Where do you draw the line on plagiarism?

[NoJo]

One could argue that almost all new threads on Literotica follow the same basic storylines of old ones.

 

[jehoram]

One could argue that almost all new threads on Literotica follow the same basic storylines of old ones.

If you're talking about stories, I've always thought that it isn't what the story says, but how it says it. We'll soon run out of permutations of the sex act, but if a story is told in a novel way that goes right to my cock, it's gold.

If you're talking about posts, well, things don't change there much, either. There will still be new threads on cock-sucking, erectile dysfunction, and wanna-meet-yas, mostly because people aren't interested in reviving threads that are many years old, or even using the search function to find them.

Then again, I don't go to parties just to hear conversations that I've heard before. I go because when I'm talking with new people, the topics are fresh again.

 

[Hypoxia]

One could argue that almost all new threads on Literotica follow the same basic storylines of old ones.

A terrestrial were-frog courting a ten-breasted Polarian demi-female is only a rip on Romeo and Juliet, sure. Merely change the names to make it new.

 

[NoJo]

A terrestrial were-frog courting a ten-breasted Polarian demi-female is only a rip on Romeo and Juliet, sure. Merely change the names to make it new.

A fartweed by any other name

 

[CuteSlaveLisa]

"What has been, is what will be. That which is done, is what shall be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 1.9

Written by King David 3000 years ago.


Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

 

[Hypoxia]

"What has been, is what will be. That which is done, is what shall be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. -Ecclesiastes 1.9

Nothing new except the concepts of zero and abstract maths; industrialization and its social & physical consequences; scientific theory (test your assertions and conclusions); evolution theory, germ theory, quantum theory; sanitation; cybernetics, data mining; nukes; mass communications; popcorn.

The past was a different world and the future will be, too. New stuff happens all the time. We are not stuck in a stone-and-bronze-age morality loop. Dreams of subjugated folks in a corner of the world do not cover the planet. Biblical texts don't mention kangaroos, potatoes, cocoa, cacti, syphilis, or logarithms. (*) All new, hey?

PS - plagiarism: Steal smartly. Invent when needed. Change all the names.
_____

(*) That Huguenot refugee guy Roget, besides writing his thesaurus as a way to organize knowledge, also laid groundwork for animation and (logarithmic) slide rules. King David didn't even have an abacus. Poor sod.

 

[CuteSlaveLisa]

Just because I don't know about a thing does not make it not-exist.

I couldn't recreate this computer to save my life. Heck sometimes I can't figure out how to turn it on in the morning.

Nothing new except the concepts of zero and abstract maths; industrialization and its social & physical consequences;scientific theory (test your assertions and conclusions); evolution theory, germ theory, quantum theory; sanitation; cybernetics, data mining; nukes; mass communications; popcorn.

The past was a different world and the future will be, too. New stuff happens all the time. We are not stuck in a stone-and-bronze-age morality loop. Dreams of subjugated folks in a corner of the world do not cover the planet. Biblical texts don't mention kangaroos, potatoes, cocoa, cacti, syphilis, or logarithms. (*) All new, hey?

PS - plagiarism: Steal smartly. Invent when needed. Change all the names.
_____

(*) That Huguenot refugee guy Roget, besides writing his thesaurus as a way to organize knowledge, also laid groundwork for animation and (logarithmic) slide rules. King David didn't even have an abacus. Poor sod.

I underlined the items that I cannot make a claim existed 3000 years ago, but someone wiser than I might be able to make such a claim. I leave that to them.

Logarithms existed hundreds of years before the slide rule, almost but not quite 3000 years that I know of.

I think the items I made bold can be argued either way, they existed as natural phenomenon even if no human could explain them...

King David didn't have EL-AL or ZIM or he could have had kangaroos, potatoes, cocoa, cacti, popcorn and an abacus delivered to him in Jerusalem.

Not trying to be a pain, and I don't try to be provocative, but God I love a good debate...


Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

 

[Hypoxia]

Just because I don't know about a thing does not make it not-exist.

Nope, but all-seeing deities should know better.

Logarithms existed hundreds of years before the slide rule, almost but not quite 3000 years that I know of.

Not so far back.

* Logarithms: "Logarithms were introduced by John Napier in the early 17th century as a means to simplify calculations." No logs before Napier.

* Slide Rules: "The slide rule was invented around 1620–1630, shortly after John Napier's publication of the concept of the logarithm... In 1815, Peter Mark Roget invented the log log slide rule, which included a scale displaying the logarithm of the logarithm. This allowed the user to directly perform calculations involving roots and exponents." That's the modern slide rule.

I think the items I made bold can be argued either way, they existed as natural phenomenon even if no human could explain them...

The phenomena existed. The understandings were new, fresh under the sun. We needn't depend on angels and demons to get things done.

Example: If you had bad eyes in biblical times, too bad. Pray. Pray some more, maybe with sacrifices. Later (ca. 1300) people ground lenses to see better. Then ocular anatomy was learnt, and ocular physiology, and microbial infections. I am now not blind because of cutting-edge treatments. No prayers were involved.

