[invisal]

It is a little funny how can you define the word "rewritten material". To me, it is like that article and
my tutorial is explaining the same thing using different approach and word.

- The article explain "address bus" in around 20 lines, and I explain it one single line (with totally different word).
- The article explain "data bus" in around 15 lines, and I explain it one single line (with totally different word).
- The article explain "control bus" in around 5 lines, and I explain it one single line (with total different word).
- I explain how data is fetching from memory in around 5 lines, and he is explaining in around 40 lines (with different word).
- I explain about "memory alignment" and "memory padding", the author does not
- I explain the application in C/C++, the author does not

Firstly, the author does not own the ownership of every "how the memory is work" article. By your logic, he is not
right as well because he is explaining the same thing as Intel Processor Specification. And by your logic, all
the C++ book is wrong because it is explaining the same thing as C++ Specification (just in different word).

---

Note: I am not arguing about the picture, because I admit that I am wrong.

[Linuxephus™]

{It is a little funny how can you define the word "rewritten material". To me, it is like that article and
my tutorial is explaining the same thing using different approach and word.}
-->>To you "rewritten material" of an ideal not specifically originating with you is what is funny as justification for willingly plagiarizing a work of words that you by admission read "years ago" and then rewrote here is by definition "rewritten words you did not solely Author".
Rewritten defined as any set of words or article consisting of words read for consumption and then rewritten for further publication under one's own name without the Author's express permission.
Protected by Copyright Law (I doubt this can be enforced at this time lawfully) and known to be an Intellectual Property publicized in 1996 under protection of Intellectual Property as well.
Your convenience not being the deciding factor of what is defined as "rewritten".

{- The article explain "address bus" in around 20 lines, and I explain it one single line (with totally different word).
- The article explain "data bus" in around 15 lines, and I explain it one single line (with totally different word).
- The article explain "control bus" in around 5 lines, and I explain it one single line (with total different word).
- I explain how data is fetching from memory in around 5 lines, and he is explaining in around 40 lines (with different word).
-->>In other words, the article you plagiarized willingly by the fact that you seek to justify and rationalize the very decision you knew to be wrong by way of making excuses for the action you took by rewriting the Owning Entity's work in a shorter form.
You stand corrected.

{- I explain about "memory alignment" and "memory padding", the author does not
- I explain the application in C/C++, the author does not}
-->>Then I suggest in the intervening 3 weeks that you have to carefully rethink your actions, you make a tutorial revolving strictly around "memory alignment" & its "application in C/C++" versus plagiarizing an article not yours to label as your own.

{Firstly, the author does not own the ownership of every "how the memory is work" article. By your logic, he is not
right as well because he is explaining the same thing as Intel Processor Specification. And by your logic, all
the C++ book is wrong because it is explaining the same thing as C++ Specification (just in different word).}
-->>Negative.
My logic is plainly simple for any to read.
Including you.
Your inference of my logic elicits your own failed attempt to justify a wrong doing with excuses poorly conceived as argument which points to a guilt of the very actions you knowingly took and were thus corrected for.
I did warn you not to proceed any further.
I did warn you also in the future to give credit to works not belonging to you when making a tutorial which indicates had you simply given credits to the work you plagiarized and reworded, you would not be in the position you are now of your own actions.
There is nothing wrong with sharing knowledge, information, and all of the like.
However, it is Wrong to label a work as your own when it is Not.
Thus, in the end, You Stand As Corrected.

{Note: I am not arguing about the picture, because I admit that I am wrong.}
-->>You are not arguing because you have naught to be argued upon.

Resolved

[Psycho_Coder]

Hello @invisal. Its greta to see you here. Welcome to HC and be active as I said earlier you are a great guy and I know you very well. Also you are a great self-taught programmer and you are so good. I hope to learn a lot from you like I learned from others.

I guess we have an argument here. I think we should stop this and work as one for the betterment of HC.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

[Psycho_Coder]

Hello @invisal. Its greta to see you here. Welcome to HC and be active as I said earlier you are a great guy and I know you very well. Also you are a great self-taught programmer and you are so good. I hope to learn a lot from you like I learned from others.

