Indeed; I believe casual dress in general-purpose, public adult leisure contexts was initially associated strongly with the upper/upper-middle classes and was seen as a signal of higher status, even in cases where the dress item in question was an appropriation from the working class (e.g., jeans).
I flew from JFK to Heathrow in 1986 (don't recall the airline but assume it was either a major US carrier or British Airways) - I vividly remember the cabin being full of cigarette smoke. I suppose there must have been a nominal "section" but can't remember.
According to Wikipedia:
"After years of debate over health concerns, Congressional action in 1987 led to a ban on inflight smoking.
The U.S. ban on inflight smoking began with domestic flights of two hours or less in April 1988, extended to domestic flights of six hours or less in February 1990, and to all domestic and international flights in 2000."
I was just thinking that, holy cow. It's bad enough when a smoker sits down next to you on the bus. Imagine the guy next to you lighting up on a four hour flight. Holy shit.
Actually, plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. For example, it is possible to plagiarize something that is not copyrighted, and many forms of copyright infringement wouldn't fit the definition of plagiarism.
True, but the parent seems to think they wouldn't have been plagiarizing if they had "paraphrased" the declaring code so to speak, which makes the relationship here explicit. If they had paraphrased the declaring code, it would have been much harder to say they were infringing on copyright, but instead, they copied it verbatim.
Of course, in academia paraphrasing is still plagiarism, but it is likely no longer copyright infringement especially in this case.
> Of course, in academia paraphrasing is still plagiarism, but it is likely no longer copyright infringement especially in this case.
That seems an odd thing to say. A significant portion of academic writing is paraphrasing, with attribution. What is a review article, other than attributed paraphrasing?
Right. And there's been a trend at least over the past 10-15 years at larger companies of more work being done in-house -- the baseline, routine stuff you speak of -- rather than being outsourced to firms, another factor in the increasing pressure on the traditional big firm legal services model.
That's essentially right. Law schools have generally not focused on providing any sort of training for the actual practice of law. The model of education established by the elite law schools and imitated to a large extent by most of the non-elite ones is focused on teaching how to "think like a lawyer", which is probably better seen as how to think like an appellate judge. The elite law schools for the most part offer little in the way of practical training. Some schools have electives, taught generally by adjuncts or lower-status "clinical" professors, that are aimed more at practical skills, though these tend to focus on aspects of litigation or administrative practice rather than various sorts of other areas of legal practice.
I don't think things are too different as you get to the less elite law schools, though some of them may attempt to prepare students to pass the local state bar exam. One reason for this is that even at the lower tier faculty tend to be drawn from the top graduates of the top schools, who excelled in the traditional program of elite legal education and thus are disinclined to see anything questionable about it (I suspect).
(with the last line being the most common variant I remember, although I think it was common to strategically append things like 'and you are not it')