- How much is your life worth? - 13 Updates
- Preprocessor conditionals and size of type - 4 Updates
- What do people think about std::multimap? - 6 Updates
- Best way to use enum with classes - 2 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 05:33PM -0700 Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > I can show you links if you want. You wrote this trash Rick. Regarding money: Show me links. Or better yet, bring the exact quotes I wrote about money, one after the other, all of them, along with the links. Then you can gain wisdom as to what I wrote. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 19 06:12PM -0700 On 10/19/2016 5:33 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Show me links. Or better yet, bring the exact quotes I wrote about > money, one after the other, all of them, along with the links. Then > you can gain wisdom as to what I wrote. You said that selling a shit%load of copies beyond the cost of labor investment is a sin: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.lang.c++/gtpwlZiPuog/wrmqN4GZEwAJ Do you want more? |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 06:58PM -0700 Chris M. Thomasson, I would like to ask that you stop using profanity, and that includes abbreviations which include profane words. If you can do that I will continue this discussion. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 19 07:04PM -0700 On 10/19/2016 6:58 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson, I would like to ask that you stop using profanity, > and that includes abbreviations which include profane words. > If you can do that I will continue this discussion. You are a weak minded delusional little thing of a person. |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 19 07:12PM -0700 On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:59:25 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Chris M. Thomasson, I would like to ask that you stop using profanity, > and that includes abbreviations which include profane words. > If you can do that I will continue this discussion. That's silly, that will only encourage him to use more profanity! Daniel |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 07:15PM -0700 Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > and that includes abbreviations which include profane words. > > If you can do that I will continue this discussion. > You are a weak minded delusional little thing of a person. If you set your sights on the truth, and read what I wrote, considering thoroughly my words, you might step away from that conclusion. It's your choice, Chris. I know Whose I am, and where I'm going when I leave this world. My efforts have been to teach you, not to persuade you. You will either receive His teachings or not. And you are free at ANY time to go straight to the Bible and bypass me completely. You'll come to find I've conveyed things accurately. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 19 07:32PM -0700 On 10/19/2016 7:15 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> You are a weak minded delusional little thing of a person. > If you set your sights on the truth, and read what I wrote, considering > thoroughly my words, you might step away from that conclusion. [...] I gave you a link to your total wacky non-sense about your little weird ideas about money Rich and sin: Chris M. Thomasson wrote: _______________ You said that selling a shit%load of copies beyond the cost of labor investment is a sin: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.lang.c++/gtpwlZiPuog/wrmqN4GZEwAJ Do you want more? _______________ You did not like it, and said you did want to hear a curse word, because you have nothing else to say. I say that is hilariously laughable. You are having trouble remembering the trash you wrote, so you complain about my language when I showed you a link to a quote. What a cop out! lol. Weakling! |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 19 07:54PM -0700 Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > I gave you a link to your total wacky non-sense about your > little weird ideas about money Rich and sin: You do not have a proper understanding of what I wrote. It is from within that improper understanding that you are concluding "total wacky nonsense" and "little weird ideas." Until you set your sights on the truth, you'll never get it, the understanding will completely elude you because you're not looking for it, but are pulling assumptions from your own ideas, asserting them in your understanding as though they were mine. Stop doing that and read and consider what I wrote. Press in and examine subtlety and nuance in word and phrase meaning. Seek the truth with a real effort and you will find it. It's not hidden. It's just that sin blinds people to it. It's why you must seek the truth, so that God Himself can make the change so that the blindness is removed, and there is real vision. The choice is all on you now: Truth or falseness. You Decide 2016. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Oct 19 09:02PM -0700 On 10/19/2016 7:54 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > You do not have a proper understanding of what I wrote. It is > from within that improper understanding that you are concluding > "total wacky nonsense" and "little weird ideas." You wrote that we should not "sell beyond the cost of the labor investment". This is totally bat_bleeping_ crazy to me. Rick C. Hodgin wrote: ______________________ If you look back over these posts, at no point have I said don't sell software. What I have said is don't sell beyond the cost of the labor investment. The love of money is the root of all evil. Money itself is not evil, just like heroine itself is not evil. But having it in abundance in continuous close proximity, Satan uses the temptation it provides to entice people unto sin. How many are strong enough to continually avoid the sinful side of the temptations associated with it? Not many. And if it's not money that will take you down, there's something. The flesh is weak, which is why we need to be born again of the spirit. Satan is no slouch. He knows how to defeat you. He's studied you since you were young, and he has in all people's case. It's why we need Jesus Christ, so that we can overcome in Him because He can see the traps the vicious enemy Satan places before us, and He can protect us from them. http://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/30.htm 7 Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: 8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: 9 Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. It is of God's wisdom that He keeps us in labor for our needs. It is Satan's plan of foolishness that we have soft lives of non-want, for there is his playground of enticing sin for us to traipse through at our leisure. ______________________ [...] |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 20 12:05AM -0700 On Thursday, 20 October 2016 07:02:57 UTC+3, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > > "total wacky nonsense" and "little weird ideas." > You wrote that we should not "sell beyond the cost of the labor > investment". This is totally bat_bleeping_ crazy to me. It is pointless to discuss with Rick. Somehow something or someone has broken his capability to reason and turned him into such. I told him in this thread that most Christians are good people. He replied with two postings of garbage. Central view seemed to be that I (as atheist) can not like Christians, I must hate Jesus and all Christians. WTF? How I can hate Jesus? For me the guy is long dead if he ever existed and did nothing bad. Also Christians have done nothing bad to me so why should I hate them? Even if some Christian has gone nuts like Rick then it is just pity. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 20 10:38AM +0200 On 20/10/16 09:05, Öö Tiib wrote: > It is pointless to discuss with Rick. Somehow something or someone > has broken his capability to reason and turned him into such. > I told him in this thread that most Christians are good people. Point of order - most /people/ are basically good people. I have never seen any correlation between "being good" and "being Christian", no matter whose definition of "Christian" you use. Some of the most unpleasant and anti-social people in these groups identify themselves as Christian - but so do some of the most friendly and helpful. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 20 04:47AM -0700 On Thursday, 20 October 2016 11:39:04 UTC+3, David Brown wrote: > matter whose definition of "Christian" you use. Some of the most > unpleasant and anti-social people in these groups identify themselves as > Christian - but so do some of the most friendly and helpful. That is likely correct, most people I have met are good people. Rick did start discussion specifically about Christians ("Why are so many Christians hypocrites?") that was why I addressed Christians in separation. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 20 05:47AM -0700 The message of the cross is divisive to our flesh. It is not something we can understand naturally. "How can the blood of someone who died almost 2000 years ago affect me today? Let alone affect my eternity?" When Christians teach this message: (1) All people are sinners (2) All people are dead spiritually because of sin (3) All people need to be forgiven to enter in to eternal life (4) Jesus is the only way to be forgiven of our sin It is offensive to our flesh. People want to be in control. People do not want to come to Jesus humbly, on bended knee, asking forgiveness for what they must acknowledge /is/ their sin, that they /really are/ guilty of sin. It's why the Christian message is divisive. Even if people don't rise up in anger or hatred and lash out at the person speaking the words (which you have done in your replies, Öö Tiib), they will not receive the message and will chalk it up to the ramblings of a lunatic. It will never occur to them that perhaps the message is correct, and there is a real need of humbling themselves so as to receive the forgiveness being offered by Jesus Christ. It makes it difficult for Christians in this world. We face ongoing forms of persecution and hatred. I am relatively despised at my job. Very few people talk to me, and when they do it is 99.9% only job related. I am a valued member of the