This might not be it, but if you are returning an integer object and not an int, you may have to declare new Integer(<insert sum here>) before you return. I'm having a hard time seeing the issue.

Everyone, but the shattered violin, leaves the stage.

At 9/18/09 04:52 PM, Narusegawa wrote: The swaying maize. The blowing wind. The blue sky. Remember.

~

Chairs empty, feet don't move, clapping thick as water.

Engine's running. Sun glints off frame. She smiles.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Cleat's hook mud, fingers tangle cooled grass, the world somersaults.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The echo bounces back the girl alone, holding her teddy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Strawberry juice, running down my chin, mingles with tears.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lucy turns as I've always wanted her to, until today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Prize winning garden overgrown, broken windows.

Footsteps in the snow, a pair. Snow angel, one set leaves.

Enveloped sealed, postmarked, and on a photograph.

Your friend is a bit of an ass for harassing her group to begin with, it could have never happened if he just had left her alone, really. So, while both of them escalated it, it seems like he is mostly to blame.

I think the Afghan people are war tired and will side with whichever side they think is in their best interest.

If the Americans look like they are going to win, more afghans join their side. Otherwise the Taliban. I don't think the Afghans particularly like either of us and unless they are given a valid third option (their country) and nationalistic pride nothing will help them.

Also, the country is so tribal that I don't know if it can truly be unified under a government which caters any tribe at all, like the current one does.

I don't see much hope in Afghanistan atm, mostly due to complete missmanagement.

At 9/18/09 01:01 PM, unowned wrote:

At 9/18/09 12:46 PM, Brian wrote:

thats nice but exercising won't counteract (all)the effects of sugar

Neither will making sugar more expensive. It will still cost less than healthy food &&&& people will still buy it simply because it tastes good.

It would make more sense to restrict the length of a work day than tax sugar if you want to curb obesity. 8 hours is a lot of time out of a day when you factor in commuting on top of it. I have about 3 hours when I'm not working on a weekday, I don't know about the rest of you, in order to get the full recommended 8.5 hours of rest each night.

2 hours travel, 8 hours working, 1 hour lunch, 8.5 hours sleeping, 1 hour get ready in the morning.

The average american probably has exactly enough time to exercise the recommended amount, if they over work themselves by never taking the chance to relax.

If work days were cut by 2 hours, I imagine you'd get the rise in prices on these things from companies needing to hire extra employees and people would actually have time to exercise.

At 9/18/09 10:31 AM, wrathofmannix wrote: Of course, it could be all in my head.

Other issue is that there are actually racists. You have people like this simply because at one point or another they probably were the victim of some racist action, but they've carried that on and applied it to situations that aren't necessarily racially motivated.

As much as I don't think it is always right to decry acts as being racist, its hard to deny there are racists out there when I've met more than several in my life.

At 9/18/09 05:26 AM, poxpower wrote: Now how in the holy fuck is that guy jewish other than a pure lust for cultural validation? His movies contain more sexual content than Wilt Chamberlain's pants.

Jews (reform at least) don't look at sex as something evil like Christians do. Sex its a "mitzvah" as it were, a good deed. So, if anything he's more Jewish for having sexual content in his movies.

Since NIO operates at a lower level inside of Java, it is actually more cost effective to use for an IRC type client than creating a thread for each user which connects. Additionally, creating threads in Java can be expensive, extremely so when you have many users connecting at once and staying connected for longer periods of time.

Thread pooling at least obviates the need to create and destroy threads each time a request comes up that actually deserves its own thread of execution.

I've used the method you said you've used as well, but I'm operating on localhost at the moment and a single connection was tying up too much memory the way you proposed I do it.

While I may not have huge stress at first, I plan to eventually, so I'm building from the ground up. If I ask about Non-Blocking IO, I already know about blocking IO and I've made the decision its not for me.

RSS feed =/= what I'm working on.

I actually figured out what I was doing wrong, I was searching specifically for the way I was doing it before, as described above. Searching for Java NIO Tutorial brought up the best possible guide that has probably ever been made:

http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs161/pa pers/j-nio-ltr.pdf

In response to the first, my searches weren't helping.

In response to the second, that's a very naive approach when you are expecting many connections. It also extremely wasteful as you have to implement some sort of busy waiting system or convoluted class structure to get the different threads to talk.

NIO allows me to handle all of the initial requests from one thread and then launch the requests themselves as threads while still identifying who belonged to what, long term.

You didn't even mention thread pooling, do you know what you are talking about??? :/

Elfer, I know what you mean.

