| comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com | Google Groups |  |
| Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
- Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98) - 7 Updates
- Apology to the group - 2 Updates
- MSVC++ anonymous union in struct -- compile-time initialization of non-first member - 4 Updates
- Welcome to the C++ forum! Insults and Disrepect for Free! - 4 Updates
- Help with operator overloading definition and (possibly) link problems - 2 Updates
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 6 Updates
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:21PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 2:15 PM, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make > sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming > that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo. and in addition, even if humans did evolve from an entirely different species, I still don't see how that disproves the existence of the first human. Perhaps it would make the concept of him being created in a single day harder for one to swallow, but even then, you would be looking at it at the point of view that doesn't want to believe in a creator that formed the laws that people claim disprove his existence in the first place. Perhaps the first human was created in a single day and then evolution took place after being expelled from the garden of eden. Who knows. either way, nothing is proven or disproven and by its nature cannot be. |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:34PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 2:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory > Also mate there is not one single proven scientific theory as scientific > theories cannot be proven, only disproven. Ok. I still have no idea how you are forming this philosophical argument: Evolution is true, evolution disproves Adam, therefore the OT is not true. Neither premise has any explanation and themselves are not accepted to be true. Evolution, in the flavor you are using it, is not proven to be true, it has never been observed or recreated in an experiment, and cannot be observed and recreated, that one species evolves from another. They cannot even reproduce the phenomena of a multicelled organism evolving from a single celled one, much less something as complex as a human being. Furthermore, even if it was, you are still making a leap in your second premise. > You should have paid more attention in school mate. I honestly had quite a bit more interest in computer science class than any other science class, including biology. However, I do not see any error here. I did pay attention in philosophy and logic. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 08:39PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 20:34, Christopher Pisz wrote: > is not true. > Neither premise has any explanation and themselves are not accepted to > be true. Evolution, in the flavor you are using it, is not proven to be Did you not read what I just wrote? Evolution is BOTH fact and theory; the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of a first human called Adam: there was no first human as humans evolved. Falsifiability is the cornerstone of science. > evolving from a single celled one, much less something as complex as a > human being. Furthermore, even if it was, you are still making a leap in > your second premise. You are the one making a leap. The evidence for evolution is legion. > I honestly had quite a bit more interest in computer science class than > any other science class, including biology. However, I do not see any > error here. I did pay attention in philosophy and logic. Your faith blinds you mate. /Flibble |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 03:13PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 2:39 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > the FACT that evolution happened FALSIFIES the creation of a first human > called Adam: there was no first human as humans evolved. Falsifiability > is the cornerstone of science. I saw nothing in the Wikipedia article that proves evolution of humans from another species to be fact. Only a few summarized views of a few people in science. I have never heard of any experiment that produced life. I have never heard of any experiment that turned a single celled organism into anything other than a single celled organism or something that wasn't alive at all. So, yes, I read what you said. You want us all to accept not only evolution as fact, simply because someone else says it is fact, but that it is our origin, and not only that but you want us to accept, evolution that creates entirely different species although it has never been observed and never will be, as fact. You also keep asserting that the first human could not have been created because for some reason, that is contrary to evolution, as fact, although I still do not see where the two are in conflict. If a car was used to be a pile of rocks, that was turned into refined metals, that were put together, fastened, and adorned with fiberglass, how is it that I did not build a car? > You are the one making a leap. The evidence for evolution is legion. Nothing else fitting into their theories of origin without a creator, does not make for evidence. > Your faith blinds you mate. Who said I was a man of faith? ...oh wait, even if I was an atheist, I'd still have to have faith, like I said before, you'll just have to accept that time did not exist and the ball of magical dense mass just was. I suppose even they are blinded by it. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 09:19PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 21:13, Christopher Pisz wrote: > I saw nothing in the Wikipedia article that proves evolution of humans > from another species to be fact. Only a few summarized views of a few > people in science. The EVIDENCE for evolution is the FACT of evolution. It happened (and is still happening); deal with it. > I have never heard of any experiment that produced life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter /Flibble |
| Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Sep 15 11:20PM +0200 Op 15-Sep-14 21:15, Christopher Pisz schreef: >> first human called "Adam". > Humans evolving and evolving from another species are two entirely > different things. I don't believe the latter has been proven at all. Rather than just believing that something has not be proven you could educate yourself about the reasons why the vast majority of biologists believe that humans have evolved from other species. You might even be able to disprove the evolution theory and win the Nobel prize! > Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make > sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming > that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo. Many educated people accept it to be the most probable explanation because of the vast amount of fossil records and DNA strongly and consistently indicate that humans have evolved from other species and there is of yet no evidence found to indicate the contrary. People who reject evolution usually do so not because of scientific evidence (or lack thereof), but because it contradicts their holy book and/or because the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to them. |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Sep 15 11:56PM +0100 On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:17:53 +0200 > others may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of > telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to > bash you. Don't take it personally. No, I think it was rather because the original post was completely pointless. So you buy a new compiler. Do your really need to post about it to this newsgroup? No question was being asked, such as, "would this be a good compiler to buy", which would be on topic. It was just an outpouring of ego. This made it look like a troll, although it probably wasn't intended as such. This was certainly compounded by the fact that the idea of writing code with such a compiler in 2014 is bizarre. But I think it was the pointlessness rather than the bizarreness which attracted the attention (rightly in my view). Chris |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 01:48PM -0700 I want to apologize for my previous posts. They were very intemperant and bellicose. I have some issues, as many of us do. Sorry about that, and I hope you will let me ask more C++ questions in the future. Thank you. |
| Noob <nope@nono.com>: Sep 15 06:48PM -0300 On 15/09/2014 17:48, Robert Hutchings wrote: > I want to apologize for my previous posts. They were very intemperant and bellicose. I have some issues, as many of us do. > Sorry about that, and I hope you will let me ask more C++ questions in the future. > Thank you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 15 08:11PM +0200 Rick C. Hodgin skrev den 2014-09-15 02:00: > received through moderation, nor has an explanation been given as to > why it has not been received through moderation. > Any thoughts as to what's going on there? There are a limited number of moderators. Sometimes it just happens that all of them are busy doing other things for a couple of days. To address you actual question of why the C++ standard says: "When a union is initialized with a brace-enclosed initializer, the braces shall only contain an initializer-clause for the first non-static data member of the union." (§8.5.1/15) This refers to the C standard that says (C99, §6.7.8/17): "[...] subobjects of the current object are initialized in order according to the type of the current object: array [...], structure [...], and the first named member of a union." So when C++ has braced initializers for C-like objects, the rules are the same as in C. Seems rather logical. Bo Persson |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 01:22PM -0700 On Monday, September 15, 2014 2:11:58 PM UTC-4, Bo Persson wrote: > So when C++ has braced initializers for C-like objects, the rules are > the same as in C. Seems rather logical. > Bo Persson Thank you for this information. It is definitely working as it's defined. I did not know the C++ reference tied back to something in C99. So ... should I ask for the change to be added in something like comp.std.c ?? I just don't see any reason why braced initializers should be limited to the first member when their proper union member could be determined by base type (float into the float union member, int into the int, and so on so long or to be explicitly cast by name). Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 04:52PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 4:22 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > to the first member when their proper union member could be determined > by base type (float into the float union member, int into the int, and > so on so long or to be explicitly cast by name). It could be that providing for such a special case is simply not worth the trouble... V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 02:09PM -0700 > ...may not be worth the trouble. Understood. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:29PM -0700 Hi! Want to get insulted? Crave that "I've been dissed" feeling? Love working with guys who think they are geniuses and you are obviously NOT? Well then, this forum is for you! Oh, and please don't top-post. This is apparently a "no-no" on this forum... |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 08:30PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 20:29, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Hi! Want to get insulted? Crave that "I've been dissed" feeling? Love working with guys who think they are geniuses and you are obviously NOT? > Well then, this forum is for you! Oh, and please don't top-post. This is apparently a "no-no" on this forum... Sausages. /Flibble |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 03:42PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 3:29 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Hi! Want to get insulted? [..] What an idiot... <plonk> |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 01:00PM -0700 Ah! A GREAT example of this kind of treatment you can expect here! "What an idiot". Classic!! |
| Noob <nope@nono.com>: Sep 15 04:41PM -0300 On 12/09/2014 03:17, Paavo Helde wrote: > better solution. > Cheers > Paavo Thank you. Your reply was much appreciated! |
| Noob <nope@nono.com>: Sep 15 04:51PM -0300 On 13/09/2014 03:27, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > first, unless you have very special needs. If you're coming from C, > std::vector is the one that should replace most C-style arrays. > /Jorgen Thank you Jorgen. I'll be using this in a very specialized application. Since I'll always be using arrays of doubles, I thought that it should represent no real problem. I was also reading about type_traits. Maybe I should use it. Also, this overload definition will be put in a specific namespace. Thanks again. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 16 07:02AM +1200 Robert Hutchings wrote: > Uh, are you English-challenged sir? I thought so. Oh well, I guess I'll go ahead and "top-post" something... Who or what are you replying to? At least take the trouble to learn how to post if you are gong to attempt a smart arse reply. -- Ian Collins |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 03:02PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:56 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Uh, are you English-challenged sir? I thought so. Oh well, I guess I'll go ahead and "top-post" something... Please. As soon as you figure out how to actually do that... Hint: without quoting it's impossible to top-post. If you need more explanation, just ask. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:04PM -0700 I was replying to Victor...OH, RIGHT, I top-posted. My bad. |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:07PM -0700 I was replying to Victor. Hopefully it wasn't top-posted... |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:09PM -0700 Yes, I misspelled SIGH. What is the penalty for misspelling in this group? |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 16 07:17AM +1200 Robert Hutchings wrote: > I was replying to Victor. Hopefully it wasn't top-posted... How can you top-post if you don't quote? Arse. -- Ian Collins |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment