|
We get a lot of plagiarism as potential articles - mostly I think from people who want to make the resume look better - but the latest is just ... blatant.
Very blatant.
Most people just do go CTRL+A, CTRL+C, CTRL+TAB, CTRL+V, "Publish".
Some few take a few, brief moments to change a few words in the hope we don't notice*.
Occasionally, one or two will mangle it a bit to make it look less polished**
But ... this is the first time I've seem someone scan a few pages from a book, crop off the page numbers, add his name at the bottom, and post the resulting images as an original article ...
Fer ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) 's sake: I still have difficulty with the mentality involved here ...
* We do. We're good at it.
** We're good at spotting that as well.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
modified 24-Aug-19 9:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
OriginalGriff wrote: We get a great deal of plagiarism and literary theft as potential articles - generally I think from individuals who need to make their resume look better - however the most recent is simply, outright and extreme. Unmitigated for sure. A great many people simply go CTRL+A, CTRL+C, CTRL+TAB, CTRL+V, and "Distribute".
They, simply change a couple of words in the expectation that we don't take note. Sporadically, a couple of will manage to make it look less polished. Be that as it may, this is the first occasion when I've seen somebody check a couple of pages from a book, crop off the page numbers, include his name at the base, and post the subsequent pictures as a unique article. For elephant 's sake, I still have difficulty with the mentality involved here.
The technology for automated summarize and paraphrase has existed for over a decade. It makes me wonder how many are being undetected.
 I simply pasted your comment into an online tool to generate the above paraphrasement.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Ah ha! Plagiarism! No, damnit, you referenced the original author.
It wouldn't surprise me - but the results are generally poor in a technical document, so they probably won't get through on the quality requirement. And they can't risk manually fixing it in case they end up back with the original ... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
images? LMAO
are you sure it wasn't another user just having a go at you to watch you rant?
i can't believe a person would actually do this.
they must be a real winner in school, but then they probably forged their degree. Badly.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: i can't believe a person would actually do this.
Believe it... I had seen it too.  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Still in moderation if you want to check it out
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Someone did it with one of my code project articles, they copied it word for word and attributed all the work to themselves on another site.
Fortunately the wolves from codeproject snarled at them and they promptly removed the article.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
wow sorry, what a jerk.
guess he admired your work though.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
It was one of those moments where I googled myself, or rather googled some text from the article to see if there were other links to it.
The experience was a combination of flattery and outrage as well as a certain schadenfreude for the misfortune of the thief who had been caught - a perfect emotional combination
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
but people think testing is boring.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Penetration testing has existed for soooo long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's not penetration testing, that's a blatant violation of the EULA.
|
|
|
|
|
I am doing some interim testing on a personal project to check its accuracy. It has dozens of slowly converging polynomials, and lots of separate complex functions to be integrated into the final output. I am expecting errors, since most polynomials are approximations, getting closer and closer to the truth, without ever getting there.
My accuracy requirement is basically less than 1 part in 100,000, which doesn't sound like much, but to some of the polynomials, that looks more like 1 in 4 billion.
One of the critical components is producing figures well within my requirements - but the error range is very small, and is all positive. One quick trig function, and I could improve the accuracy by an order of magnitude. The trig function, of course, would be completely made up, have no basis in reality, totally outside any possible justification.
It would just make it all work so prettily!
Should I?  No - it would be completely out of order.
Yes, but it's just one very small function.  Not a chance, you fraudster!
But... but... but...  You're fired!
Sigh! 
|
|
|
|
|
I'd do it, but then I run with scissors.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah - but I would know...
|
|
|
|
|
Hah! The traditional problem that I should be old enough and wise enough to be sceptical about!
Just because one of my reference works declared something to be a constant, that does not mean I should believe them. It may have been a constant when people were using an abacus to add with, but it ain't now. looks like I have to do some research and then write yet another polynomial.
the first and second sets of errors, moved to an understandable range and rounded:-
1.7 -0.1
1.6 -0.1
1.7 0.0
1.8 0.1
1.9 0.2
2.1 0.3
2.2 0.3
1.7 0.1
1.5 -0.2
1.5 -0.3
1.7 -0.2
2.0 0.1
1.8 0.0
My target accuracy was -3.0 >> +3.0
I took the so called 'constant' and adjusted it by bracketing down to new values, and have learned that although the 'constant' changes very slowly, it does change. I tweaked the digit in the eighth
significate position.
Constants ain't!
[edit]Tabs don't stick![/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
the only constant is change. and I'm sure i'm wrong about that being constant.
we are adrift.
my code doesn't even execute the same way twice.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'll need all that and some more by the time I finish this.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I've always been interested in learning parsing and compiler design, and especially parser generation just like the stuff you're doing.
I never had the time to sit down and study it. (It's not something I can pick up on the fly.)
You seem to have loads of practical hands-on experience based upon the projects you're describing here.
How did you first learn it? Is that what you did at Microsoft?
Thank you
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I was in your shoes actually, although I had played around with it some when I was young.
At microsoft I did not work on compiler stuff. I wish I did, I was hoping for a spot on the compiler team - even testing - over at MSR (back when Herb Sutter was there) to the point where I punted a separate position at MSR to hold out for it (i didn't get it but i'm glad i tried)
I taught myself. I can teach you.
It's a pain in the backside until you "get it" - then it's still a pain but you can at least navigate.
I can break down LL(1) parsing for you pretty easily though.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: It's a pain in the backside until you "get it"
Oh I really know what you mean. A lot of things are difficult for me until they click. But once they click I'm able to do them well.
What's MSR?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
it's microsoft research. sorry. the lingo still sticks with me. MS is acronym hell. years of them being drilled into i use them without thinking.
have you used parser generators before at all?
if so I can probably teach you the birds-eye of generating an LL(1) parser in 10-20 minutes.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