I stopped some drunk kids from stealing a banner at my college around 3am on a Saturday years ago. It turned out to be the student Latina group's banner and apparently someone had run off with the Black group's banner the semester before.

The would be thieves were made out to be racists in an editorial and I was made out to be defender of minority rights on campus, when in actuality it was some drunk guys who thought it would be funny to steal a sign and I just saw them stealing and told them to knock it off.

I wrote one back saying it was ridiculous to assume any such thing and that pretty much shut up the assistant teacher.

They could have been racially motivated, but that didn't matter much when you had people who were willing to assume it was racially motivated. The only clear thing was that the person writing the editorial was victimizing minorities due to their race, no matter the situation.

At 9/16/09 09:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 08:57 PM, Brian wrote: Just like you are doing now by bringing up Gun control

Get off your pretentiousness high horse RIGHT NOW, dude. You brought up the issue of gun control, I responded with evidence why.

Eh, this'll be my last comment on this since you're apparently taking this as an offence...

I said people were protesting about something which Obama has never brought up. You then proved my point, but tried to tie it to Obama and I still fail to see the connection. Sorry that I brought it up and sorry that you did exactly what I brought up.

At 9/16/09 08:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 07:56 PM, Brian wrote: elaborate on the name calling.

"They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He basically called his entire opposition a crowd of xenophobic, gun toting, rednecks.

No, he said that "they" are actually upset for legitimate reasons, but not knowing how to express that tend to instead talk about guns, religion, etc. Just like you are doing now by bringing up Gun control proposed by some OTHER person when we are supposed to be talking about specific things Obama has done. If anything you are proving his "gaffe" more right by the second.

At 9/16/09 07:45 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 06:13 PM, Brian wrote:

Why should the opposition be willing to work with him if he so blatantly disrespects them? It's kind of a self defeating stance to take, calling your opposition a bunch of names and then trying to take the high road on wanting to work with your opposition towards a common goal.

Aside from the clinging to guns comment, elaborate on the name calling.

So he's a representative of the people who share his ideas, but not of his party? Is that what you're telling me?

No, I'm saying the bill was introduced by a congressman and it didn't get any cosigners so its sitting in a committee right now that might just let it die.

It's a paperwork act. Mainly; if you fail to fill out the proper paperwork, you're going to jail. For 5 to 10 years if the case warrants it. That seems to be one of the only two things democrats are good at anymore; throwing money at the problem in hopes of solving it, and creating paperwork. for other people to do.

You still haven't showed how it infringes on anyone's right to bear arms. You'd have to show how licenses are rejected to people who are following the law.

Off topic my ass, the opening topic mentions his gaffe about Ohio owners clinging to their guns, and I'm shown you that his administration has plans to write restrictive gun laws, justifying the paranoia of the average gun owner. You just don't want to discuss it is all.

No, you mentioned something happening in congress. The Obama administration is in the executive branch. He only has the power to veto laws. He can push and make speeches but he can't vote on legislation. A bill introduced by someone in the legislative branch is by definition not part of his administration.

LOL, help?

Ok, ok, I'll explain.

I'd like to create a Java app that listens on multiple sockets with out busy waiting, but most of the tutorials google links to are convoluted and well, hard to follow.

I'm looking for resources, a good tutorial, or someone willing to just post a little bit of info here.

Busy waiting sucks... seriously.

On the off chance someone runs into the same problem. Embedding did fix this. I can only assume Flash couldn't find the bold & italic font, which makes sense as italic would be set second and the code would probably fall onto the italic setting.

Anyway:

Create a folder on the project level called "Fonts" or "fonts" up to you. Copy the fonts you need from your windows directory, keeping in mind that Arial Italic is an additional font beyond Arial.

Then place this embedding code above the constructor in the class you need it:

[Embed(source="../fonts/Arial.ttf", fontName="Arial", mimeType="application/x-font-truetype")]
		public static const VerdanaTTF:String;
		[Embed(source = "../fonts/arialbd.ttf", fontWeight = "bold", fontName = "Arial", mimeType = "application/x-font-truetype")]
		public static const VerdanaBoldTTF:String;
		[Embed(source = "../fonts/arialbi.ttf", fontWeight = "bold", fontStyle = "italic", fontName = "Arial", mimeType = "application/x-font-truetype")]
		public static const VerdanaBoldItalicTTF:String;
		[Embed(source = "../fonts/ariali.ttf", fontStyle = "italic", fontName = "Arial", mimeType = "application/x-font-truetype")]
		public static const VerdanaItalicTTF:String;

At 9/16/09 05:28 PM, Proteas wrote: And I was talking broadly, of his gaffes in general.

