This is straight from Expert C Programming book, including the diagrams. It's dishonest to recycle and present it as if it's yours with a reference mention at the very bottom. This is not a reference, it's a copy.
I agree with the other poster. I was going to upvote you earlier, and torrented the book you refer to for verification (ironically because I don't believe material should be stolen like this), but apparently I never got around to it because I was able to downvote you just now. The reason I never finished upvoting you was that I didn't think I found the right book: Expert C Programming doesn't match your description (of not being a reference, but rather the article being a copy of it). I didn't find the diagrams, and the text was very different.
So it sounds like your accusation is way off-base, and you should specify that you were wrong. Maybe you were just reminded of that other book but didn't verify that the article was a copy of it?
What was copied? I flipped through my copy of Expert C Programming and didn't see either of the diagrams.
If instead by "straight from" you mean "similar to", well, there is only a handful of ways to explain this material so of course they are going to be similar.
Please don't throw around accusations of copying lightly. I would like to see more material like this shared, not less.
