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

H

hzergel901

public said:
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.
 
P

public boolean

Joshua said:
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.
 
J

Joshua Cranmer

public said:
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.
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...).
 
J

Joshua Cranmer

Joshua said:
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.
 
A

Arne Vajhøj

Lew said:
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
 
P

public boolean

Joshua said:
you imply that OpenJDK was third-party software at one point in time.

No. If you think otherwise, you have misread what I 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 recall this.
 
P

public boolean

Joshua said:
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.
 
P

public boolean

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?
 
P

public boolean

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

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.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,904
Latest member
HealthyVisionsCBDPrice

Latest Threads

Top