| 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
- Presentations worth checking out - 1 Update
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 6 Updates
- What is the purpose of this group? - 8 Updates
- Available C++ Libraries FAQ - 1 Update
- digit separators are "out"? - 1 Update
- Are raw pointers acceptable when used only internally within a class implementation? - 1 Update
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 06:26PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 4:20 PM, Dombo wrote: > 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! I've already stated the reasons why below. No Nobel prize needed. > 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. Fossils and DNA strongly indicate? Really? How do they 'strongly' indicate? Do we have a museum somewhere where I can go and look at the actual fossils of some other species along the time line as it grew hands, arms, feet, the human eye, and emotions? Or do we just have a story book that claims that is what happened? Or are we going to produce some fossil of an ape and leap from 'it has two arms, two legs, and can think, therefore we came from apes', or 'it has X number of common genomes, so therefore we were all apes', because that, again, is quite the leap. > People who reject evolution usually do so not because of scientific evidence (or > lack thereof), but because it contradicts their holy book Sounds very much like my stated reason for its acceptance... Just like people deny it because it contradicts their beliefs, people accept it because it fits best with theirs. > and/or because the idea that they have ancestors common with the apes is revolting to > them. Darwin himself says that we did not evolve from apes... Where are all these half human/half ape people anyway and why aren't they at varying stages of their evolution? Did it happen over millions of years and then suddenly the entire species synchronized its final form all at once at the snap of evolution's magical fingers? Do we still have an entire race of people running around with claws and tails? Or are you going to be incredibly un-PC and tell me some race of people on Earth is "still catching up?" |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 06:27PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 3:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > The EVIDENCE for evolution is the FACT of evolution. It happened (and is > still happening); deal with it. Cool story bro. >> I have never heard of any experiment that produced life. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter Not life. Not even close. |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Sep 16 05:34AM +0200 On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:21:25 -0500 Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com> wrote: 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. First human is impossibility... How first pair breaded into many? Incest? Garden of eden? Please... |
| Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>: Sep 16 05:36AM +0200 On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:13:32 -0500 > 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. Currently, evolution is only explanation for living species ... Do you have another one? |
| Christopher Pisz <cpisz@austin.rr.com>: Sep 15 11:54PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 10:36 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> of a few people in science. > Currently, evolution is only explanation for living species ... > Do you have another one? There are several hundred out there. Any of them are a matter of belief and faith, including the 'scientific' ones. I am not arguing that it is an explanation, I am arguing the premise and conclusion of Mr Fibble Sausages that: A) Evolution is fact && B) Evolution disproves the creation of the first human being = C) The entire Old Testament is false. It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven true and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't prove C. Even just looking at A alone, when people say "Evolution" there are at least a dozen different ideas that entails which scientists themselves argue over, much less uneducated folks whom believe we come from monkeys, which was another claim of Mr Fibble Sausages. Darwin himself never claimed we came from monkeys. |
| Christopher Pisz <cpisz@austin.rr.com>: Sep 15 11:59PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 10:36 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> of a few people in science. > Currently, evolution is only explanation for living species ... > Do you have another one? There are several hundred out there. Any of them are a matter of belief and faith, including the 'scientific' ones. You cannot speak of origin religiously or scientifically and not have to rely on belief and faith. It is not a scientifically provable thing. If you believe in the tiny dense magic ball of mass, you still must simply accept and have faith that it existed without known cause, that there was no time before that, and that for some unknown reason it exploded, and that order was made from chaos, that through some unknown magical means single celled organisms suddenly became multicelled, and that entirely different species sprang up over the ages, and that all the laws of physics and science just happened to work out perfectly. Well...close anyway, I do have a bad back and knees. What people call and tout as "science" is itself a religion and they are just as fanatic and emotional over it as people are over any religion. I am not arguing that it is an explanation, I am arguing the premise and conclusion of Mr Fibble Sausages that: A) Evolution is fact && B) Evolution disproves the creation of the first human being = C) The entire Old Testament is false. It simply is not a philosophically sound argument. A is not proven true and B is not proven true, and even if they were, they don't prove C. Even just looking at A alone, when people say "Evolution" there are at least a dozen different ideas that entails which scientists themselves argue over, much less uneducated folks whom believe we come from monkeys, which was another claim of Mr Fibble Sausages. Darwin himself never claimed we came from monkeys. |
