Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't it? The only way to get rid of bad ideas is to shame them out of existence.
What is bad idea to you could not be a bad idea to me
Nobody is stopping you from upvoting his posts.
Plagiarism
321–326 of 326 posts
Re: Plagiarism
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could have sworn it was the work of Vladimir Levenshtein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Levenshtein
The code I referenced measures the difference between strings (percentages), using Levenshtein distance--which states the number of changes between two strings. If you can find a source that states this idea of difference can be attributed to Levenshtein, then by all means I will acknowledge him. Until then, I will refer to Alex Martelli's code.
The code I referenced measures the difference between strings
Exactly, and the algorithm used is, as I said, attributed to Levenshtein. Expressing it as a ratio is hardly novel.
As for the implementation, Alex Martelli credit's Stavros Korokithakis[1], although Lev implementations are 2-a-penny, and this isn't a particularly good one (sorry Stavros).
[1]http://www.korokithakis.net/posts/finding-the-levenshtein-di...
Re: Plagiarism
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code I referenced measures the difference between strings (percentages), using Levenshtein distance--which states the number of changes between two strings. If you can find a source that states this idea of difference can be attributed to Levenshtein, then by all means I will acknowledge him. Until then, I will refer to Alex Martelli's code.
The code I referenced measures the difference between strings Exactly, and the algorithm used is, as I said, attributed to Levenshtein. Expressing it as a ratio is hardly novel. As for the implementation, Alex Martelli credit's Stavros Korokithakis[1], although Lev implementations are 2-a-penny, and this isn't a particularly good one (sorry Stavros). [1] http://www.korokithakis.net/posts/finding-the-levenshtein-di...
> Exactly, and the algorithm used is, as I said, attributed to Levenshtein.
I cited Levenshtein by name in my original comment. I'm guessing you didn't read everything what I wrote, because I don't understand why you would think there's an issue otherwise.
> Expressing it as a ratio is hardly novel.
The whole reason I linked to Alex Martelli's post is because it's his work, not mine, novel or otherwise. I just cited the resourced I used.
Re: Plagiarism
#324It's not surprising when your articles have no byline.
Which I see you've added, and very nicely too. This is how it should be done: it tells a random visitor following a random link who you are and why to trust your words. Very minor point: if it were at the top (e.g. sub-heading), we see your bona-fides before reading the article.
Re: Plagiarism
#325Slate magazine picked up the story, but exercised responsible journalistic practice and credited Joshua Gross:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/05/15/taxi_button_t...
And to think they did this without having to be told and without finding it necessary to insult the author--quite a contrast.
Re: Plagiarism
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
I refuse to shorten words to "SMS speak", even on Twitter. I can't stand when supposedly intelligent adults do it.
I used to be like you, then I realised that the English language has been ever evolving. Being prejudiced against efficiency has rarely turned out well.
There's creative liberty (verbification), playful mangling (ohai) and then there's outright abuse (ur).
What kind of tome are you writing that you need to shave two letters off of something while completely destroying any sense of credibility you might have?
I18N is excusable, it's a gigantic word. "Your" is not a long word.