- Go to church on Sunday - 17 Updates
- Best C++ IDE - 6 Updates
- PPP2: There seems to be some problems on page 355 - 2 Updates
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 03:40PM -0800 On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:09:56 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Science Confirms the Bible > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFYswvGoaPU > You honestly think I would watch such a video? It will teach you the truth, Leigh. Is your position/belief in evolution so weak that you it can't even stand up to alternate evidence? Watch the first five minutes. This explanation describes what we see in observational science. It aligns perfectly with Biblical teaching, and does not rely upon "Over millions of years," and supposition statements like, "It must have been that the earliest lifeforms..." and all of the other guesswork which exists in evolution theory. If you press in, Leigh, and examine the details (which these videos by Answers in Genesis do), you will find they do not hold up to rigorous scrutiny, and that they are standing only upon assumption and guesswork. It is their belief that evolution is real, but it is only a belief, and one not supported by the evidence. The Wonder of DNA, Dr. Georgia Purdom https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACCIu3jPrc One Race One Blood, Ken Ham www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=3m53s > > warn you, such a stolid stance against the truth will lead you to > > only one place: Hell. > Hell doesn't exist dear: when you die conciousness ceases, that's it. The Bible teaches that after we die, we go to sleep until the final day. At that point we are awoken, summoned by name to appear before God. We will either meet Him as our God, or as our Judge. We will either receive rewards for our service to Him on this Earth, or we will give an account of our life, self-condemning ourselves by our sinful actions. We will then enter into Heaven, or we will be taken hold of, dragged to the edge of the precipice, and cast into the eternal lake of fire from which there will never be any return. Heaven and Hell exist, Leigh. Which one you go to depends upon what you did with Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the only one who can take away your sin. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 06 11:44PM On 06/03/2017 23:40, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > It will teach you the truth, Leigh. Is your position/belief in > evolution so weak that you it can't even stand up to alternate > evidence? Watch the first five minutes. Quite the contrary: my knowledge of evolution being a fact allows me to disregard your bullshit Christian video which attempts to dismiss that fact without even watching 1 minute of it. [snipped bullshit: tl;dr] /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 03:55PM -0800 On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:45:00 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > Quite the contrary: my knowledge of evolution being a fact allows me to > disregard your .. Christian video which attempts to dismiss that > fact without even watching 1 minute of it. The first five minutes point out the logical fallacies in believing in evolution. And the entire video demonstrates where modern science has gone astray in teaching people things that are unprovable, unknowable, and do not align with what we observe in the laboratory, in nature, or in advanced genetic research. The truth remains before you, Leigh. It's unknown to you presently, but it knocks. It's hard to ignore the rap, rap, rap, because it's getting louder as more and more scientific evidence in the field of genetics is published. Even atheist scientists are concluding that there is clearly a design at work (though they ascribe it to aliens seeding the planet, or other such manner of "creation" and not to God). Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 12:51AM On 06/03/2017 23:55, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > there is clearly a design at work (though they ascribe it to aliens > seeding the planet, or other such manner of "creation" and not to > God). I have had enough of this. Like most of your ilk you obtusely and completely disregard whatever people say to you: you just want to continue with your fucktarded proselytizing that nobody here is remotely interested in. Welcome to my kill file (again). *plonk* /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 06 06:03PM -0800 On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 7:51:38 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote: > [snip] Is vulgarity all you possess, Leigh? Is that the world you want to live in? Is that all that you think you are? If so, that is all you will ever be. But I am here to tell you that you are capable of so much more. And that God has plans for you which extend beyond this world, beyond our lives here, and into all of eternity. http://biblehub.com/kjv/jeremiah/29-11.htm 11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Mar 07 07:22AM > church. It's not about religion or rote. We don't have rigid festivals to > celebrate or adhere to. It's not an outside-in list of rules and regulations > to be followed. Yeah, who cares about that musty old book and its commandments. It's not like it's the word of some kind of god. All those commandments are optional. Follow them or ignore them if you wish. You are nothing but a hypocrite. You don't even follow your own holy book. You don't even obey the very commandments that you claim come from your god. And then you proselytize other people, when you don't even follow it yourself. You are the very definition of hypocrite. |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Mar 07 08:50AM +0100 Am 05.03.17 um 19:43 schrieb Mr Flibble: > As we know Evolution is a fact we know that Jesus's parents as described > in the Bible could never have existed and it follows that neither did > Jesus. Why do you keep posting this non-sequitur? Your logic is completely flawed. There is massive evidence for evolution, there is a bit of evidence for a person called Jesus, there is lots of evidence for the existence of Christian groups during the first century, there is no evidence that he actually resurrected from the death or that he is divine. Evolution does not disprove the existence of Jesus. These are two completely unconnected things. We know of some erroroneous claims of Einstein, does this invalidate general relativity? Christian |
| leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 07 12:34AM -0800 It isn't a non sequitur at all; if you try using your brain and thinking about it you will see that the logic is fine. /Leigh |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 07 02:35AM -0800 Juha Nieminen wrote: > Yeah, who cares about that musty old book and its commandments. > It's not like it's the word of some kind of god. All those commandments > are optional. Follow them or ignore them if you wish. Compare your statement to that which Jesus taught: http://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/28.htm 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. See the contrast? You are right that we do have a choice. The warning is that our choice comes with real consequences. > you claim come from your god. And then you proselytize other >people, when you don't even follow it yourself. You are the very >definition of hypocrite How so? My teaching is that all of us are sinners (myself included), and that we all need Jesus Christ to forgive our sin otherwise we will perish in Hell under sin's judgment. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Mar 07 11:45AM +0100 On 2017-03-07 00:09, Mr Flibble wrote: > You honestly think I would watch such a video? The problem with > Christian anti-science videos is that they tend to not even have comedic > value. This video actually HAS some comedic value. At least in the first 5 minutes I watched. It claims that you cannot trust historical documents, because they might not be true. Except for the bible, of course, where everything is true. Based on that fact, Rick might be correct. :-) Bo Persson |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Mar 07 12:50PM +0100 On 07/03/17 08:22, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Yeah, who cares about that musty old book and its commandments. It's not like > it's the word of some kind of god. All those commandments are optional. Follow > them or ignore them if you wish. Certainly the commandments in the Bible (of which there are vastly more than 10) are optional for Christians - they can pick and choose which ones they deem important. It's fine to eat ham-and-cheese sandwiches, but homosexuality is still to be condemned. You can not only disrespect your father and mother, you are actually supposed to hate them. You are not supposed to kill, unless of course you have a good excuse. I'd rather they were a bit more honest, like the CotFSM (whose 8 "I'd really rather you didn't" apply to all religions - the CotFSM is not against religion, it is against doing stupid or evil things in the name of religion). <http://flyingspaghettimonster.wikia.com/wiki/The_Eight_I%27d_Really_Rather_You_Didn%27ts> |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 07 06:58PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Another troll feeder added to my KILL file. Please everyone stop feeding these damned trolls! You are only giving them what they want. Ignore them and they will go away because it's like screaming into an empty room. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 07 07:06PM > It isn't a non sequitur at all; if you try using your brain and > thinking about it you will see that the logic is fine. It's not. But we know that you and formal logic have a tenuous relationship at the best of times, so its fine. Compared to Rick's blathering, you're practically Bertrand Russell. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 07:54PM On 07/03/2017 19:06, Gareth Owen wrote: > It's not. But we know that you and formal logic have a tenuous > relationship at the best of times, so its fine. Compared to Rick's > blathering, you're practically Bertrand Russell. Wrong. My logic is sound; try using your brain to work it out. /Flibble |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 07 08:04PM >> relationship at the best of times, so its fine. Compared to Rick's >> blathering, you're practically Bertrand Russell. > Wrong. My logic is sound; try using your brain to work it out. Yeah. Sure. OK. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 07 08:33PM On 07/03/2017 20:04, Gareth Owen wrote: >>> blathering, you're practically Bertrand Russell. >> Wrong. My logic is sound; try using your brain to work it out. > Yeah. Sure. OK. We have been over this. Pray tell at what point in the genealogy of Jesus Christ to Adam and Eve (Mary's line or Joseph's line, dealers choice) does the genealogy transition from factual to fictional? What evidence do you have for this transition? The truth is the entire genealogy is suspect. The Bibles (OT and NT) that are supposedly divine are demonstrably erroneous. So what part of my logic is suspect exactly? /Flibble |
| Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>: Mar 07 08:50PM >> Yeah. Sure. OK. > We have been over this. Pray tell at what point in the genealogy of > Jesus Christ to Adam and Eve The historical existence of a religious figure called Jesus Christ, who may or may not have had some disciples and been nailed to a cross, and who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, is not contigent on the truth existence of Adam & Eve, the truth of his claimed heritage or whether or not his mother was a virgin. David Icke claimed to be the Son Of God also. That doesn't been he doesn't exist, just that he's delusional. |
