status quo.
I use WeChat often. Perhaps a person gets banned from the components of WeChat where violations of terms occurred, but that person is not banned from the ID portion of WeChat. That could be easy to implement.
The problem with Steve Reilly's argument is that the feds getting records of a phone call require a wire tap. The feds should get the same wire tap (so to speak) to copy a person's emails. If they then make a federal record of having acquired those emails, then perhaps those emails should be subject to the FOIA requests, but not all emails.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by jayhawksean.
All Part of the Plan?
It almost appears that Professor Jeff Hancock is purposefully helping to kill the State's case instead of trying to defend it. He's too smart to be this incompetent. I think it's part of the plan to defeat the law.
Academia and Scholarship
When I was going up for a promotion, I had a professor who didn't like that I was young and already achieving his same rank. He reviewed my materials and claimed that I had self plagiarized. He was pointing to a study I had published and then the follow-up to that study (i.e., a part 2). Inevitably, I referenced the first study and relied on the work I had done previously to extend it for the new study. He could see that my literature review, in parts, relied on the exact same sources. New literature didn't exist between the month I submitted one paper and when I submitted paper 2. The "essence" of what I published was what I found and reported, and that was completely new. The review committee agreed with me. Far too often, we use plagiarism as a gotcha. I think the author here gets it partly right in that sense, but I don't think we should abandon our efforts to detect and punish plagiarism. The banal stuff should not be punished the same way as plagiarizing the essence. Slap on the wrist versus serious punishment. We have yet to figure out how to differentiate these things, though.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Checks and Balances
We're talking past each other as you're reading into my comments something I am not intending. I am suggesting that people desiring checks and balances need to vote in a way that works in the electoral college instead of hanging our hats on winning a majority that does not ensure victory.
Re: Re: Checks and Balances
I don't disagree; unfortunately, the electoral college does not need a majority as we've learned a few times in the past 5 presidential elections. Our process is broken if we want to have the will of the people heard.
Checks and Balances
We are getting the public accountability that we deserve. Americans apparently desire having a 1 party system being in power across the board with the President trying to discredit the remaining bastion of oversight (e.g., the free press). When Americans get tired of this level of accountability then perhaps they'll vote for individuals who want to provide actual checks and balances to the status quo.
Re: I foresee the Facebook problem.
I use WeChat often. Perhaps a person gets banned from the components of WeChat where violations of terms occurred, but that person is not banned from the ID portion of WeChat. That could be easy to implement.
The problem with Steve Reilly's argument is that the feds getting records of a phone call require a wire tap. The feds should get the same wire tap (so to speak) to copy a person's emails. If they then make a federal record of having acquired those emails, then perhaps those emails should be subject to the FOIA requests, but not all emails.