King David didn't have EL-AL or ZIM or he could have had kangaroos, potatoes, cocoa, cacti, popcorn and an abacus delivered to him in Jerusalem.

Biblical texts channeling an all-seeing deity display no knowledge of ANYTHING beyond their immediate realm and needs. Said deity saw no need to inform humans of zero, pi, viruses, lenses, tequila, or koalas. How rude.

Not trying to be a pain, and I don't try to be provocative, but God I love a good debate...

Given: "Nothing new under the sun" is false. Discuss, whilst glancing at a digital watch. (Thank quantum theory for that.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

One could argue that almost all new threads on Literotica follow the same basic storylines of old ones.

I see what you did there.

Biblical texts don't mention kangaroos, potatoes, cocoa, cacti, syphilis, or logarithms.

Well, not unless you're a creationist trying really really hard to see kangaroos in Isaiah 13:21.

Housecats are also absent from the Bible, which is odd since they presumably would have been familiar in that region.

 

[Hypoxia]

Well, not unless you're a creationist trying really really hard to see kangaroos in Isaiah 13:21.

Biblical texts also promote infanticide, genocide, and slavery. Gotta be fucked in the head to worship that shit. Kangaroos are easy in comparison.

Anyway, cretinists seeking rational explanations try too hard. If you need proof, your faith is weak. Just invoke another fucking miracle and be done with it.

Housecats are also absent from the Bible, which is odd since they presumably would have been familiar in that region.

No mentions of lice, fleas, centipedes, scorpions, butterflies, beetles, or bugs, either. So they didn't need RAID? Miracle!

We're a bit off-topic here. I blame invisible scorpions.

 

[CuteSlaveLisa]

Squawking 7500, this thread has been hijacked.

First I am glad you had you had skillful doctors. I believe that a loving God created those doctors (as well as you and me and scientific method and germ theory) even if you do not. I also respect your right to your different belief.

As an analogy when my child was three, he discovered the refrigerator that I kept the fruit and yogurt I used to make his beloved smoothies in. He also discovered how I mixed them in the blender. Smoothies appearing before him wasn't magic anymore (or was it).

He had discovered the MECHANISM by which they had been created, but he didn't discover everything. I'm 60 now, I was younger then and I still don't know how to INVENT a blueberry. I can explain the MECHANISM by which bacteria is used to turn milk into yogurt, but I cannot INVENT the bacteria or the even milk, although through God's magic my own body produced that substance. As for magic, blueberries and the other fruits of nature are magic.

A lot hinges on interpretation of the word NEW. I view almost everything in life a being EVOLUTIONARY rather than REVOLUTIONARY. I am from Texas, my high school owned cartridge firearms that students used for target practice as part of a credit course. Some might view the centerfire cartridge as a 'new' 'revolutionary' thing, I view it as the evolutionary 'next step' to rimfire cartridges, cap and Minnie, flintlock and ball, matchlock, going back to David's sling and rock.

Nope, but all-seeing deities should know better.

Not so far back.

* Logarithms: "Logarithms were introduced by John Napier in the early 17th century as a means to simplify calculations." No logs before Napier.

* Slide Rules: "The slide rule was invented around 1620–1630, shortly after John Napier's publication of the concept of the logarithm... In 1815, Peter Mark Roget invented the log log slide rule, which included a scale displaying the logarithm of the logarithm. This allowed the user to directly perform calculations involving roots and exponents." That's the modern slide rule.

The phenomena existed. The understandings were new, fresh under the sun. We needn't depend on angels and demons to get things done.

Example: If you had bad eyes in biblical times, too bad. Pray. Pray some more, maybe with sacrifices. Later (ca. 1300) people ground lenses to see better. Then ocular anatomy was learnt, and ocular physiology, and microbial infections. I am now not blind because of cutting-edge treatments. No prayers were involved.

Biblical texts channeling an all-seeing deity display no knowledge of ANYTHING beyond their immediate realm and needs. Said deity saw no need to inform humans of zero, pi, viruses, lenses, tequila, or koalas. How rude.

Given: "Nothing new under the sun" is false. Discuss, whilst glancing at a digital watch. (Thank quantum theory for that.)

Your quoted article from Wikipedia (which I admit to be the end all and be all of sources ;-)) credits Burgi with developing logs by refining the 'order of a number' developed by Archimedes of Syracuse (died 212 BC, aka 2274 years ago, personally I accept that as being almost but not quite 3000 years ago- King David, whom NOBODY ever claimed was divine- died 970ish BC so that was 3029 to be more precise) so, Archimedes, Burgi, Napier, Roget, Texas Instruments...

I view the relationship between God and humanity as being analogous to parent and child. I taught my children, hopefully well, to be independent, self-reliant, thoughtful, loving, individuals.

The multiple Bibles I am familiar with do not instruct people to do NOTHING pray and wait for a deity to swoop in and make it all better. Certainly there are a few examples in scripture of that happening. Just as I as a mother occasionally directly interceded, an example I clearly remember was when a twelve year old punched my then five year old child on a playground. But 99% of the time the best action I could take was to teach my children how to handle a situation and to be there for them.

