| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4
<dEnter> g.night
<ordain> heh, wow, funny thing for a gun-loving death penalty loving republican to say:
<ordain> "When reminded that FBI statistics show the South has a higher murder rate than Northeastern states despite a higher execution rate, Bryant said that might be because there are more guns in the South."
<ordain> in a discussion about the death penalty
<Number-6> that's the culture of life talking.
<ordain> I'm a strong believer in the importance of creating a culture of life
<ordain> which is why I'm strongly against the death penalty
<Number-6> when i was at oopsla there was a jesusfreak conference going on in the same hotel complex
<ordain> yeah, you said so
<Number-6> and they had a table piled with all their jesusfreak magazines
<ordain> I'm of course not for the criminalization of abortion though, since that has nothing to do with a culture of life
<jwzrd> ordain, www.webprogrammers.net/~pandersson/iq.mp3 <-- essential
<Number-6> with "the meaning of LIFE" next to "why we need the DEATH PENALTY"
<ordain> haha
<Number-6> i couldn't have picked a better juxtoposition myself
<MXV> ..
<ordain> any christian in favour of the death penalty...
<jwzrd> :)
<ordain> I think the posision on death penalty is a prett good indicator of whether someone is a decent christian or an evil christian
<Number-6> god wants you to kill.
<ordain> position
<MXV> christians never had a problem that?
<Number-6> kill for jesus
<Number-6> so that you can have eternal life
<ordain> MXV: the bible has a pretty clear problem with human-performed penalties
<Number-6> the bible is just a story
<ordain> the christian bible that is (the new testament)
<Number-6> it's made-up by the people who wrote it
<MXV> ordain: the bible has a clear stance on everything.. or for or against anything :)
<ordain> it is made-up
<ordain> MXV: not really... you can interpret things any way you like, if you add spin :)
<ordain> but it really is pretty clear on some points
<jwzrd> ordain, can I quote you on that?
<ordain> jwzrd: yes
<ordain> Jesus is pretty damn clear about how criminals should be treated
<MXV> ordain: only if you chose to ignore some contradicting parts
<ordain> MXV: Jesus explicitly voids the contradicitng parts
<jwzrd> th :)
<ordain> MXV: in the sermon of the mount, he explicitly says that the "eye for an eye" from the old testament is not right
<ordain> interestingly some people focus on the words and say that Jesus mentioned "an eye for an eye" and forget to mention that he said that was the _wrong_ position
<jwzrd> ordain, this is all incredibly interesting
<ordain> religion is very interesting
<MXV> ordain: you have just picked one particular snippet and hung on to it.. like any sane christian ;)
<ordain> MXV: yeah, the snippet about Jesus laying out his fundemantal philosophy
<ordain> MXV: other "christians" like to take snippets from a period long before Jesus was born or christianity existed, and call them christian values
<ordain> (btw, as you know, I'm an atheist)
<jwzrd> ordain, why can't they also be christian values?
<jwzrd> ordain, it's not like the foundation of your values are all from after 1948 when you were born
<ordain> jwzrd: they _could_ be christian values of course
<ordain> but nothing says Jesus had those views just because the old testament says so
<MXV> ordain: takes an atheist to argue with christians about technicalities in the bible :)
<ordain> especially since he contradict some of the views held in the old testament, one could argue that the ones he don't mention are not certain to have been held by him
<ordain> MXV: hmm, so if both christians and atheists argue about it... who doesn't, muslims? ;)
<jwzrd> Takes a fine christian to argue with himself aswell :)
<MXV> ordain: those damned atheists argue with muslims on the same terms.. just different scriptures and technicalities ;)
<ordain> MXV: so, everyone's arguing?
<MXV> christians and muslims don't argue about technicalities
<MXV> atheists argue with everyone
<jwzrd> hehe
<MXV> even us poor non-fundamentalists :)
<jwzrd> MXV, you christian?