Well don't be confused when I go back on topic then.

Then he's a liar for stating that he wants people to unite in a bipartisan effort to help make this country better (read; healthcare) and he's an idiot for intentionally alienating potential voters. He won't last if this is his mode of operation.

Obama's Bipartisan Approach - Disagreement fine, but it ends at our shores. He's also gone on the record numerous times about being open to negotiation if the opposition would actually take the time to do so.

Besides, the senate attempted to make a bipartisan bill and the republicans simply used it as a platform to stall the entire attempt, 2 of them anyways.

I wonder why that is...?

Not his plan. Its from his party, but its not an infliction on rights of gun owners either. There's nothing in there about taking guns away, just making sure that guns can't be sold unless they are licensed. So, w/e. Again, I don't want to delve into this too deeply because its off topic.

At 9/16/09 04:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 03:51 PM, Brian wrote: So, Kayne West feeds Obama?

At what point did I mention Kanye "King Jackass" West?

You didn't, that's what the topic is about, the most recent thing Obama has said that is being interpreted as a gaffe.

Or is it rural Americans who are stuck decades in the past?

There's an old saying here in the South that goes "You attract more flies with honey than you do vinegar." You don't win friends and influence people by patronizing them, which is something democrats don't seem to get. The "economic woes" thing for example.

What if he's not trying to attract people who cling to gun rights as an issue when ever anything completely irrelevant comes up, like health care. Obama hasn't said anything about guns, and yet, there's bunches of people clinging to their guns at protests against an non existent threat of a violation of rights. So, ummmmm, yeah.

At 9/16/09 02:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 02:19 PM, Brian wrote: If you're looking for obama to be somebody else, you missed where that somebody else didn't win the election.

The only thing I would be looking for Obama to be is smart enough to realize that you don't bite the hand that feeds you, of which he obviously was not. So in that respect, idiocy is worse than ignorance.

So, Kayne West feeds Obama?

Or is it rural Americans who are stuck decades in the past?

I'm not following you.

At 9/16/09 02:05 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 9/16/09 01:51 PM, Brian wrote: Obama's "gaffes" have mostly been opinions which happen to offend some group of people, which I hate to tell you, but when you are in politics happens.

Well... which is worse; ignorance or idiocy? Failure to properly master your native language, or pissing off potential constituents before you're even in office?

Representatives don't represent everybody, even if they do try to take a more moderate pose their opinions ARE going to differ from yours no matter who they are.

If you're looking for obama to be somebody else, you missed where that somebody else didn't win the election. The majority of voters picked him.

At 9/16/09 01:27 PM, Proteas wrote: Sweet sweet irony.

Thats how it started with Bush as well. But Bush's slip ups were largely in his mastery, or lack there of, of the English nature. His gaffes were generally grammatical, structural or due to using a word he didn't understand.

Obama's "gaffes" have mostly been opinions which happen to offend some group of people, which I hate to tell you, but when you are in politics happens.

If anyone can find any quotes the like of what Bush had, I'd welcome and join in a laugh about it.

The closest this particular thing comes to is Bush flipping off the tv camera, which got just about the same response, "Seems a bit immature, but oh well"

There was no sarcasm intended, and thanks.

Now that there are other ways to produce .SWF files, it might be better not to assume everyone uses the Flash IDE, esp if its just an actionscript question. And yes, I use actionscript 3.

At 9/16/09 01:04 PM, knugen wrote:

At 9/16/09 08:35 AM, Brian wrote: Elaborate?

http://livedocs.adobe.com/flash/9.0/main /wwhelp/wwhimpl/common/html/wwhelp.htm?c ontext=LiveDocs_Parts&file=00000892.html

And how would this work, using the flex SDK?

At 9/16/09 11:53 AM, poxpower wrote: Yeah a barely noticeable improvement in mental health sure makes up for all the genocides.

Because genocide is purely a religious devotion. Yes.

Not to mention that it's not religion alone that can provide these results. These are just benefits of being involved in a community on a regular basis.

But religions encourage it. There's not always one path to get to the same place. Simply because other things do it too doesn't make religion less valuable for having done it or encouraged it.

You could be in a bowling club and get the same results.

Some of the same results. Not all bowling clubs have a man willing to listen to you after you wife has died. And a psychologist might listen to you, but he won't hook you up with another client.

That's not an advantage, that's what we call "dictatorships".

Only when a religion actually dictates solid law. In the U.S. currently religions do more to guide and sway people than dictate law. And you are thinking of something other than a dictatorship. Dictatorships are one or very few controlling many.

