[invisal]

Greeting to everyone,

I come here on Psycho_Coder's suggestion. He said that I will fall in love with this forum.
My name is In Visal. I am computer programmer, I have been programming on and off
for around 8 years.

So, I decided to write a small tutorial about "Memory Alignment" in C/C++ sub forum.
Surprisingly, it got deleted. I believe that there is certain reason why it got deleted.
(I would like to know as well).

Anyway, I hope everyone is welcoming me here.

[unnamed]

Hello and welcome to HC.

I'm pretty sure that new members here can't write threads until they meet some criteria,
like being few hours signed up and 20 posts.

That is to prevent spam.

Anyway, enjoy your stay here.

[invisal]

I have registered more than 2 hours. I do make sure that the thread is successfully posted.
When I revisit around 10 minutes later. I see this alert

Code:

LoneDevil replied to your thread "Introduction to Memory Alignment". There may be more posts after this. (Today, 10:09 AM)

[cyber_d3face]

Hello hello welcome to the forum. You will fall in love like most of us have. Do you have any background in the security pen testing field and welcome again.

[Solixious]

Hello and welcome to Hack Community.
Maybe @LoneDevil being community manager could explain what happened to your thread. I'm myself not sure since it sounds pretty unusual to me.
Cheers :Wink:

[Linuxephus™]

Greeting to everyone,
I come here on Psycho_Coder's suggestion. He said that I will fall in love with this forum.
My name is In Visal. I am computer programmer, I have been programming on and off
for around 8 years.
So, I decided to write a small tutorial about "Memory Alignment" in C/C++ sub forum.
Surprisingly, it got deleted. I believe that there is certain reason why it got deleted.
(I would like to know as well).
Anyway, I hope everyone is welcoming me here.

First off, welcome to HackCommunity, especially as a recommendation from PsychoCoder. Be sure to link to him as a reference on your account accordingly.

Secondly, and down to the quick business at hand; we have a rule here that doesn't allow any kind of copy/pasted material belonging to another to be posted here under any circumstance with the tag of Tutorial *unless*, (A) the originating Author strictly makes allowances for such, (B) proper credits are given, and © the material being used is formatted in your own words to avoid needless material spamming the forum in general. Which prevents the Community from being turned into a Data Dumping Site.
This is why I personally Deleted the material instead of moving it to the Trash Bin, even though the copyright on the material dates back to 1996.

In the future, by all means, Quote verbatim any given material. Always give proper credits though and always use your own wording in how the material served or benefited you that it may do the same for others.

[invisal]

The tutorial is handmade by me and it is written especially for this forum.
I believe you won't find this article anywhere on the internet.
I do copy the picture from "Art of Assembly" (the address bus and data bus picture).

[Linuxephus™]

The tutorial is handmade by me and it is written especially for this forum.
I believe you won't find this article anywhere on the internet.
I do copy the picture from "Art of Assembly" (the address bus and data bus picture).

http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssem...H03-1.html

Negative.
This is the link LoneDevil found Before I deleted your thread that contained the same material, with the same wording as well.
That makes you not the Author because those very words were not written originally by you in 1996, nor does the Author give rights for it to be copy/pasted elsewhere, which the language is Very Specific to that very end as a deterrent as such.
Let me be clear about this: The specific language used as a deterrent for use other than reading:
Copyright 1996 by Randall Hyde
All rights reserved.
Duplication other than for immediate display through a browser is prohibited by U.S. Copyright Law.
This material is provided on-line as a beta-test of this text. It is for the personal use of the reader only. If you are interested in using this material as part of a course, please contact
rhyde@cs.ucr.edu
When you posted said material with the Tutorial tag, essentially it is now being used as material for teaching (using this material as a part of a course).
And we both know you didn't contact Randall Hyde to request the Author's material to be reposted elsewhere as a tutorial or course of teaching therein.
Nor did you give credits to the originating Author.
And this is not the best way to start in a Community like this my friend.

Decision is justifiable and the decision remains as final.

Footnote: Bloody great.
Now I read like President Obama.:lol:

[invisal]

I do not believe there is the same wording. I do take picture from that article which is "Art of Assembly".
The wording is different (of course, there could be 5% same wording, because some terms are meant to
be unchanged such as "byte addressable memory", "address bus", etc..). It would be wrong to not
using the same term and rephrase it to other unknown term. If you found more than 5% of the same wording,
I would admit I am wrong.

I am not going to argue to reopen it again. Just want to justification. As I handtype all the
wording my own and put it in the forum. I don't even have my own original copy because
I just use forum text editor to type.

---

I was a little bit uncertain about the % of the same wording because I don't
even take a look at "Art of Assembly" before I write this article (but I have read
those article many years ago, that's why I know it contains a few pictures that
I need). After carefully review the article again, I believe my wording is totally
different (at most 1% the same). The only same wording that I found is
"The 80x86 supports byte addressable memory" (the author's version)
and my version is "x86 architecture supports byte addressable memory".

Besides that, I strongly believe that there is no similar wording. It is hard
to compare right now, because I don't have the original text of myself to
compare words by words.

---

[Linuxephus™]

I do not believe there is the same wording. I do take picture from that article which is "Art of Assembly".
The wording is different (of course, there could be 5% same wording, because some terms are meant to
be unchanged such as "byte addressable memory", "address bus", etc..). It would be wrong to not
using the same term and rephrase it to other unknown term. If you found more than 5% of the same wording,
I would admit I am wrong.
I am not going to argue to reopen it again. Just want to justification. As I handtype all the
wording my own and put it in the forum. I don't even have my own original copy because
I just use forum text editor to type.

I Edit Updated my comment above yours.
Have another read as to the specific reasoning.
Additionally, hand writing or more accurately, rewriting material specifically Copyrighted or Intellectually Protected & Owned by right of applicable Law in the pertaining locality where it originated does Not make you an Author of the material by any defining of the word.
Thus, you cannot argue with the merit of it because you have no argument to justify yourself as the Author of the material you may have "hand written" in differing words.

Last, please, do not motivate me to build a case against you.
You have no case nor any justification for rewording material that is protected by Law that you are not the Owning entity thereof.
Proceed any further, and you do so at your own risk.
I strongly urge you to reconsider.
And should you proceed further, the end result remains as permanent.
You were wrong.
You stand corrected.
It's as simple as that.