Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > why in class Boolean, hashcode() of "true" is 1231 and of "false" is1237?

Reply
Thread Tools

why in class Boolean, hashcode() of "true" is 1231 and of "false" is1237?

 
 
hzergel901@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2008
On Nov 12, 8:54*am, Lew <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> public boolean wrote:
> > Your insulting attitude in response to a perfectly civil post baffles me.

>
> Oh, Christ, it *is* Twisted again. *I was [implied insult deleted]


A little bird (incongruously named "Google") alerted me that my name
was being taken in vain again, and sure enough, it's one of the usual
suspects.

It is not Twisted again.

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

FYI, the correct term for people that object to rudeness is not
"twisted", it is "civilized".

And, I'm starting to suspect, that is possibly synonymous with
"Canadian". As I recall, another person here that took issue with your
casual rudeness (and got accused of being me for his troubles) was a
Canadian, as I am.

So is every Canadian that posts here and then doesn't tolerate your
rudeness going to be mistaken for me and then heaped with abuse? If
so, I'm fascinated and somewhat repulsed to have discovered quite
possibly the first ever racist who is bigoted against Canadians --
often the butt of American jokes, but never before to my knowledge a
nationality targeted with genuine hate.

Heck, a somewhat funny movie was even made on this subject, one of the
gags of which was that someone was bigoted against Canadians -- and
that the Canadians tolerated this bigotry, but not his failure to be
bigoted in both English and French.

However, I think you will find that real Canadians are less likely to
tolerate your bigotry. This Canadian certainly does not tolerate it.
Canadians are, as a rule, pretty tolerant, and quite possibly the most
inoffensive nationality in existence, at least in the developed world;
but they do not, as a rule, tolerate one thing, and that's
intolerance.

So please take your (apparent) racism (and your paranoia) and stuff
it.

Thank you.

> Quit hiding who you are, or are you embarrassed to admit it?


To the best of my knowledge, he isn't hiding anything, and I certainly
am not. I have explained elsewhere, yet again, the reason for my
having multiple Google Groups accounts, and the fact that I don't make
any effort to disguise who I actually am in any way (except, formerly,
to refuse to disclose my real name, Jerry Gerrone, a policy that I
have now changed for reasons explained elsewhere). Your paranoia has
no justification. Nor your apparent bigotry. Nor the rudeness, from
you and Eric Sossman and Arne and so many other regulars here, that
tends to start fights and causes the threads you participate in to
shed more heat than light.

> Re-[implied insult deleted]


None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
public boolean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2008
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> public boolean wrote:
>> I guess, though, at least starting with version 7, OpenJDK won't be
>> third-party, so code in it is going to be core Java code in the
>> relatively near future, making it an exception to the rule.

>
> OpenJDK never has been, is not, and never will be third-party software.


I didn't say that it had been. I said that *usually*, when there's a
proprietary Foo and there's also an OpenFoo, the OpenFoo is third-party,
and that *if* OpenJDK was third party that was apparently going to end
with version 7.

Those statements still appear to be true, with OpenJDK being an
exception to the first (but the first was not a strict universal
statement, it was a statistical one, so the discovery of one exception
does not suffice to falsify it) and the second statement happening to be
true vacuously.

You seem to be less concerned with discussing Java here and more
concerned with making a concerted effort to publicly paint me as a liar
or some stripe of moron. Why is this? Did something I said rub you the
wrong way? If so, there are better ways of dealing with it.

Do you just not like it when people turn out not to know something about
Java, even when it's not something crucial to being able to competently
program in it?

> If you actually read the links I posted, you'll note that it /is/ the
> Sun Java source code


How, exactly, would I note anything of the sort? You seem to suppose
that I'd be familiar enough with Sun's source code internals to be able
to instantly recognize code derived from it as opposed to code that does
the same thing but that was developed independently from scratch. Yet
this whole debate got started when I pointed out that I do not, in fact,
know much about the internals of Sun's code.

I find it baffling that you'd think I'd be able to recognize, on first
sight, code A as being derived from some code B that you've been told
I'd never seen before. How did you think I might accomplish this feat,
magic?

I also don't care much for your tone ("If you actually read" and so
forth). I'm under no obligation to read or do much of anything, beyond
this newsgroup's FAQ, which I wasn't able to find anyway -- does it even
have one?

> Sun has committed it to being the basis for future Java releases.


Good for Sun.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joshua Cranmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2008
public boolean wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> public boolean wrote:
>>> I guess, though, at least starting with version 7, OpenJDK won't be
>>> third-party, so code in it is going to be core Java code in the
>>> relatively near future, making it an exception to the rule.

>>
>> OpenJDK never has been, is not, and never will be third-party software.

>
> I didn't say that it had been. I said that *usually*, when there's a
> proprietary Foo and there's also an OpenFoo, the OpenFoo is third-party,
> and that *if* OpenJDK was third party that was apparently going to end
> with version 7.


I'm poignantly leaving the tertiary quote in. By saying that "... at
least starting with version 7, OpenJDK won't be third-party," you imply
that OpenJDK was third-party software at one point in time.

I'll drop the matter though.

>> If you actually read the links I posted, you'll note that it /is/ the
>> Sun Java source code

>
> I find it baffling that you'd think I'd be able to recognize, on first
> sight, code A as being derived from some code B that you've been told
> I'd never seen before. How did you think I might accomplish this feat,
> magic?


One of my links was a FAQ page on java.sun.com about the OpenJDK where
it explicitly stated the fact I mention. I don't have a GG link off the
top of my hand right now because GG is being a pain at the moment and
forcing me to log in to get to it (which might not be a bad thing...).

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joshua Cranmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-18-2008
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> One of my links was a FAQ page on java.sun.com about the OpenJDK where
> it explicitly stated the fact I mention. I don't have a GG link off the
> top of my hand right now because GG is being a pain at the moment and
> forcing me to log in to get to it (which might not be a bad thing...).


It appears to me, after searching through my posts one-by-one, that I
failed to include the link in a post. I humbly apologize for my poor memory.

In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the about
link would have enlightened you just the same.

--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lew
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2008
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the about
> link would have enlightened you just the same.


Hey! Wouldn't that require, a), admitting one doesn't know everything, and,
b), research into the answers?

Drat!

--
Lew
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arne Vajhøj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-19-2008
Lew wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the
>> about link would have enlightened you just the same.

>
> Hey! Wouldn't that require, a), admitting one doesn't know everything,
> and, b), research into the answers?


There are a classic quote:

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

And even though computer programming was not invented
when it was first stated, then it certainly applies well.

Arne
 
Reply With Quote
 
public boolean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> public boolean wrote:
>> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> OpenJDK never has been, is not, and never will be third-party software.

>>
>> I didn't say that it had been. I said that *usually*, when there's a
>> proprietary Foo and there's also an OpenFoo, the OpenFoo is
>> third-party, and that *if* OpenJDK was third party that was apparently
>> going to end with version 7.

>
> you imply that OpenJDK was third-party software at one point in time.


No. If you think otherwise, you have misread what I wrote.

>>> If you actually read the links I posted, you'll note that it /is/ the
>>> Sun Java source code

>>
>> I find it baffling that you'd think I'd be able to recognize, on first
>> sight, code A as being derived from some code B that you've been told
>> I'd never seen before. How did you think I might accomplish this feat,
>> magic?

>
> One of my links was a FAQ page on java.sun.com about the OpenJDK where
> it explicitly stated the fact I mention.


I don't recall this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
public boolean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> One of my links was a FAQ page on java.sun.com about the OpenJDK where
>> it explicitly stated the fact I mention.

>
> It appears to me, after searching through my posts one-by-one, that I
> failed to include the link in a post. I humbly apologize for my poor
> memory.


Apology accepted.

> In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the about
> link would have enlightened you just the same.


Your implication here is insulting. Well, one of your implications. The
other, that I'm somehow obligated to follow every link in your posts AND
every link at every page you link to, is just plain ridiculous.
 
Reply With Quote
 
public boolean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Lew wrote:
> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the
>> about link would have enlightened you just the same.


I am under no obligation to do a manual depth-1 spidering of every link
in every post here. Far from it.

> Hey! Wouldn't that require, a), admitting one doesn't know everything,
> and, b), research into the answers?


Where have I claimed to know everything? And why should I research
everything posted here? Should I not be able to take the Java-related
stuff in posts from the regulars at face value?
 
Reply With Quote
 
public boolean
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>>> In any case, going to <http://openjdk.java.net> and selecting the
>>> about link would have enlightened you just the same.


I am under no obligation to do a manual depth-1 spidering of every link
in every post here. Far from it.

>> Hey! Wouldn't that require, a), admitting one doesn't know
>> everything, and, b), research into the answers?


Where have I claimed to know everything? And why should I research
everything posted here? Should I not be able to take the Java-related
stuff in posts from the regulars at face value?

> There are a classic quote:
>
> "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."


No, there IS a classic quote, and it's actually rather silly. There's
plenty of other sorts of wisdom out there.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
aaa authorization and aaa accounting with Cisco ACS and 1231 AP's Chris_D Cisco 4 08-01-2005 08:03 AM
EAP-FAST local authentication example on a Cisco 1231 AP Chris_D Cisco 0 05-10-2005 01:21 PM
Error 1231 =?Utf-8?B?VG9tQg==?= Wireless Networking 4 11-01-2004 04:42 PM
1231 AP power below 30mW Phil Cisco 2 08-24-2004 10:49 PM



Advertisments