- I correct some typos, please read again... - 11 Updates
- Swearing in Usenet posts - 8 Updates
- "stl - C++: How can I stop map's operator[] from inserting bogus values? - Stack Overflow" - 2 Updates
| "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>: Jul 16 09:37AM -0400 In article <e9d17d97-39cf-4b95-9656-520b8fe54601@googlegroups.com>, woodbrian77@gmail.com says... > > him to learn anything new. > As long as we're alive there's time to mend our ways. > "An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure." And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth. It is to one?s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. Don?t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 16 06:49AM -0700 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 9:37:45 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote: > But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels > about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. > He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Yes. A Christian's is a teaching ministry. We live, speak, and teach the word of truth. It is not up to us to make others believe, but it is up to us to teach others so they have the opportunity to hear and believe from the word God has planted in their heart by His drawing of that person to His Son (to truth John 14:6). In addition, there is the final statement on this matter by our Lord given in the Bible, in Revelation 22:11-12: http://biblehub.com/kjv/revelation/22-11.htm 11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still." 12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. All we can do is point people to the light, and live the light ourselves. We cannot make people believe. But, per our Lord's guidance, it is enough for us to consistently point them to the light, and live the same, regardless of apparent gain or loss in this world (for it is a walk of faith). Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 16 05:16PM +0100 On 16/07/2016 14:49, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > We cannot make people believe. But, per our Lord's guidance, it is enough > for us to consistently point them to the light, and live the same, regardless > of apparent gain or loss in this world (for it is a walk of faith). Jesus Christ never existed mate; get a new religion. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 16 10:37AM -0700 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 12:17:15 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > for us to consistently point them to the light, and live the same, regardless > > of apparent gain or loss in this world (for it is a walk of faith). > Jesus Christ never existed mate; get a new religion. You are wrong on both counts, Leigh. Jesus Christ exists, He is Lord, and He is returning soon. And Christianity is not a religion. It's a personal one-on-one relationship with Him. You do not know Him because you will not believe. It's the only barrier which exists between you and Him, Leigh, but it is enough to send your soul to Hell for all eternity. It's where you're headed because of your self- stubborn hard heart. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 16 06:45PM +0100 On 16/07/2016 18:37, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > You are wrong on both counts, Leigh. Jesus Christ exists, He is Lord, and > He is returning soon. And Christianity is not a religion. It's a personal > one-on-one relationship with Him. I am right on both counts. I know Jesus Christ never existed because I know evolution is a fact. As far as Christianity not being a religion is concerned, from the Oxford English Dictionary: "The /religion/ of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his apostles." > which exists between you and Him, Leigh, but it is enough to send your soul > to Hell for all eternity. It's where you're headed because of your self- > stubborn hard heart. I cannot know that which does not exist. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 16 11:29AM -0700 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 1:45:41 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > stubborn hard heart. > I cannot know that which does not exist. > /Flibble Look into evolution, Leigh. The truth is more interesting than the lie. I will pray for you. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 16 12:18PM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 21:30:04 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > I cannot know that which does not exist. > > /Flibble > Look into evolution, Leigh. The truth is more interesting than the lie. What is there to look in evolution, Rick? Evolution is a phenomena that will happen always when traits are inherited from generation to generation, traits change by little in each generation and there is competition within generation where success depends on traits. It will start to work with quite small populations and will give effect within quite short time. It is sometimes used for evolving more efficient algorithms or hardware. Nature has had billions of years with rather huge population base in each generation so the result is quite awesome indeed. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 16 12:55PM -0700 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 3:19:32 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > efficient algorithms or hardware. > Nature has had billions of years with rather huge population base in each > generation so the result is quite awesome indeed. There is an assumption in there that is unproveable. It also in error. Nature has not had billions of years. The Earth is about 6,000 years old, and the process you're talking about as evolution is something more interesting called diversification. The information originally encoded in the DNA distributes out from its full original complete form into the lesser and lesser (diverse) forms that make up the various species, and variations within the species. Nothing that exists can exist outside of the allowance provided for it within its own genetic coding. This is the opposite of evolution, as the information in the original master DNA form diversifies out over generations into more specialized forms. In the process, genetic information is lost, such that it's impossible to go back to the full set of information the parents had through the generation, as only those traits which came through continue on in that line. This video explains it all in concept, and at 16:01 begins the specific section. It's a simple example of the much more complex process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m1s To learn more about the more complex process, watch this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deV99oPnKlI > > I will pray for you. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Jul 16 02:41PM -0700 On 7/16/2016 12:55 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Nature has not had billions of years. The Earth is about 6,000 years old, > and the process you're talking about as evolution is something more > interesting called diversification. Why limit your infinite God with a 6000 year old Earth? Give me a break man: Jesus! I suppose you also think that the 6,000 year old earth is the only place in space and time that has sentient intelligent beings, that happen to be vastly smarter than you? ;^o |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jul 16 02:52PM -0700 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 5:41:55 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > and the process you're talking about as evolution is something more > > interesting called diversification. > Why limit your infinite God with a 6000 year old Earth? You've asked me this before. I do not limit Him. I reveal what He has revealed to us in scripture. We can add up the number of years from the time of Adam to the flood, and from the flood forward to Jesus. It is about 4,000 years (we don't know the months of the births). And from the time of Jesus, it is about 2,000 years depending on where you start the time from. Here's a visualization of the timeline, and you can read the rest of the history recorded in Matthew and Luke: http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/bible/OT/Law/Genesis/Patriarchal%20Timeline%20From%20Adam%20Through%20Isaac.jpg http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/1.htm http://biblehub.com/kjv/luke/3.htm#23 > I suppose you also think that the 6,000 year old earth is the only place > in space and time that has sentient intelligent beings, that happen to > be vastly smarter than you? It's what He's told us. And He, being truth (John 14:6) cannot lie. There is one who lies, however. He is the devil, and he introduces a wide range of alternate theories to not only deceive man, but to take God completely out of the equation. It is what you would expect from the enemy of God. Seek the truth, Chris. You will find it if you do. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jul 16 11:32PM +0100 On 16/07/2016 22:52, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > about 4,000 years (we don't know the months of the births). And from the > time of Jesus, it is about 2,000 years depending on where you start the > time from. I kind of feel sorry for you Rick. You are clearly deluded and the ridiculous beliefs you have just posted will be there for all to see on the Internet for quite some time to come. Whether or not you have made yourself unemployable will depend on how easily these posts appear in searches made by your potential employers. Software engineering is based on mathematics and science not magic and delusions and your magic and delusions do not belong here. /Flibble |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 15 06:01PM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 01:34:02 UTC+3, Real Troll wrote: > These members of the peace loving religion have killed nearly 84 in > France and they will kill 1000s in Turkey now they are in charge. What > will happen to NATO who have HQ in Turkey? Will Allah protect it? All good and evil what is done on this planet is done by fellow humans of ours. The mad truck driver in France? He wasn't religious. He didn't pray, didn't fast, drank alcohol and used drugs. Why you say he was religious? He was highly "successful" rampage killer. That count will remain hard to beat for some time. The coup in Turkey is not religious. It was done by military. It seemingly failed anyway, will be hopefully over soon. Erdogan will likely regain control there and then kill lot more people behind closed doors slowly than that truck driver did quickly. NATO is surely well-protected by Allah, what question is that? Nothing bad will happen to NATO nor its HQ in Turkey. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Jul 15 10:06PM -0400 On 7/15/2016 9:01 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: > didn't fast, drank alcohol and used drugs. Why you say he was religious? > He was highly "successful" rampage killer. That count will remain > hard to beat for some time. French police identified him as having ties to radical Islam. Do you have evidence to the contrary? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 15 07:59PM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 05:06:56 UTC+3, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > hard to beat for some time. > French police identified him as having ties to radical Islam. Do you > have evidence to the contrary? Where is your cite about that? What I see in internet are all such: "*French* *prosecutors* *have* *said* *Bouhlel* *had* *no* *known* *ties* *to* *terror* *groups*" https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/heres-what-we-know-about-the-suspect-in-the-nice-attack?utm_term=.eoP8QMAVe#.rxPebYP1w |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Jul 15 11:26PM -0400 On 7/15/2016 10:59 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: > "*French* *prosecutors* *have* *said* *Bouhlel* *had* *no* *known* *ties* > *to* *terror* *groups*" > https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/heres-what-we-know-about-the-suspect-in-the-nice-attack?utm_term=.eoP8QMAVe#.rxPebYP1w Virtually every news channel in the area. The report came from press agencies. And I said French POLICE, not prosecutors. However, since you think the Internet is the last word in the truth (it isn't, but some people don't understand that), try https://www.rt.com/news/351331-nice-attacker-radical-islam/ http://www.timesofisrael.com/french-pm-nice-attacker-probably-linked-to-radical-islam/ http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/latest-from-nice-pm-calls-driver-terrorist-linked-to-radical-islam-1.2988025 All of these are several hours old and discuss how the French PM believes he was tied to radical Islam. He wouldn't say anything like that without some indication - and that indication would come from police; prosecutors are not involved at this point. And I found these and more in about 10 seconds. Why couldn't you? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 16 05:36AM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 06:26:58 UTC+3, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Virtually every news channel in the area. The report came from press > agencies. > And I said French POLICE, not prosecutors. Again wiggling aside with mumbo-jumbo about semantics? Where are your materials about position of that French POLICE? > believes he was tied to radical Islam. He wouldn't say anything like > that without some indication - and that indication would come from > police; prosecutors are not involved at this point. Where in any of these is anything about French POLICE knowing any link to any terrorist organization? All materials say he was hoodlum and felon, in debts, divorcing, non-religious, short-tempered. None say anything about any ties to radical Islam. What a politician says about what is "probable" or "likely" or "we shall see" does not count. Guessing wrong like that is not even lie. We all know that politicians sometimes lie with straight face and that some such lies damage world economy. Best recent example is perhaps George W. Bush and his WMD. > And I found these and more in about 10 seconds. Why couldn't you? I find piles of such same thing like you posted. Lot of empty words around lack of information. It is clear that several political groups in Europe want to blame Islam. The Arab fugitives are annoying to people and so it is politically profitable to be against Islam. It is sure deal. However what politicians want is irrelevant to actual reality. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Jul 16 11:23AM -0400 On 7/16/2016 8:36 AM, Öö Tiib wrote: >> And I said French POLICE, not prosecutors. > Again wiggling aside with mumbo-jumbo about semantics? Where are your > materials about position of that French POLICE? Where do you think the PM got his facts? It didn't come out of thin air, and prosecutors are not involved. Some people are SOOO stoopid! >> police; prosecutors are not involved at this point. > Where in any of these is anything about French POLICE knowing any link > to any terrorist organization? Where do you think the PM got his facts? It didn't come out of thin air, and prosecutors are not involved. Some people are SOOO stoopid! > is not even lie. We all know that politicians sometimes lie with > straight face and that some such lies damage world economy. Best > recent example is perhaps George W. Bush and his WMD. You didn't read any of them, did you? And in this morning's news, ISIS has claimed he was an "ISIS soldier". > in Europe want to blame Islam. The Arab fugitives are annoying to people > and so it is politically profitable to be against Islam. It is sure deal. > However what politicians want is irrelevant to actual reality. And your information is more accurate? ROFLMAO! Some people are SOOO stoopid! -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 16 10:23AM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 18:23:51 UTC+3, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > materials about position of that French POLICE? > Where do you think the PM got his facts? It didn't come out of thin > air, and prosecutors are not involved. PM did say "probably" and "we shall see" on each three links you posted. Is PM "French POLICE" that you so noisily corrected? Is PM telling about "French POLICE"? What facts? Where is your cite? > Some people are SOOO stoopid! :D Is it self-irony? > > to any terrorist organization? > Where do you think the PM got his facts? It didn't come out of thin > air, and prosecutors are not involved. What