Digital watch, battery operated analog watch, spring operated analog watch, back eventually to portable sundial, the EVOLUTION of portable timekeeping.

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your quoted article from Wikipedia (which I admit to be the end all and be all of sources ;-)) credits Burgi with developing logs by refining the 'order of a number' developed by Archimedes of Syracuse

It doesn't, though?

The linked article says:

"The method of logarithms was publicly propounded by John Napier in 1614, in a book titled Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio (Description of the Wonderful Rule of Logarithms). Prior to Napier's invention, there had been other techniques of similar scopes, such as the prosthaphaeresis or the use of tables of progressions, extensively developed by Jost Bürgi around 1600."

"Of similar scope" doesn't mean "the same thing". A horse is of similar scope to a bicycle, in that they're both things you can sit on in order to go places, but they don't work the same way.

Logarithms and prosthaphaeresis both allow multiplication/division problems to be converted into addition/subtraction problems with the aid of pre-calculated tables, but the underlying theory is different.

 

[CuteSlaveLisa]

It doesn't, though?

The linked article says:

"The method of logarithms was publicly propounded by John Napier in 1614, in a book titled Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio (Description of the Wonderful Rule of Logarithms). Prior to Napier's invention, there had been other techniques of similar scopes, such as the prosthaphaeresis or the use of tables of progressions, extensively developed by Jost Bürgi around 1600."

"Of similar scope" doesn't mean "the same thing". A horse is of similar scope to a bicycle, in that they're both things you can sit on in order to go places, but they don't work the same way.

Logarithms and prosthaphaeresis both allow multiplication/division problems to be converted into addition/subtraction problems with the aid of pre-calculated tables, but the underlying theory is different.

Not the same, different... That depends on how narrowly you define the subject. My 1998 Oldsmobile was 'different' than my 1986 Oldsmobile, sharing no significant parts. The tiller steered 1904 Oldsmobile was a tiny two seated with wooden wheels and a chain drive like a bicycle. A 1898 De-Dion Automobile is even more 'different' using external rather than internal combustion.

What is the subject? If it was 1998 Oldsmobile 88s, then your red one is 'not the same' as my silver one. If the subject is a way to get a child to school and pick up groceries, the De-Dion is.

"Eighty-seven years ago our predecessors brought about on this continent a new county. Founded in Liberty and with the ideology that all men and women are equal.

"Today we fight this monumental Internecine War..."

Try turning that in to ANY school as your original work, I bet "plagiarism" will be a topic of discussion.

Love and Kisses

Lisa Ann

 

[Bramblethorn]

Not the same, different... That depends on how narrowly you define the subject. My 1998 Oldsmobile was 'different' than my 1986 Oldsmobile, sharing no significant parts. The tiller steered 1904 Oldsmobile was a tiny two seated with wooden wheels and a chain drive like a bicycle. A 1898 De-Dion Automobile is even more 'different' using external rather than internal combustion.

What is the subject? If it was 1998 Oldsmobile 88s, then your red one is 'not the same' as my silver one. If the subject is a way to get a child to school and pick up groceries, the De-Dion is.

"Eighty-seven years ago our predecessors brought about on this continent a new county. Founded in Liberty and with the ideology that all men and women are equal.

"Today we fight this monumental Internecine War..."

Try turning that in to ANY school as your original work, I bet "plagiarism" will be a topic of discussion.

Red vs. silver Oldsmobile: superficial differences, exact same thing under the hood, same principles at work.

Logarithms vs. prosthaphaeresis: superficial similarities, very different under the hood, different principles at work.

If you think they're basically the same thing, well, how would you go about integrating 1/x dx using prosthaphaeresis?

 

[Hypoxia]

Red vs. silver Oldsmobile: superficial differences, exact same thing under the hood, same principles at work.

From 1904:

* Oldsmobile curved-dash roadster with single-cylinder gasoline engine.
* Stanley runabout with two-cylinder compound steam engine.
* Columbia brougham with two electric motors.

All fell under the bogus 1895 Selden patents that Ford broke a few years later. All have four wheels (and several spares, if you're smart). The Olds and Stanley steered via tillers, the Columbia by a wheel. The Olds was noisy, as virtually all gas engines were then; steamers and electrics were nearly silent. They all started differently.

Did they have similar functions? Yes: haulage. Were they operated the same? Not at all, other than trying to stay rolling. Are they more similar than different? Well, compared to blimps, yeah, they're recognizably related. Were they plagiarized? Quite.

Could King David have the slightest hint of these devices and their drastic consequences? Could Dave's astrologers have foreseen and grokked the impossible quantum theory that makes no sense, but works perfectly? Quantum theory is behind ALL semiconductor devices like the phones addicting most of humanity. Brain interfaces will soon render phones obsolete; we'll be effectively telepathic, hands-free. I'd call that "something new under the sun" -- humanity becoming a hive-mind.

Meanwhile, plagiarism. "Don't steal; don't lift; twenty years of schooling and they put you on the day shift." I didn't say that.