It doesn't, for instance, look at the effects of religion on...say... the enemies of the Aztecs.

It would be harder to study the effect on life of the Aztec religion. But I'm sure you would find the rituals most early religions are nature oriented enough to provide anecdotes on how to survive.

I submit that all the good it has ever done would have been done ANYWAY.

I submit that humans create religion and that nothing would have been done the way it has been with out it and that we wouldn't be human with out religion in our past and present. We'd have to think entirely differently. How about proving a negative. We would have done everything we've done anyway. WTF man?

For one thing, you can find all the "good" parts of just about every religion all over the world. But all the "bad" parts are usually unique to either the religion itself or to the idea of religion, i.e. to believe without evidence and to follow leaders blindly.

There are times when you have to follow your leaders, blindly as you put it.

How many scientific laws have you confirmed yourself through experimentation, observation and proof ??? I thought so.

"Don't murder" is pretty universal for instance. Any fool who credits religion with that rule is as blind as a Ray Charles.

No one credited religion with coming up with it, but to helping molding societies acceptance of different ideas. There are always positive and negative aspects to each law or commandment, including murder. There are other laws, customs and ideas which religion teaches its followers which are beneficial under different circumstances.

And that's without mentioning the incalculable damage it has done by impeding democracy, equality and scientific inquiry every damn change it got. I can't think of one religion that says "everyone is born equal".

No one is born equal. Each person comes into the world with a certain capacity and a certain environment from day one everyone is different. Even if you are granted the same constitutional rights by your government, you still don't have the same access to enforcement of them as someone who has 100 times more money than you.

Democracy is nice, its not pretty, its not perfect.

I can't think of one religion that says "you shall conduct double-blind tests".

Again, double-blind tests are relatively new. It would be unreasonable to even believe a religion would include something that new.

At 9/16/09 11:43 AM, Drakim wrote: This link speaks against religion if you think about it. It shows that the benefits of religion actually comes from the communities, not the religions themselves. It's entirely possible to have communities without religions, thus getting this advantage without religion involved.

With out an organization that is compelled to exist from group to group you actually don't have a system that reinforces this. That is why religious people in these studies are overall doing better than the average citizen all of home are technically part of some community.

But often religion gives us the entirely wrong rules. Such as burning innocent women for being witches, or hating gays because they are, uhm, gay.

You've got to break a few eggs to get an omelet. I'm not saying we need to tolerate all the ideas or that we should. But one religion getting it wrong doesn't mean every other religion will. They simply evolve a lot slower, but they evolve.

I'd say it's virtually impossible to do such a simplistic comparison, but I'd say it's obvious that religion causes a lot of harm in general. The reason why homosexuals face such discrimination is without a doubt entirely because of religion. The low acceptance of basic science, like evolution, in the US, is most likely also because of religion.

No, you're blaming a system instead of it's inventors or followers. A system will always be incapable of feeling for those that live with in it, which is why we evolve our systems. Some rules get thrown out along the way. Most new religions are monotheistic and all of the old religions that died went away with cultures that no longer functioned because of them and I'm sure several rules and rituals went away with them as well. Simply because the Judeo-Christian religions currently discriminate against these ideas doesn't mean future religions will.

You'll notice of course that I am absolutely not arguing that any religion is real. I'm arguing for the effects they have as a people as stabilizers, mixers, and challengers of ideas.

The benefits of religion are nice, but they don't excuse religion from criticism when it comes to issues like these.

I never said they did, but its about time for a new religion and I'm sure it will be radically different from your conservative monotheistic religion when it comes around.

This may be the first glimpse at what something like that might be: http://www.uua.org/

At 9/16/09 09:00 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/16/09 08:32 AM, Brian wrote:

And you're missing how fundamental religion was in most of their lives and still is in ours.

The point is: was is good for people?
I submit: no. Definitely not.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/7r02 38682jqk0446/

Sorry, research tends to disagree with you.

Any rule that works will have observable benefits.
Any rule that doesn't work will have observable downsides.

Someone(s) has to set up and enforce the rules. State governments are entirely dependent on the power they can maintain from the people in a given moment. Religious governments are by nature "harder" to question and last for longer periods of time until society wells up enough distrust to stop believing. But they are almost always replaced. In some ways governments are short term memories and religions are long term. I'm not saying they always get it done right, but the links above prove that they do sometimes and that people that participate are generally better off.

And you still have to prove that religion really has caused more problems than it has done good. And that isn't proving a negative.