facts you talk about? Where is your cite? > Some people are SOOO stoopid! :D Is it self-irony? > > recent example is perhaps George W. Bush and his WMD. > You didn't read any of them, did you? And in this morning's news, ISIS > has claimed he was an "ISIS soldier". Where? Pro-ISIS groups have been celebrating the attack a lot (stupidly IMHO) but none has claimed responsibility of organizing it. Yellow media? Where is the official confirmation of your "French POLICE" that you were so noisy about? > > and so it is politically profitable to be against Islam. It is sure deal. > > However what politicians want is irrelevant to actual reality. > And your information is more accurate? ROFLMAO! My lack of any information about ties of that perpetrator with any Islamic organization is the very same as yours and everybody else. On the contrary everybody write that the man wasn't religious nothing to talk of radically religious. You just suddenly pull "facts" out of nothing or gossip in yellow press and "maybes" of politicians. > Some people are SOOO stoopid! We all know that when you have lost and have no arguments then you declare your loss with your empty insults. However why you declare your loss 3 times in a post? That looks too pathetic and desperate. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Jul 16 05:22PM -0400 On 7/16/2016 1:23 PM, Öö Tiib wrote: >> Where do you think the PM got his facts? It didn't come out of thin >> air, and prosecutors are not involved. > What facts you talk about? Where is your cite? The links I posted - IFF you could read! >> Some people are SOOO stoopid! > :D Is it self-irony? For you, yes. > (stupidly IMHO) but none has claimed responsibility of organizing it. > Yellow media? Where is the official confirmation of your "French POLICE" > that you were so noisy about? You should pay more attention to the news and less to the internet. Get REAL facts. > everybody write that the man wasn't religious nothing to talk of radically > religious. You just suddenly pull "facts" out of nothing or gossip in yellow > press and "maybes" of politicians. You claimed that it wasn't an ISIS attack. And now you're trying to backpedal. How like a troll. And I think the PM of France knows a LOT MORE about the situation than you do. > We all know that when you have lost and have no arguments then you > declare your loss with your empty insults. However why you declare > your loss 3 times in a post? That looks too pathetic and desperate. Not at all. You are just too stoopid to see the real facts. You think everything on the internet is the truth. And you believe everything you read. Here's a suggestion. Stand up, take a load off your brain, and look at REAL NEWS. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid>: Jul 16 01:39PM +0200 > The 'std::map' template is IMHO actually *overburdened* with > element-searching operations. There are 'std::map::operator[]', > 'std::map::find', 'std::map::lower_bound' and 'std::map::at'. operator[] is here to save one search through the map for logic like: "if it's there, update it, otherwise insert it", because insert() will not overwite an existing entry. I agree the choice of operator[] for this semantic is unfortunate (and it works only with default constructible types). I guess syntax like "m[k] = v;" to populate a map was irresistible, as was the whole operator overloading craze at that time. lower_bound is a different beast: it uses the strict ordering of keys to locate a position, but you can't use it to know whether the key is present without an additional comparison. > When something about other 3 operations did not suit us (for example > that we only sometimes insert that missing element) then 'lower_bound' > (and 'emplace_hint') is likely the tool. Yes, different use cases. Probably not minimal in terms of operations (compare with Java Map, for instance), but coherent as a whole. -- Alain. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jul 16 09:27AM -0700 On Saturday, 16 July 2016 14:40:09 UTC+3, Alain Ketterlin wrote: > constructible types). I guess syntax like "m[k] = v;" to populate a map > was irresistible, as was the whole operator overloading craze at that > time. Your analysis seems correct. Operator overloading was fancy feature and all container example codes do start by filling containers with bogus values (that is unusual use-case in actual code). Also the novices deserve some of "Gotcha!" and "RTFM!" anyway. Sad that C++ has somewhat too lot of that on each step. > lower_bound is a different beast: it uses the strict ordering of keys to > locate a position, but you can't use it to know whether the key is > present without an additional comparison. I imagine that 'lower_bound' is not different beast but component. Other three operations feel like convenience wrappers around 'lower_bound' that do that last additional compare internally: // what 'm[k]' does auto it = m.lower_bound(k); if (it == m.end() || m.key_comp()(k, it->first)) // <- the last compare { // 'at' throws here; 'find' assigns 'm.end()' to 'it' it = m.emplace_hint(it, k, Value()); } // now 'it->second' is same as 'm[k]' > > (and 'emplace_hint') is likely the tool. > Yes, different use cases. Probably not minimal in terms of operations > (compare with Java Map, for instance), but coherent as a whole. Some things are clearly impossible to do with Java Map without needlessly searching it twice. The use case of map::operator[] is most unusual for me but the problem domains likely differ. |
| 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