08.02.2012-23:37:45 :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	08.02.2012-23:37:45
template:	4
parent:	TeX
owner:	toxygen
viewed by:
created:	08.02.2012 - 23:37:45

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63540
63542
2111115
3186059
6491068

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/~jowens/commonerrors.html

00000101000635400006354202111115031860590649106806492807

s tymi referenciami nesuhlasim:

1. Citations as words: Number two pet peeve: Using citations as words. van Leunen again: “Brackets are not words. A bracketed number is just a pointer, not a word. Never, ever, use a bracketed number as if it were the name of an author or a work.” (p. 20). So instead of “A similar strategy is described in [15].”), use instead “A similar strategy is discussed by AuthorOne et al. [15]”. The way you can get this right in your head is considering a journal that does citations as superscripts (like the old Graphics Hardware style). It looks really stupid to say “A similar strategy is discussed by 15.” I don't like this particular style for citation, but it does make sure citations aren't used as words.
minimalne v nasom odbore vaecsina ludi pise "discussed in [15]" a pod. a podla mna v tom nie je ziaden problem, je to strucnejsie a neprichadza k ziadnym nedorozumeniam

3. Sorting your references: If at all possible, arrange your reference list in alphabetical order by author's last name. Going in cited order is much less useful to readers of your paper. The only reason I've heard that cited-order is useful is in a survey article where nearby (and presumably related) citations from the paper are next to each other in the bibliography. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
neviem poriadne slovami vyjadrit ako nenavidim abecedne zoradene referencie. najhorsie, najhorsie, najhorsie. proste citam clanok, pride 10 citacii a teraz musim preskakovat zo strany na stranu aby som nasiel co sa cituje. prosim nerobte to.

0000010100063540000635420211111503186059064910680649280706495560

je to super na pisanie, ale citat to je otrava aj s hypertextovymi odkazmi (na wikipedii + back button to este ujde)

0000010100063540000635420211111503186059064910680649280706492935

s tou jednotkou s nim suhlasim, niekde som cital s troma vykricnikmi, ze sa to nema robit "in [15]"

000001010006354000063542021111150318605906491068064928070649293506493073

no tak napr. Physical Review Style Guide, strana 6, hovori:
"... Note that use of the following form is also acceptable: . . . as was shown in [4]."

00000101000635400006354202111115031860590649106806492807064929350649307306493277

http://mj.ucw.cz/vyuka/bc/bcintro.pdf

siedmy slajd :)

0000010100063540000635420211111503186059064910680649280706492935064930730649327706808926

bitch please http://mj.ucw.cz/papers/rank.ps
strana 1, riadok 5

0000010100063540000635420211111503186059064910680649280706492935064930730649327706493679

osobne pokladam Physical Review za vaecsiu autoritu :-)

000001010006354000063542021111150318605906491068064928070649293506493073064932770649367906494222

tak to nepoznas maresa :)