| Moai <penultimategrill@gmail.com>: Mar 07 11:51AM -0500 On 2017-03-03 12:53, Richard wrote: > <https://www.jetbrains.com/help/clion/2016.3/requirements-for-clion.html> > No, you didn't. You're just armchair posturing about something you > don't know anything about. It's unusable. I can't run it on OpenBSD, which is what I use for any programming I do. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Mar 07 08:56AM -0800 On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 4:07:13 PM UTC-6, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > for example, and it must be restarted. But you can add variables, > and new code, and delete old code, etc. > There's nothing that comes close to Visual Studio. Recently I've been making sure my software builds and runs fine with Visual Studio 2017. I don't notice big changes to VS, but I use makefiles on Windows and VIM for editing. :) The only problem I've run into has to do with Git, symbolic links and Windows. I have two symbolic links that don't cause any problems on FreeBSD or Linux, but gum things up on Windows. I'm using this Git: https://git-for-windows.github.io/ Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 07 06:57PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] penultimategrill@gmail.com spake the secret code >> don't know anything about. >It's unusable. I can't run it on OpenBSD, which is what I use for any >programming I do. I never recommended it for BSD. I recommended it for Linux or MacOS. Seriously. Try reading before posting. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 07 07:34PM >I never recommended it for BSD. I recommended it for Linux or MacOS. >Seriously. >Try reading before posting. Let's see. It requires cmake. That's the first show-stopper. Second, it requires a JRE. That's the second show-stopper. Third, it packs everything into a single window. That's the third show-stopper. Fourth, it's not available in source form. That's the fourth show-stopper. Fifth, it's suitable for development of firmware, operating systems or embedded software. Sixth, Richard gets obnoxious about any objections to using it. Not my cuppa. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 08 08:54AM +1300 On 03/ 8/17 08:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> Seriously. >> Try reading before posting. > Let's see. It requires cmake. That's the first show-stopper. Was for me.. > Second, it requires a JRE. That's the second show-stopper. So do most IDEs that aren't Visual Studio... > Third, it packs everything into a single window. That's the third show-stopper. I assume it can un-dock windows? > Fourth, it's not available in source form. That's the fourth show-stopper. Would you read the tangle of Java that is Eclipse? > Fifth, it's suitable for development of firmware, operating systems or embedded software. > Sixth, Richard gets obnoxious about any objections to using it. :) -- Ian |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 07 08:46PM >Third, it packs everything into a single window. That's the third show-stopper. >Fourth, it's not available in source form. That's the fourth show-stopper. >Fifth, it's suitable for development of firmware, operating systems or embedded software. ^NOT |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 07 10:03AM +0100 On 06-Mar-17 10:05 PM, Christiano wrote: > 1 1 0 6 > 1 1 1 7 > Page 355 of PPP2[1] Uhm, remember to align things for monospaced font. Anyway, you don't need and should not consider how the bits are placed. Just use the symbolic names. E.g., if( cin.rdstate() & ios_base::eofbit ) { cout << "stream state has eofbit set" << endl; } if( cin.rdstate() & ios_base::badbit ) { cout << "stream state has badbit set" << endl; } if( cin.rdstate() & ios_base::failbit ) { cout << "stream state has failbit set" << endl; } > "A stream that is bad() is also fail()" > This statement seems to work in the vast majority of cases, but it can't > be postulated as a general rule. It /should/ work in all cases, otherwise the stream implementation is buggy. > 0 1 0 > That is: In the same way as we have an example where eof appears alone > without fail, we could have bad alone without fail. No, they're different things. `bad` is really, really bad. E.g., that you're reading a file from a corrupted storage device. > variable and therefore would not justify a fail since this only happens > when we have a formatted problem (That can only occur when we are > reading for a variable.). Right. EOF is not always `fail`. It can be detected by `ignore`, not just by a failing read. > I've used the example with eof because it's hard to create examples with > bad. The reason it's hard is because it would have to demonstrate a bug in the implementation. > bool operator!() const; > Returns: fail() > ------------------------------------------ The statement is true and the standard is by definition correct. I.e. this means that you need to adjust your interpretation of the statement. It clearly does not refer to /technical/ good(), because `good()`, testing for all zero, is not the exact opposite of `fail()`, which tests for `badbit` or `failbit` set. I.e. you can have `eofbit` and still be `good()`, technically, but not in the everyday language sense that Bjarne uses in that explanation for beginners. However, I think a better explanation than Bjarne's is just that `fail()` tells you that some operation failed. Your discovery here is that you can have EOF detected without an operation having failed. That's a good discovery. A possible explanation of `good()`, which is not the opposite of `fail()`, is that it tells that you that no potential problem at all has been detected, not even EOF. > If statement 2 were true, then the result should be: > Test 1: first > 2 No no. :) > I have the original standard, > Using here only a little portion for > educational/research purposes according to fair use. Bjarne is a good author in the sense that he keeps public errata lists. If this specific possible problem had turned out to be a real one, you could have reported it to him and he would have corrected for a later edition, and included it in errata list. However, there are some problems with the book that are not the kind that would end up as errata, in particular Bjarne's use of a macro in his general standard library header. I don't recall the details. But such problems can halt the progress of a novice following the book. Just remember that nothing and nobody is perfect. There are always problems. ;-) The iostreams design, its evolution after Bjarne's original simple thing, is IMHO a very clear example of overwhelming imperfectness. Cheers!, - Alf |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Mar 07 10:06AM +0100 On 07-Mar-17 10:03 AM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > . I.e. you can have `eofbit` and still be `good()`, technically, but not > in the everyday language sense that Bjarne uses in that explanation for > beginners. Oh, that was an inversion. `good()` tests for all zero. Grumble. Cheers!, - Alf |
| 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