team because of my skill set, but there is not one person I work with who I could truly consider a "friend" save those in the company who are Christians and are part of our prayer group. Only they can see the need for the walk we have in pursuit of His Holy Spirit, in seeking holiness, in praying, reading the Bible, going to Bible Study, attending church, reaching out to others, etc. It's a literal binary division of people: (1) Born again. (2) Dead in sin. And it is a literal message of hope for life, even eternal life: Jesus is the only way to have our sin forgiven. Jesus is the only hope we have. Jesus is that which all of us have need of, lest we perish in Hell's flames forever. ----- Even many people who profess to be Christians with their mouths do not accept those things with their beliefs, and therefore they are still part of the worldly system, going along with the world to their own destruction. http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/15.htm The Hatred of the World 18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. It's one of the things which will mark a true Christian's life (ongoing persecution). Without that ongoing persecution and separation from those who are perishing in the world, it's an indication there never was a true conversion. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin. Here Jesus explains why things are done to us (Christians). It's because they reject Him, and because we embrace Him they are hating us for the One we are receiving, and teaching, and living. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. Jesus is that which everybody needs, to be forgiven of their sin, yet people everywhere hate Him because of their sin. It has left them blind to what He represents, and they cannot see it because they will not see it. They grab hold of the lie, grab hold of the sin nature and press in to it, rather than seeking the truth so that God could open their eyes and allow them to come to Jesus and be saved. God is the gatekeeper, and He keeps all people who will not receive His Son and the forgiveness of their sin from coming to Him, otherwise they too would be saved. He does this to separate the wheat from the chaff, those who are good fruit from those who are bad fruit, for He knows their beginning and their ending, their true inner heart, their deeds done in secret, and the reasons why those deeds were done. God does not leave Christians alone in their persecution, however. He Himself has come to dwell within us so that even in the midst of fiery storms of hatred, persecution, and even real physical attack, yet are we warmed from within with the everlasting love, peace, and joy of God Almighty, His Holy Spirit dwelling peacably within us. 26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. Jesus is life. Literally. In Him is the restoration from the sentence of death we're all under because of original sin, and the sin nature which dominates our lives today. Sin is the disease. Death is the result of sin. And Jesus is the cure for the disease, raising us even from death, and restoring us to a perfect righteousness of His original creation's perfection, so that we, through Him, are without spot or blemish, perfect before God the Father, made perfect by Him taking on our sin, and leaving us with His amazing and perfect spotless righteousness. It is not something any of us have achieved on our own. It is all God. And the true Christian who has been born again will be so humbled by what has happened to them, that they will weep over their sin, and desire to no longer sin, and desire to share with everybody that which they have found because it's more precious than gold, finer than greatest riches, for it is life, and life eternal. They will no longer seek the ways of the world, but will seek the ways of His Kingdom, to teach and live those ways out, guiding others so they too can come to Him and not only be saved, but to experience the fullest richness of our existence we've been denied all of this time because of sin, to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, to stand before God not just in our shameful sinful flesh, but spiritually to go before the throne of grace and receive directly from God His love, His guidance, His mercy. There is no greater thing than what Jesus did for us at the cross. It's why we stand as we do in this world, contrary to it, proclaiming alternate ways from it. We seek to have each person follow after God, prospering in eternity more than prospering here in this world, because everything we receive in this world will perish when the world is destroyed. But those things we have set up for ourselves in Heaven will endure. It's why God teaches us not to pursue worldly wealth, because if we receive our reward here, we do not receive anything in Heaven for that labor. But if we do not receive our reward here, He repays us in Heaven for our labor, and as with Moses and the burning bush which did not consume the bush for fuel, so will those things we possess in Heaven exist with our usage and yet without consumption. In Heaven, you can "have your cake and eat it too." It's why the enemy teaches the ways of this world, so that even those who