@Paradise: Rereading my initial comment, I think "acerbic" may be an understatement. I should not have jumped so far down your throat, nor should I have assumed your views were so extreme. Sorry.

@Paradise: An overly hyperbolic comment perhaps, but I think your comment was closer to being troll-worthy. By arguing that the people in this video "follow follow follow blindly" and exasperatedly claiming that "we need more leaders," you're implying that real, self-possessed individuals will challenge all semblance…

@Paradise: Oh, you're SO cool. You break the rules and make life harder for everyone else! Go masturbate to Ayn Rand, you douche!

@drongch: "If we were to follow your train of thought, scholarship in academia would end."

@NotEnglishSpeaker: BULLSHIT. Android Market also has free apps, so if you only need to download free apps, you have no reason to need Blapk Market. You specifically said the reason you're sticking with Blapk Market is because you won't have to pay for apps, which implies that you're downloading apps you would…

@brodiemac: Is that a joke? We're one of the most overworked country in the world? Have you visited any other developed Western country?

@wjglenn: Didn't he change the composition when he re-wrote it? He didn't use the language verbatim, but paraphrased it. So it must not just be the composition of the language that matters, but the idea embodied in that composition of language. So plagiarism is borrowing ideas from others; of course, it's impossible…

@eiberri: Absolutely. It's a fundamental by-product of a capitalist mindset. Where capitalism is an unexamined assumption that is felt as a natural impulse, though, (as it is in the West and increasingly the rest of the world as well), plagiarism is seen as a natural taboo as well. Once you start commodifying natural…

@drongch: "It is easy to get around this by acknowledging the source or by rewriting it"

@Richard James Drake: The problem is that this simply isn't true. Plagiarism isn't just copying verbatim; it's copying ideas, even if they're paraphrased. That's why it's such a gray area. If you were just talking about text, I'd agree with you, but the focus of plagiarism is on ideas.

@AmphetamineCrown: What's the definition of "take"? Why use that definition? That path leads to epistemological hell. It's a better idea to focus on "theft" as a moral concept, not a dictionary definition.

@winzerdog: Better question. Is it wrong to borrow ideas from another writer to recreate it in another form?

@k122n: Don't mind him; he's apparently an empiricist who insists on a universal truth.

@gerrrg: "If you're copying verbatim, is it really that much more work to note down the source?"

@Shin-GO: What would be the point if the writing of others was 100% original? We'd all be writing papers that had no relation to one another or any universal meaning whatsoever. Academia is inherently and necessarily reflexive, and that's a good thing. You can't have critical thought without something to critique.

@taz20075: "Frankly, directly quoting anyone in an academic research paper—or even a memo—is lazy"

It's good for some situations, but not the example that you use. If you're telling someone that MIT researchers proved something, you'll have to include a link. And you can't click on a link in the subject line, so your recipient will have to open it anyway!

@ifionlyhadabeard: "Why is it that when you're from New York everyone feels like they need to tell you they wouldn't want to live in your city?"

@infmom: Ad hominem, very nice. No, I hardly touch the stuff, and usually abstain when with family members since parts of my family have a history of alcoholism. But that doesn't mean that I don't respect that others drink in moderation in social situations. It's fine if you don't want to serve alcohol at your…

@m57: Yeah. I think the fact Rosa is demoing this game means that Giz knows its audience (sadly).