I Suppose I should Be Flattered
Listen to this article
I was doing a little reading on different types of rule engines today and stumbled upon this article. As I was reading through it, I had an eerie sense of dejavou; I was sure I had read this somewhere before. In fact, it almost sounded like something I might have written.
A quick search through my blog and there it was, an entry posted in September 2004.
The thing that amuses me most about copying someone elses stuff word-for-word is that you inevitably end up copying all their (or in this case my) mistakes as well. So whilst I'm flattered that someone with obviously unquestionable integrity would even consider re-using my thoughts (and even spruce them up a bit in the process) I would have thought that bloggers, armed with trackbacks and hrefs, and indeed developers in particular, would have left copy-and-paste re-use behind.
Comments
The "re-edit" process wasn't particularly efficient: check out these errors caused by poor re-editing of your original post.
"The Rete algorithm lies can identify"
"procedural rules (Usually coded in Legacy COBOL and Java applications)"
Sheesh... when you file off serial numbers, it's usually advised not to leave some behind.
Posted by: Robert Watkins | March 23, 2005 03:13 PM
Has this guy never seen Secret Window? ;)
Posted by: Lee | March 23, 2005 09:33 PM
Looks like that guy is into martial arts. Maybe you can spar with each other to settle the matter
Posted by: Daniel Bradby | March 23, 2005 10:47 PM
Interestingly, Mr. Unquestionable Integrity appears to have edited his page - he now properly attributes the quote to you, and even has a link to the source blog entry...
Quite possible this is because someone posted a nasty comment pointing out his plagiarism and providing their own link..
It's still hard to figure out what he means though. When he's not copying someone elses work, I just can't parse his sentences..
Posted by: Zhasper | May 13, 2005 10:50 AM
That is highly amusing.
Posted by: Simon Harris | May 13, 2005 10:58 AM
I used the library of drools-all-jdk1.4-2.1.jar downloaded from drools.org
but when it told me it need the method in drools v2.5, I really dont know why?
if I tried to change to use library drools-all-jdk5-2.1.jar, I found my system can`t shift to this jdk version.
could you please send me one jar that can be used under jdk 1.4.2 ? thx a lot~
Posted by: Liu Xiaofeng | April 29, 2006 07:58 PM