<MXV> jwzrd: haha
<MXV> but I'm no atheist either
<ordain> yeah, christians and muslims only bomb and shoot eachother ;)
<ordain> MXV is a new age hippie
<MXV> giggle
<jjava> giggle is my word :)
<jwzrd> SAlaman! :)
<MXV> haha
<jwzrd> I always picture salaman as the singer in Rotting Christ :)
<MXV> yes yes, can't be more olive skinned
<jwzrd> quintessence++
<jwzrd> cojones++;
<MXV> ebonics at the intro to nightmare++
<MXV> tannel of pein
<jwzrd> quintessence has a fine set of cojones :)
<MXV> http://m68k.org/kyrkovisan.mp3
<jwzrd> th.. can't find pling
<MXV> 06-eternal_hatred-gw.mp3 is just above rotting christ here :)
<MXV> that's.. pling
<jwzrd> ahh HEadhunter!
<jwzrd> hahahah
<MXV> yes yes sets you in the mood for bible studies
<jwzrd> so amazingly competent!
<MXV> yes yes.. the manifest being very fappable as well
<JitZ> I want to force cl***es that inherit my cl*** to implement toString method so I made it abstract but I get an error saying I can't rduce inherited method from object. How do I make it abstract or can't it be done?
<jwzrd> yes yes
<jjava> but but
<MXV> JitZ: can't be done, and the compiler just told you why
<JitZ> How do I force the implementation of toString?
<jwzrd> change the signature
<jwzrd> make toString call toString(...) which you make abstract
<jwzrd> and make the original toString final if you have to
<MXV> and the toString(...) protected to be neat
<jwzrd> yes yes
<jjava> but but
<jwzrd> goes with-tf-out saying
<MXV> JitZ just blank-stared us
<JitZ> Give me a few minutes to figure it out...
<MXV> ??se parece que su gatito est?? pegado a un edificio en el fuego!
<r0bby> english only pls
<ordain> hehe, that's funny
<ordain> Bara svenska!
<SicWork> when you do new boolean[10], it does 10 bits right?
<SicWork> or does it do 10 bytes?
<MXV> SicWork: 10 ints.. but that's moot, right?
<MXV> as you are using java you are not worrying about memory overhead
<SicWork> well im going out of memory
<SicWork> if it was bits I am requesting 25MB
<SicWork> writing different primilaty tests for big numbers
<SicWork> so I need big arrays
<MXV> do rest ***ured it's not bits
<SicWork> hmm
<SicWork> not great memory management :(
<MXV> just give your heap 2G and you won't run out?
<SicWork> I am using NetBeans right now... for some reason when I tried compiling it outside by using javac, I am getting a cl*** not found error :( and right now I have everything in the main method so its not like its a complicated cl*** structure
<SicWork> it runs in netbeans
<SicWork> any idea how to give the 2G heap parameter in NetBean?
<MXV> you are over your quota for tonight
<SicWork> one question is the quota huh... thanks
<JitZ> jwzrd, I figured it out. I can make toString abstract. I had left off the public access modifier and now it works.
<Dreadh3ad> how do i call the method .sort(int[] a) on my array?
<Dreadh3ad> i tried hand.sort(hand); Array.sort(hand); etc and the error i get is cannot find symbol
<FreddieD> arrays themselves dont have methods. The only special field they possess is .length for determining it's size
<FreddieD> you should take a look through the java tutorial for how to use arrays correctly
<FreddieD> tutorial
<jjava> tutorial is http://java.sun.com/tutorial
<Dreadh3ad> i was looking through the API specifications and the Cl*** Arrays, has a sort method, how can i use that?
<loke__> Dreadh3ad: you just answered your own question
<Dreadh3ad> i imported the cl*** and i still get the same error
<loke__> Dreadh3ad: read this page, THEN come back and ask us for ***istance:
<loke__> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
<loke__> and read it all, we'll be able to tell if you haven't
<loke__> (obviously you can skip the part about email questions)
<Dreadh3ad> lol ok thanks
Return to java
or
Go to some related
logs:
sverige
politics
politics
|
|