| Christopher Pisz <cpisz@austin.rr.com>: Sep 16 12:02AM -0500 On 9/15/2014 11:54 PM, Christopher Pisz wrote: > On 9/15/2014 10:36 PM, Melzzzzz wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 15:13:32 -0500 >> Christopher Pisz<nospam@notanaddress.com> wrote: Ignore this thread, use the other. Double post. Thunderbird got angry at this debate |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Sep 15 09:51PM -0700 Has anyone looked at these? https://github.com/CppCon/CppCon2014/tree/master/Presentations I wonder which ones are helpful. Tia. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 03:20PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 3:09 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Yes, I misspelled SIGH. What is the penalty for misspelling in this group? This newsgroup is unmoderated. There are no penalties beyond a well deserved place in a killfile. However, if everybody places you in their killfiles, it essentially means boycott. People will ignore you if you irritate them too much. I think the times of reporting somebody to their ISP upon severe violations of newsgroup netiquette has gone the way of dinosaurs. Acting like an ass when you're "new people" (from your own admission) does irritate some folks here, and will likely land you in killfiles. That usually means you won't be able to get real help if you ever need it. Of course, c.l.c++ is but one resource among so many on the 'net that inability to get help from c.l.c++ should not really discourage any ass out there... When you come to a newsgroup it is customary to ask for the FAQ. Even though you didn't ask, I'll suggest http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq/ , perhaps it will be of some use to you. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson): Sep 15 07:22PM In article <da324135-79e7-4c4e-8b8a-efca15fa2b24@googlegroups.com> >I was replying to Victor...OH, RIGHT, I top-posted. My bad. Um, no, you did not. If you are going to through a fit about someone's sig quote regarding top posting, at least bother to learn what the phrase means. -- Drew Lawson | If dreams were thunder, | and lightning was desire, | This old house would have burnt down | a long time ago |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:22PM -0700 The word you are looking for is "ass" Ian. "Ass". No one uses "Arse" except old British guys who use British slang even when they know its stupid. Must be a British thing... |
| Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Sep 15 09:32PM +0200 Op 15-Sep-14 18:05, Robert Hutchings schreef: > I will take 100 lashes later today... Kinky |
| Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Sep 15 09:36PM +0200 Op 15-Sep-14 21:09, Robert Hutchings schreef: > Yes, I misspelled SIGH. What is the penalty for misspelling in this group? To repent you will have to refrain from masturbating for one week. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 16 07:35AM +1200 Robert Hutchings wrote: > The word you are looking for is "ass" Ian. "Ass". Ass is a synonym for donkey. No one uses "Arse" except old British guys who use British slang even when they know its stupid. Must be a British thing... It's a not-American thing. -- Ian Collins |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 09:21AM -0700 It is just a "mine is bigger" thing? OK, if that's what it is, perhaps someone should explain that, basically, we just argue with and disrespect people on a regular basis. Welcome to our group! |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 01:49PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 12:21 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > [..whine skiped..] This is a C++ *language* group. The purpose of this newsgroup is to facilitate discussions on C++ *language*. You ask your C++ *language* question here when you have one. If you have an *HFT employment* question, it is recommended that you find *some other place* where to ask it, that's all. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:44AM -0700 Oh, are you the moderator of this group? |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:50AM -0700 >[Victor skipped} WOW, this is unprecedented! Victor does NOT respond to top-posted replies! Oh, well, in THAT case, be sure NOT to top-post your reply to Victor. Pathetic how people use these forums to proudly announce that they are the smart ones and the rest of us should only approach them with deference and humility. A thousand pardons, Victor. |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:50PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:44 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Oh, are you the moderator of this group? No. This newsgroup is unmoderated. I just answer questions when I can. And ask question when I need to. V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson): Sep 15 06:53PM In article <661a82d7-c298-4b74-856f-99519ace74ec@googlegroups.com> >Oh, are you the moderator of this group? If you weren't interested in an answer, why did you waste the time posting the question? You got the same description of the purpose/charter of this group that I have been seeing for the several years that I've been reading. -- Drew Lawson I had planned to be dead by now, but the schedule slipped, they do that. -- Casady |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:54PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:50 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: >> [Victor skipped} > WOW, this is unprecedented! Victor does NOT respond to top-posted replies! I haven't been responding to top posted replies for years now. As to whether that is unprecedented, I am not sure, really. > Oh, well, in THAT case, be sure NOT to top-post your reply to Victor. I don't see how that follows. > Pathetic how people use these forums to proudly announce that they are the smart ones and the rest of us should only approach them with deference and humility. Rather! > A thousand pardons, Victor. For what, Robert? For the flame you've raised? That would be the first! V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 12:01PM -0700 I GOT a decent answer. By someone who apparently does NOT enjoy insulting new people... |
| Nikki Locke <nikki@trumphurst.com>: Sep 14 10:23PM Available C++ Libraries FAQ URL: http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/ This is a searchable list of libraries and utilities (both free and commercial) available to C++ programmers. If you know of a library which is not in the list, why not fill in the form at http://www.trumphurst.com/cpplibs/cppsub.php Maintainer: Nikki Locke cpplibs@trumphurst.com |
| ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Sep 14 07:36PM As you know, according to N3797, if I understand it correct, »12'345« is an »decimal-literal«. However, on a single page in the world-wide web in 2013 somebody wrote: »digit separators are out« WRT to a C++ meeting in Bristol at the beginning of 2013. Does anybody know for sure whether digit separators made it into the official C++ ISO/IEC specification? (I have heard that they might be implemented in GCC 4.9, but they do not seem to be available in some GCC 4.8.x.) |
| CHIN Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com>: Sep 14 10:35AM -0700 On Friday, September 12, 2014 6:04:27 AM UTC+8, kurt krueckeberg wrote: > void insert(K key); > bool remove(K key); > }; I think you mean a tree from the root with at most 4 son-nodes. Us an unsigned char string that could be extended in the string length, and 2 bits per level of tree from the translated key 0 as the root node. I wrote that long time ago in C. |
| 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