Ready.
YC83 (copycat83), is a plagiarist and immensely faultfull paper -- out of a plagiarist "Ph.D." dissertation
The point is that, as advertisers keep telling, "there is no bad advertisement" but as they occasionally add, there may be bad products, and advertising such junk, only brings that junk to the public attention.
But if that was initially told to be valuable, then you would think that in recommending such, advertisers may be totally ignorant or blatant liars. Therefore, one has to tell what is junk.
I surely noticed, and I have stated for more than a decade that, copycat82 is a plagiarist. If he were not a total charlatan, that would have only served as a kind of advertisement. He had to be happy about a free popularity.
If you have read even only the list of errors pointed out by A Tail, Off to Cities (Appendix B), you might have wondered whether such a thing could occur at all. See the target article yourself, to acknowledge that I'm right.
The date footnote (on the first page) of YC83 states that the paper was first submitted on Nov.6,1981 and revised on March 21, 1983. That "Nov 1981" is more than a year after all of the prior art that I list, had been published. Thus, copycat82/83 obviously committing plagiarism.
The supposed "Ph.D." title was granted by the Northwestern University, Ill., USA.
Had no one who pretend to be experts in verifying program-correctness, noticed any of the immense faultfulness of copycat83? Has not a single one of the IEEE readers noticed the list of errors in copycat83?
First, you may want to see the software I publish (frozen@mid80, form@fix, Media-tangle, ...), especially if you need to get information about the state-of-the-(mid80-)art -- having frozen the time in the middle of 1980.
I aim frozen@mid80, first & most, for children, for enlisting their honesty (cf. the story "Emperor's New Clothes"). The roof is high, though. Big people had published that for a cause.
As Abraham Lincoln had said "The best way to get rid of a bad law, is to apply that." I think, that is the same in the case of charlatans, who had grabbed some title, un-credibly. Therefore, I provide the context to favor the field, and if any people try to support copycat82/83, I challenge those to code that as a software, just like how I popularize the prior art. If there is nothing there (beyond the prior art), then that Ph.D. title has to be nullified.
The challenge is at an absurdly impossible level. I was able to code frozen@mid80. Yes, but I'm a fine programmer (probably in the top one million best programmers category), able to code when there is a sound specification. (That I'm also a good designer is another issue. I postpone that, mostly, not to feed plagiarists/thieves with yet more content.) The copycat82/83 is impossible to program, because there is no specification there. No substance. Beyond prior art, nothing except trivially ignorant errors. If I tell you about "pink elephants," you may assume that is in the shape of elephant, and only differing in color. But so what? Either no new content, or the term "pink elephant" is not telling how that is truly different than a regular elephant. I wonder, thus, how did the jury grant a Ph.D. to that, if the text publishes nothing tangibly new.
Mehmet Ufuk Caglayan (pronounced, Chah-lie-on) was given the B.S. & M.S. titles, by a T.C. university abbreviated as ODTÜ, that they translate to English as METU -- which today, is the czar central on top of only (the bureaucracy of) "....tr" extension internet names allocation. But in the past, all of the computer purchases of the state is told to have been going through their notices. A bunch of people, want that, again!
Note that, a pun in the title "oddities of the "me-too" people" is pointing out one "golden age" utopia of the "me-too" people in the country where I live.
Thus, we see some caricatures passing as articles (e.g: see internet world TR, Oct. 1997), trying to "audit" the free-market. One oddity is that, they want to get rid of the free-market. They want a "hierarchy-of-engineers"
-- needless to say, obviously, the "professors" of the engineers would be at top of that hierarchy!
Those "professors" should have known better, than opposing. For example, frozen@mid80 may run even in the first IBM PC. Look into a 1980s "Your Computer" magazine, to see how people were happily crafting software for dissimilar computers, too. As far as a computer works, children could do a lot. Today, Unix runs in multitudes of machines, Windows recognizes a huge list of hardware. So what? This is our field. Besides, in 1988 when I bought IBM PS/2 50Z that was a relatively good level machine, but a few years later, as Windows 3.0 and www/internet got popular, that was not so up-to-date. How would you base the budget of a developing-country on the suggestions of such whining professors? Renew million[s] of computers, soon?
Apparently, that is why someone as uninterested in the field as the copycat82/83 author, wanted to be an engineering professor. Thus, the point is central. Plagiarism and totalitarianism becomes intertwined, thus.
There, if I'm supporting how Bill Gates rallied against NC (network-computer), that is understood, too. We need the right to choose, to save our work & lives. If things get centralized, no option to hold out, you would be left at "the mercy" of some unsatiable greeds. Free market provides hobbyists to work around monopolies, if Microsoft is. But how about if your state gets hold of the computing centrals, and lets charlatans creep, there?