I guess we have an argument here. I think we should stop this and work as one for the betterment of HC.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

[Psycho_Coder]

@ Linuxephus™

There are thousand of book that explaining about "how memory work". That guy is not the ownership of "how memory work" article. he had written it in his way just the way we write tutiorials and I have done this as well. Even you read the dragon book (about compiler), they even talk about it. You read some C/C++ book, they talk about it.The matters are actually same and the way they have written is can be copyrighted which is quite vague to my logic. Also I had reviewed both the links and except concepts I didn't really find anything quite very similar. The3 concepts always remain same we had just redifened them in our own way. Just like you see. I have made not one or two but many tutorials on HC and you can see them if you search. All those material were already written in Hundreds of books. So if all are copyrighted then I would have gone to jail. We always explain the same thing things but still try to make some difference. We cannot change the code of bubble sort or selection sort as they are already patented methods we just rewrite them in such a manner they they become more efficient. Yes I admit that he should have given the link. Still saying that he just copy pasted it would be wrong seriously. We as mods have warned users who have directly copy pasted articles from other forums and that to for 3 or hard 1 week. As since they are new we need to give them a changce to improve. But suspending the posting previlages for 3 weeks is quite wrong as we are forcing him to get away for ever. If one is trying to contribute then we should give him chances but this doesn't mean that we will not take precaution yes we will take precaution. But atleast we have to be a little loose as if we just stop them from sharing then our learning process will come to halt and as well as theirs. I was even warned 50% by alchemist for leeching and I didn't got the chance to explain what why I did so. But I didn't took it as a wrong thing instead I believed that Alchemist gave me a chance to improve myself and help me build a personality by gathering more knowledge from othrs and sharing. I was taught here that Sharing is caring so I guess @invisal deserves another chance and the rest follows.


Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

[Psycho_Coder]

@ Linuxephus™

There are thousand of book that explaining about "how memory work". That guy is not the ownership of "how memory work" article. he had written it in his way just the way we write tutiorials and I have done this as well. Even you read the dragon book (about compiler), they even talk about it. You read some C/C++ book, they talk about it.The matters are actually same and the way they have written is can be copyrighted which is quite vague to my logic. Also I had reviewed both the links and except concepts I didn't really find anything quite very similar. The3 concepts always remain same we had just redifened them in our own way. Just like you see. I have made not one or two but many tutorials on HC and you can see them if you search. All those material were already written in Hundreds of books. So if all are copyrighted then I would have gone to jail. We always explain the same thing things but still try to make some difference. We cannot change the code of bubble sort or selection sort as they are already patented methods we just rewrite them in such a manner they they become more efficient. Yes I admit that he should have given the link. Still saying that he just copy pasted it would be wrong seriously. We as mods have warned users who have directly copy pasted articles from other forums and that to for 3 or hard 1 week. As since they are new we need to give them a changce to improve. But suspending the posting previlages for 3 weeks is quite wrong as we are forcing him to get away for ever. If one is trying to contribute then we should give him chances but this doesn't mean that we will not take precaution yes we will take precaution. But atleast we have to be a little loose as if we just stop them from sharing then our learning process will come to halt and as well as theirs. I was even warned 50% by alchemist for leeching and I didn't got the chance to explain what why I did so. But I didn't took it as a wrong thing instead I believed that Alchemist gave me a chance to improve myself and help me build a personality by gathering more knowledge from othrs and sharing. I was taught here that Sharing is caring so I guess @invisal deserves another chance and the rest follows.


Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

[Linuxephus™]

Hello @invisal. Its greta to see you here. Welcome to HC and be active as I said earlier you are a great guy and I know you very well. Also you are a great self-taught programmer and you are so good. I hope to learn a lot from you like I learned from others.

I guess we have an argument here. I think we should stop this and work as one for the betterment of HC.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

Theirs no argument here Twinkle Toes.
There's the facts, and there's the viewpoint of why they are inconvenient.
Hence, the statement of facts despite that inconvenience.
Now hurry up and post our conversation from Skype so I can have the excuse I'm looking for.

[Linuxephus™]

Hello @invisal. Its greta to see you here. Welcome to HC and be active as I said earlier you are a great guy and I know you very well. Also you are a great self-taught programmer and you are so good. I hope to learn a lot from you like I learned from others.

I guess we have an argument here. I think we should stop this and work as one for the betterment of HC.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

Theirs no argument here Twinkle Toes.
There's the facts, and there's the viewpoint of why they are inconvenient.
Hence, the statement of facts despite that inconvenience.
Now hurry up and post our conversation from Skype so I can have the excuse I'm looking for.

[Linuxephus™]

@ Linuxephus™

There are thousand of book that explaining about "how memory work". That guy is not the ownership of "how memory work" article. he had written it in his way just the way we write tutiorials and I have done this as well. Even you read the dragon book (about compiler), they even talk about it. You read some C/C++ book, they talk about it.The matters are actually same and the way they have written is can be copyrighted which is quite vague to my logic. Also I had reviewed both the links and except concepts I didn't really find anything quite very similar. The3 concepts always remain same we had just redifened them in our own way. Just like you see. I have made not one or two but many tutorials on HC and you can see them if you search. All those material were already written in Hundreds of books. So if all are copyrighted then I would have gone to jail. We always explain the same thing things but still try to make some difference. We cannot change the code of bubble sort or selection sort as they are already patented methods we just rewrite them in such a manner they they become more efficient. Yes I admit that he should have given the link. Still saying that he just copy pasted it would be wrong seriously. We as mods have warned users who have directly copy pasted articles from other forums and that to for 3 or hard 1 week. As since they are new we need to give them a changce to improve. But suspending the posting previlages for 3 weeks is quite wrong as we are forcing him to get away for ever. If one is trying to contribute then we should give him chances but this doesn't mean that we will not take precaution yes we will take precaution. But atleast we have to be a little loose as if we just stop them from sharing then our learning process will come to halt and as well as theirs. I was even warned 50% by alchemist for leeching and I didn't got the chance to explain what why I did so. But I didn't took it as a wrong thing instead I believed that Alchemist gave me a chance to improve myself and help me build a personality by gathering more knowledge from othrs and sharing. I was taught here that Sharing is caring so I guess @invisal deserves another chance and the rest follows.


Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

It's about bloody time.
You're as bad as I am about writing lengthy material.
Meanwhile: on the merit of your Personal Vouch, @invisal warning and posting suspension are rescinded on the condition he reposts his entire article With mention of the Author in the least.
Non-negotiable.
Also bear in mind Copyright is still Copyright no matter how much bullshit even I found it to be even as old as it is.
Bear furthermore in mind Mr. Invisal has admitted to reading the article mentioned and rewriting what was read from that Specific Article that is Copyrighted in a shortened version.

@invisal
And on PsychoCoder's vouch, both warning and posting privileges are rescinded.
Rewrite your article, mention the Author where appropriate without further incident, and we'll mark the issue as fully resolved.

[Linuxephus™]

@ Linuxephus™

There are thousand of book that explaining about "how memory work". That guy is not the ownership of "how memory work" article. he had written it in his way just the way we write tutiorials and I have done this as well. Even you read the dragon book (about compiler), they even talk about it. You read some C/C++ book, they talk about it.The matters are actually same and the way they have written is can be copyrighted which is quite vague to my logic. Also I had reviewed both the links and except concepts I didn't really find anything quite very similar. The3 concepts always remain same we had just redifened them in our own way. Just like you see. I have made not one or two but many tutorials on HC and you can see them if you search. All those material were already written in Hundreds of books. So if all are copyrighted then I would have gone to jail. We always explain the same thing things but still try to make some difference. We cannot change the code of bubble sort or selection sort as they are already patented methods we just rewrite them in such a manner they they become more efficient. Yes I admit that he should have given the link. Still saying that he just copy pasted it would be wrong seriously. We as mods have warned users who have directly copy pasted articles from other forums and that to for 3 or hard 1 week. As since they are new we need to give them a changce to improve. But suspending the posting previlages for 3 weeks is quite wrong as we are forcing him to get away for ever. If one is trying to contribute then we should give him chances but this doesn't mean that we will not take precaution yes we will take precaution. But atleast we have to be a little loose as if we just stop them from sharing then our learning process will come to halt and as well as theirs. I was even warned 50% by alchemist for leeching and I didn't got the chance to explain what why I did so. But I didn't took it as a wrong thing instead I believed that Alchemist gave me a chance to improve myself and help me build a personality by gathering more knowledge from othrs and sharing. I was taught here that Sharing is caring so I guess @invisal deserves another chance and the rest follows.


Thank you,
Sincerely,
Psycho_Coder

It's about bloody time.
You're as bad as I am about writing lengthy material.
Meanwhile: on the merit of your Personal Vouch, @invisal warning and posting suspension are rescinded on the condition he reposts his entire article With mention of the Author in the least.
Non-negotiable.
Also bear in mind Copyright is still Copyright no matter how much bullshit even I found it to be even as old as it is.
Bear furthermore in mind Mr. Invisal has admitted to reading the article mentioned and rewriting what was read from that Specific Article that is Copyrighted in a shortened version.

@invisal
And on PsychoCoder's vouch, both warning and posting privileges are rescinded.
Rewrite your article, mention the Author where appropriate without further incident, and we'll mark the issue as fully resolved.