The thread centers around sharing and enjoying lame jokes, with participants contributing various humorous quips and puns. The discussion explores the nature of humor, particularly focusing on jokes that are intentionally corny or groan-inducing.
There is no clear consensus on what constitutes a "lame" joke, as participants express a range of opinions on the humor shared. Some jokes are appreciated by certain individuals while others find them lacking, indicating a diversity of taste in humor.
Some jokes rely on specific cultural references or wordplay that may not be universally understood, leading to varied interpretations among participants.
Nope. The reviewer was required to state what was plagerized and specifically noted those items.WWGD said:
Or to quote Tom Lehrer:phinds said:
Ibix said:
Both on topic and derailed in one post. I'm quite proud of it.Orodruin said:
I meant in a general sense.Borg said:
Well, they still are detectors, they're just rally bad at it - very high false-positive track record. :)Orodruin said:
False positive, or false inference/conclusion? Just because there is a match, there is not necessarily plagiarism. For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?DaveC426913 said:
Very much not. That is up to the user.berkeman said:For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?
Yikes. How am I supposed to quote from another paper with attribution? I'm probably misunderstanding your reply.Orodruin said:
As I said, it is a text matching tool. If you quote something verbatim then obviously it is going to return a match. It is up to the user of the tool to determine if it is actual plagiarism or not.berkeman said:
Borg said:I got 'caught' by a plagiarism program once on an exam where I was instructed to submit my exam with specific section and title names. It flagged those items.
The detector simply detects what it is programmed to detect, much like a pregnancy test. Pregnancy test are still pregnancy tests, even what they are detecting is HCG and have a degree of error in what conclusions should be inferred from that.berkeman said:False positive, or false inference/conclusion? Just because there is a match, there is not necessarily plagiarism. For example, if I enclose a sentence or two in quotes and add a [1] reference, do these tools understand that?
By that logic, the previous several messages were plagiarizing a preceding message, just like this one.berkeman said:
BillTre said:By that logic, the previous several messages were plagiarizing a preceding message, just like this one.
Isn't he entitled to a jury of his peers? The fire hydrant and the tree at least look more like pee-ees.dextercioby said: