+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.li)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.li/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: Introductions (https://sinister.li/Forum-Introductions)
+--- Thread: Greeting (/Thread-Greeting)
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
A little bit clarification on your statement
Quote: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.
I have admitted that I have this book many years ago. I didn't not admit
that I have rewrite what was written in the article. As you can see from
previous post. I merely compare his work and my work (by using the length
and different wording as argument) to prove that the work are totally
different. "used to read" and "rewritten" is two different thing. I do
believe any professional author has read many journals and books.
Those materials surely has some influences on them, but it does not
mean that they rewrite those materials.
The following is approximation of my my article
(http://pastebin.com/XMGKb7Sm ) and the following is the
(http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH03/CH03-1.html#HEADING1-7)
the link that everyone think I have rewritten
from. I will leave to everyone for judgment.
Anyway, let the argument ends here. It will lead us nowhere.
---
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
A little bit clarification on your statement
Quote: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.
I have admitted that I have this book many years ago. I didn't not admit
that I have rewrite what was written in the article. As you can see from
previous post. I merely compare his work and my work (by using the length
and different wording as argument) to prove that the work are totally
different. "used to read" and "rewritten" is two different thing. I do
believe any professional author has read many journals and books.
Those materials surely has some influences on them, but it does not
mean that they rewrite those materials.
The following is approximation of my my article
(http://pastebin.com/XMGKb7Sm ) and the following is the
(http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH03/CH03-1.html#HEADING1-7)
the link that everyone think I have rewritten
from. I will leave to everyone for judgment.
Anyway, let the argument ends here. It will lead us nowhere.
---
RE: Greeting - Linuxephus™ - 08-10-2013
(08-10-2013, 09:57 AM)invisal Wrote: A little bit clarification on your statement
Quote: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.
I have admitted that I have this book many years ago. I didn't not admit
that I have rewrite what was written in the article. As you can see from
previous post. I merely compare his work and my work (by using the length
and different wording as argument) to prove that the work are totally
different. "used to read" and "rewritten" is two different thing. I do
believe any professional author has read many journals and books.
Those materials surely has some influences on them, but it does not
mean that they rewrite those materials.
The following is approximation of my my article
(http://pastebin.com/XMGKb7Sm ) and the following is the
(http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH03/CH03-1.html#HEADING1-7)
the link that everyone think I have rewritten
from. I will leave to everyone for judgment.
Anyway, let the argument ends here. It will lead us nowhere.
---
You don't have to openly admit it.
The fact that you rewrote Copyrighted material in your own words from what you read while failing to mention the Author's material that you admittedly read and then publicized in your own words is the issue here.
Rather than further argument from you excusing a wrong action that you solely are guilty of in light of the facts, it behooves you to update your understanding and comprehension of English and what is defined within said language so You avoid further misunderstandings of your own making.
Hence, arguing against the obvious reality of the matter doesn't negate the merit that you are wrong beyond all reasonable doubt.
The very act you put into arguing merely gives light to that very merit as your failed attempt to excuse what you alone are guilty of.
And their is no excuse.
Furthermore, your approximation of the Pastebin material is only half of the original thread you posted that was deleted. Thus if any were to judge, it would be done without the entirety of the material that was originally present.
Yet your article wasn't influenced by *This* Author's material.
It was a blatant copy/paste of his material, reworded, and then published as your own with the addition of the Pastebin link you mention *Here*. Indeed, influenced and blatant copy/pasting are far differing subjects.
The latter of which you are guilty of.
Surely my counter part wasn't mistaken in linking me here, was he?
I highly doubt that.
All of the Staff here are highly competent.
Last, you made a mistake.
Logic dictates you make it right.
After all, it's your mistake.
You Own it.
None other.
Indeed, be done with your arguing.
RE: Greeting - Linuxephus™ - 08-10-2013
(08-10-2013, 09:57 AM)invisal Wrote: A little bit clarification on your statement
Quote: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.
I have admitted that I have this book many years ago. I didn't not admit
that I have rewrite what was written in the article. As you can see from
previous post. I merely compare his work and my work (by using the length
and different wording as argument) to prove that the work are totally
different. "used to read" and "rewritten" is two different thing. I do
believe any professional author has read many journals and books.
Those materials surely has some influences on them, but it does not
mean that they rewrite those materials.
The following is approximation of my my article
(http://pastebin.com/XMGKb7Sm ) and the following is the
(http://cs.smith.edu/~thiebaut/ArtOfAssembly/CH03/CH03-1.html#HEADING1-7)
the link that everyone think I have rewritten
from. I will leave to everyone for judgment.
Anyway, let the argument ends here. It will lead us nowhere.
---
You don't have to openly admit it.
The fact that you rewrote Copyrighted material in your own words from what you read while failing to mention the Author's material that you admittedly read and then publicized in your own words is the issue here.
Rather than further argument from you excusing a wrong action that you solely are guilty of in light of the facts, it behooves you to update your understanding and comprehension of English and what is defined within said language so You avoid further misunderstandings of your own making.
Hence, arguing against the obvious reality of the matter doesn't negate the merit that you are wrong beyond all reasonable doubt.
The very act you put into arguing merely gives light to that very merit as your failed attempt to excuse what you alone are guilty of.
And their is no excuse.
Furthermore, your approximation of the Pastebin material is only half of the original thread you posted that was deleted. Thus if any were to judge, it would be done without the entirety of the material that was originally present.
Yet your article wasn't influenced by *This* Author's material.
It was a blatant copy/paste of his material, reworded, and then published as your own with the addition of the Pastebin link you mention *Here*. Indeed, influenced and blatant copy/pasting are far differing subjects.
The latter of which you are guilty of.
Surely my counter part wasn't mistaken in linking me here, was he?
I highly doubt that.
All of the Staff here are highly competent.
Last, you made a mistake.
Logic dictates you make it right.
After all, it's your mistake.
You Own it.
None other.
Indeed, be done with your arguing.
RE: Greeting - Linuxephus™ - 08-10-2013
@invisal
Additionally: Here, in this domain, in this Community where the domain resides, you broke a rule.
Community Management has notified you of the breaking of that rule.
Learn from it, apply the correction, and therefore avoid a repeat of this occurrence.
That being the root if the situation.
And don't take me too seriously in a negative way.
I'm tasked with a job that I enjoy by the Community.
The same Community you in fact just joined.
I don't believe for a second that you had nefarious intent.
If such was evident, the warning and suspension would never have been rescinded.
Me personally, I don't need the Community Manager tag or even Super Moderator tag to readily debate, negate, obfuscate, and methodically dismantle any comment over a period of time.
I've been doing it for years in whatever domain I happen to frequent, wherever that domain happens to be, here, or beyond the screen.
Being Community Manager merely it far less frequent in necessity.
Thank God.
That aside, welcome to the Community.
-Counsel Has No Further Comments At This time.-
RE: Greeting - Linuxephus™ - 08-10-2013
@invisal
Additionally: Here, in this domain, in this Community where the domain resides, you broke a rule.
Community Management has notified you of the breaking of that rule.
Learn from it, apply the correction, and therefore avoid a repeat of this occurrence.
That being the root if the situation.
And don't take me too seriously in a negative way.
I'm tasked with a job that I enjoy by the Community.
The same Community you in fact just joined.
I don't believe for a second that you had nefarious intent.
If such was evident, the warning and suspension would never have been rescinded.
Me personally, I don't need the Community Manager tag or even Super Moderator tag to readily debate, negate, obfuscate, and methodically dismantle any comment over a period of time.
I've been doing it for years in whatever domain I happen to frequent, wherever that domain happens to be, here, or beyond the screen.
Being Community Manager merely it far less frequent in necessity.
Thank God.
That aside, welcome to the Community.
-Counsel Has No Further Comments At This time.-
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
Well, I really don't want to argue any longer. You have your own belief and I have mine.
No matter how many pages of reply as long as we still hold our stand, there is no ending.
Knowing that, I cannot resist to counter your argument. (Noted that I do not see you as
a bad guy or enemy. I have heard plenty of good thing about you from Psycho)
Quote:your approximation of the Pastebin material is only half of the original thread you postedAnother half is about C++ implementation of memory alignment and padding. Following
that was deleted
with example. If you insist that the example of C++ is taken from the assembly book,
I have nothing to say. It is like comparing orange with apple.
Quote:Yet your article wasn't influenced by *This* Author's material.Where did I say I was not influenced by this book, but this is not the only book that
I have read. I have read hundred of books, and I was influenced by them. Being
influenced does not mean "plagiarizing". If I were to mention who have influence me
for every post and for every programming question that I have answered in Stackoverflow,
then, the list of people would 20 times exceeds the length of my answer.
Quote:that you admittedly read and then publicized in your own words is the issue here.I don't know how many times that I have stated here before I make myself clear.
I have admitted that I have read that book (many years ago). I don't see this
prove that "publicized in my own words". If I were to explain about "pointer",
and explain it as "pointer is a variable that store the memory address". There are
hundred of book would explain the same thing. Does it mean that they are
"plagiarizing" each other? . In my case, I need to explain "how memory work"
before I can explain "memory alignment". To understand how memory work,
I need to explain how many components that involve. Try to write the same
thing as my tutorial that cover:
(*) components that involve in CPU and memory interactive
(*) how data is fetched from memory.
(*) which memory address that reading from the memory is fast
(*) which memory address that reading from the memory is slow
And I will gladly find more than a few books that explain the same concept as
what you are trying to write.
Quote:arguing against the obvious reality.What is the "reality"? If you talk about your opinion that you think I am wrong.
Then it is not a reality. It is your opinion.
Quote:you broke a ruleI respect the rule. If someone broke the law, they deserve punishment. However,
it does not mean that the law enforcer is always right. The better word is
"In your opinion, you think I have broke a rule". While, talking about using
other people materials, I think everyone here have at least broke a few times.
(*) The image on the avatar that everyone use.
(*) A few ebook that has been shared around the fourm.
(*) Taken random image from internet without mention the source.
Quote:Learn from it, apply the correction, and therefore avoid a repeat of this occurrence.The following is that I have learnt
(*) Never argue against forum moderation, because the chance of winning the argument
is slim and the chance of getting ban is high
(*) Always mention who has influenced you.
So, for my post to be legal, I have to mention people that have influenced me:
- Donald E. Knuth
- Bjarne Stroustrup
- Steven S. Skiena
- Jeff Edmonds
- Michael T. Goodrich
- Thomas H. Cormen
- Charles E. Leiserson
- Ronald L. Rivest
- Clifford Stein
- Robert Sedgewich
- Jeffrey Richter
- Christophe Nasarre
- George T. Heineman
- Willian H. Press
- Mattew Telles
- Saul A. Teukolsky
- William T. Vetterling
- Brian P. Flannery
- and sorry to many other people that I forget their name.
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
Well, I really don't want to argue any longer. You have your own belief and I have mine.
No matter how many pages of reply as long as we still hold our stand, there is no ending.
Knowing that, I cannot resist to counter your argument. (Noted that I do not see you as
a bad guy or enemy. I have heard plenty of good thing about you from Psycho)
Quote:your approximation of the Pastebin material is only half of the original thread you postedAnother half is about C++ implementation of memory alignment and padding. Following
that was deleted
with example. If you insist that the example of C++ is taken from the assembly book,
I have nothing to say. It is like comparing orange with apple.
Quote:Yet your article wasn't influenced by *This* Author's material.Where did I say I was not influenced by this book, but this is not the only book that
I have read. I have read hundred of books, and I was influenced by them. Being
influenced does not mean "plagiarizing". If I were to mention who have influence me
for every post and for every programming question that I have answered in Stackoverflow,
then, the list of people would 20 times exceeds the length of my answer.
Quote:that you admittedly read and then publicized in your own words is the issue here.I don't know how many times that I have stated here before I make myself clear.
I have admitted that I have read that book (many years ago). I don't see this
prove that "publicized in my own words". If I were to explain about "pointer",
and explain it as "pointer is a variable that store the memory address". There are
hundred of book would explain the same thing. Does it mean that they are
"plagiarizing" each other? . In my case, I need to explain "how memory work"
before I can explain "memory alignment". To understand how memory work,
I need to explain how many components that involve. Try to write the same
thing as my tutorial that cover:
(*) components that involve in CPU and memory interactive
(*) how data is fetched from memory.
(*) which memory address that reading from the memory is fast
(*) which memory address that reading from the memory is slow
And I will gladly find more than a few books that explain the same concept as
what you are trying to write.
Quote:arguing against the obvious reality.What is the "reality"? If you talk about your opinion that you think I am wrong.
Then it is not a reality. It is your opinion.
Quote:you broke a ruleI respect the rule. If someone broke the law, they deserve punishment. However,
it does not mean that the law enforcer is always right. The better word is
"In your opinion, you think I have broke a rule". While, talking about using
other people materials, I think everyone here have at least broke a few times.
(*) The image on the avatar that everyone use.
(*) A few ebook that has been shared around the fourm.
(*) Taken random image from internet without mention the source.
Quote:Learn from it, apply the correction, and therefore avoid a repeat of this occurrence.The following is that I have learnt
(*) Never argue against forum moderation, because the chance of winning the argument
is slim and the chance of getting ban is high
(*) Always mention who has influenced you.
So, for my post to be legal, I have to mention people that have influenced me:
- Donald E. Knuth
- Bjarne Stroustrup
- Steven S. Skiena
- Jeff Edmonds
- Michael T. Goodrich
- Thomas H. Cormen
- Charles E. Leiserson
- Ronald L. Rivest
- Clifford Stein
- Robert Sedgewich
- Jeffrey Richter
- Christophe Nasarre
- George T. Heineman
- Willian H. Press
- Mattew Telles
- Saul A. Teukolsky
- William T. Vetterling
- Brian P. Flannery
- and sorry to many other people that I forget their name.
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
Since this argument has prolonging for so long, I have to come with an effective way
to end the this argument with a desire result. Since, our argument is highly-based
on opinion, I decided to create a simple criteria for judging who is right and wrong.
The test is simple as answering "YES" and "NO".
I have randomly selected two statistic books and comparing the amount of similarity.
"Oreily - Head First Statistics by Dawn Griffiths" and "Statistics for Dummies by Deborah Rumsey ".
Quote:The median of a data set is the value that lies exactly in the middle. (Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:The median is always in the middle. It’s the middle value. (Head First Statistics)(1) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
Quote:1. Order the numbers from smallest to largest.
2. If the data set contains an odd number of numbers, choose the one
that is exactly in the middle.
3. If the data set contains an even number of numbers, take the two numbers
that appear exactly in the middle and average them to find the median.
(Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:1. Line your numbers up in order, from smallest to largest.(2) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
2. If you have an odd number of values, the median is the one
in the middle. If you have n numbers, the middle number is
at position (n + 1) / 2.
3. If you have an even number of values, get the median by
adding the two middle ones together and dividing by 2.
You can find the midpoint by calculating (n + 1) / 2. The
two middle numbers are on either side of this point.
(Head First Statistics)
The following is the order of content.
Quote:Part II - Number-Crunching Basics
Chapter 4 - Getting the Picture—Charts and Graphs
Chapter 5 - Means, Medians, and More
Part III - Determining the Odds
Chapter 6 - What Are the Chances?—Understanding Probability
Chapter 7 - Gambling to Win
(Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:Chapter 2: Measuring Central Tendency(3) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
Chapter 3: Measuring variability and spread
Chapter 4: Calculating probabilities
(Head First Statistics)
If the result is NO-NO-NO, then I prove my point that I am not plagiarizing.
- Example 01 and Example 02 proves that having similar explanation does not mean plagiarizing
- Example 03 proves that having the same order of content does not mean plagiarizing
----
As I am intending to stop the argument here. Please stop reply and close the thread.
If you insist on continue the debate, I am gladly welcome to counter your argument.
RE: Greeting - invisal - 08-10-2013
Since this argument has prolonging for so long, I have to come with an effective way
to end the this argument with a desire result. Since, our argument is highly-based
on opinion, I decided to create a simple criteria for judging who is right and wrong.
The test is simple as answering "YES" and "NO".
I have randomly selected two statistic books and comparing the amount of similarity.
"Oreily - Head First Statistics by Dawn Griffiths" and "Statistics for Dummies by Deborah Rumsey ".
Quote:The median of a data set is the value that lies exactly in the middle. (Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:The median is always in the middle. It’s the middle value. (Head First Statistics)(1) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
Quote:1. Order the numbers from smallest to largest.
2. If the data set contains an odd number of numbers, choose the one
that is exactly in the middle.
3. If the data set contains an even number of numbers, take the two numbers
that appear exactly in the middle and average them to find the median.
(Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:1. Line your numbers up in order, from smallest to largest.(2) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
2. If you have an odd number of values, the median is the one
in the middle. If you have n numbers, the middle number is
at position (n + 1) / 2.
3. If you have an even number of values, get the median by
adding the two middle ones together and dividing by 2.
You can find the midpoint by calculating (n + 1) / 2. The
two middle numbers are on either side of this point.
(Head First Statistics)
The following is the order of content.
Quote:Part II - Number-Crunching Basics
Chapter 4 - Getting the Picture—Charts and Graphs
Chapter 5 - Means, Medians, and More
Part III - Determining the Odds
Chapter 6 - What Are the Chances?—Understanding Probability
Chapter 7 - Gambling to Win
(Statistics for Dummies)
Quote:Chapter 2: Measuring Central Tendency(3) Are they plagiarizing each other. (YES or NO).
Chapter 3: Measuring variability and spread
Chapter 4: Calculating probabilities
(Head First Statistics)
If the result is NO-NO-NO, then I prove my point that I am not plagiarizing.
- Example 01 and Example 02 proves that having similar explanation does not mean plagiarizing
- Example 03 proves that having the same order of content does not mean plagiarizing
----
As I am intending to stop the argument here. Please stop reply and close the thread.
If you insist on continue the debate, I am gladly welcome to counter your argument.