profess to be Christians will still pursue a path of "poverty" in Heaven, minimizing their Heavenly reward, rather than maximizing it as God teaches. ----- All anyone has to do is press in to the truth and pursue it and God will then make it possible for you to know all of this. You can't come to God with a lot of preconceived ideas, holding on to them, demanding of God where He prove to you that you're wrong. You must come to Him saying this is what you believe today, and that you might be wrong, and you want to know the truth so you can dispense with the falseness in your life, for when you do this you are known to God to be seeking the truth, and because Jesus is truth, He will naturally lead you to His Son so that you can be saved, because part of coming to the truth is a process that literally makes you free (free from death by sin, free from the lies of the enemy, free to live for God here upon this Earth, and free to have ongoing and permanent fellowship with God's own Holy Spirit). Learn of these things and He will verify them within your core. You will come to know what you have been missing since the day you were born. He will guide you into all truth, into all righteousness, into peace and eternal prosperity, in service to Him and His Son here in this world, and in the hereafter. No greater calling. Answer His call ... and Live. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 20 09:52AM +0200 On 19/10/16 18:49, Marcel Mueller wrote: > likely). You may need long long int in this case. And some 64 bit > platforms use 64 bit even for int. AFAIR DEC Alpha was one of them, > because the Alpha 64 could not access 32 bit int reasonably fast. 64-bit Windows has 32-bit "long int", while (AFAIK) all 64-bit *nix systems have 64-bit "long int". Using int64_t or int_least64_t is far and away the best choice for a task like this - /if/ you are using a compiler that supports them. I don't remember which version of C++ first included them in the standards, but since they come from C99 I would guess that C++98 did not include them. Good luck finding a compiler that supports C++98 and does not have <cstdint> or <stdint.h>, but it's up to the OP to decide how strict to be about relying only on standards-mandated features. |
| mark <mark@invalid.invalid>: Oct 20 10:09AM +0200 On 2016-10-20 09:52, David Brown wrote: > Good luck finding a compiler that supports C++98 and does > not have <cstdint> or <stdint.h>, Visual C++ 2003 - 2008. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 20 11:06AM +0200 On 20/10/16 10:09, mark wrote: >> Good luck finding a compiler that supports C++98 and does >> not have <cstdint> or <stdint.h>, > Visual C++ 2003 - 2008. Really? I know it had poor or missing C99 support, but I thought the sized integer types were already in C++03. And several of the C90 compilers I have used had those headers. I have avoided the dubious pleasure of using MSVC, so don't know all its limitations. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 20 05:16AM -0700 On Thursday, 20 October 2016 12:07:03 UTC+3, David Brown wrote: > compilers I have used had those headers. > I have avoided the dubious pleasure of using MSVC, so don't know all its > limitations. The <cstdint> was AFAIK added by C++11. The <stdint.h> was AFAIK added by C99. To MSVC both were AFAIK added in VS2010. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Oct 20 12:40AM +0100 On 19/10/2016 23:30, Daniel wrote: > Would you use it? Or would you more likely use std::map with a sequence > mapped_type? Of course people use it: std::multimap is just as useful as std::map. I have no idea what you mean by "sequence mapped_type". /Flibble |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 19 05:02PM -0700 On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 7:40:22 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > mapped_type? > Of course people use it: std::multimap is just as useful as std::map. I > have no idea what you mean by "sequence mapped_type". Thanks for your comment. All associative containers with template parameters Key,T, have a member type called mapped_type that is defined as T. I was referring to an instance of std::map where the mapped_type was a sequence container (e.g. std::vector) Daniel |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Oct 20 02:04AM +0200 On 20.10.2016 01:40, Mr Flibble wrote: >> mapped_type? > Of course people use it: std::multimap is just as useful as std::map. I > have no idea what you mean by "sequence mapped_type". He probably means a `map<Key, vector<Value>>` as a way to to the same as `multimap<Key, Value>`. One reasonable way to compare them could be to look at some typical concrete usage examples, implemented with both approaches. Then one could compare complexity, efficiency, code size, whatever. Cheers & hth., - Alf |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Oct 19 05:18PM -0700 On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:06:33 PM UTC-4, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > One reasonable way to compare them could be to look at some typical > concrete usage examples, implemented with both approaches. Yes, those, but also aesthetics. I've never actually seen std::multimap used outside of examples. Perhaps I've been too cloistered. Daniel |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 19 11:44PM -0700 On Thursday, 20 October 2016 03:03:07 UTC+3, Daniel wrote: > All associative containers with template parameters Key,T, have a member type > called mapped_type that is defined as T. I was referring to an instance of > std::map where the mapped_type was a sequence container (e.g. std::vector) Note that your question is too abstract ... sort of "solution searches for problem". ;) Clarity. The 'std::multimap<X,Y>' is IMHO simpler data structure than 'std::map<X,std::vector<Y>>'. For clarity I would take it. Performance. If it is "one to sometimes more than one relation" then multimap likely wins, if it is "one to really many relation" then map of vectors likely wins. So unless I know that it is going to be one-to-numerous that it represents I would take multimap. |
| Jens Kallup <jkallup@web.de>: Oct 20 11:06AM +0200 Am 20.10.2016 um 02:18 schrieb Daniel: > Yes, those, but also aesthetics. I've never actually seen std::multimap > used outside of examples. Perhaps I've been too cloistered. > Daniel You can use it for cross products in e.g database applications |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 20 10:18AM +0200 On 19/10/16 16:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> ridiculously high speeds. > I know how RAID works. All versions of RAID, in fact. But unlike you, > I know its limitations. I know how RAID works, and its limitations. I don't claim to know about "all versions of RAID", because I know that there are a number of groups making new types of RAID systems as well as there being a fair number of proprietary systems on the market already. The principles are all much the same, however. > best you can do is concurrent reading, with interleaved DMA - which, if > nothing else is going on, cuts the speed in half. And don't even try to > claim fancy busses which allow that to occur. The challenges here were solved decades ago - and the principles are older than you are. The slow disk transfers data to the disks cache. This is transferred over a faster bus to the the chipset/DMA/IO system. The chipset/DMA/IO system transfers this to memory using an even faster bus. There are buffers, latencies, and multiplexing along the way, but the throughput for large transfers is the sum of the throughputs of the individual disks. >> MB/s to its cache, then transfers at 600 MB/s for a quarter of the time. > Ah, but you just claimed that SDD drives are super fast and can be > accessed as fast as memory can. I'd ask for references or quotations to justify that, but we all know how that will go. Yes, SSD drives can be fast - especially if they are connected by PCIe rather than SATA/SAS. No, they are not nearly as fast as DRAM memory. > Now you're trying to bring physical > disks back into the discussion to "prove your point". I was explaining how you were wrong about port multiplexers. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 20 10:30AM +0200 On 19/10/16 16:42, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> is, 40 gigabits rather than 40 gigabytes. So you only need to transfer >> about 4 GB per second to saturate the links. > And you need to be pedantic about it. So to be clear on this, you understand that we are talking about gigabits here, not gigabytes? > You still aren't going to get > 40Gb throughput from a 40Gb port without violating the laws of physics. I'd love to know which laws of physics you are talking about here. > 30Gb is reasonable. And if you understood physics and TCP/IP (or even > ethernet itself), you would understand why you can't get 40Gb throughput > from a 40Gb port. Yes, I understand about the physics involved well enough for the purpose. And I understand TCP/IP and its framing overhead, and I understand Ethernet with its framing overhead, inter-frame gaps, etc. And I understand that with jumbo frames this overhead is a very small percentage of the bandwidth. But if you think I am wrong, then please explain where the other 25% of the bandwidth goes. I am happy to admit to being wrong, and learn something new, if I am given a good explanation of it. >> would expect 40 Gb Ethernet to be at least as good. > Those affect throughput, obviously. But that's not all. And your 94% > and 99% are once again theoretical limits - not real life ones. Again, please explain what you think is missing here. >> are not there just for laughs and bragging rights - they can transfer >> data at those speeds. > Do you like to your potential customers like this, also? I can't even figure out what you are trying to say. > Because he would have no use for such a powerful system, and the company > wouldn't waste their money on it. And even if they did get him one, > there is no way he could use even 0.05% of the power available. I take that as an admission that you haven't a clue about what Ian does or what he needs, beyond a simple business argument "if it were cost-effective for him to have such a server, his company would have bought one". Everything else you write is just pulled out of the air. |
| 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