Thursday, August 31, 2017

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 5 topics

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Aug 30 08:08PM -0500

"Programming language life expectancy"

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2017/08/19/programming-language-life-expectancy/
 
"The Lindy effect says that what's been around the longest is likely to
remain around the longest. It applies to creative artifacts, not living
things. A puppy is likely to live longer than an elderly dog, but a book
that has been in press for a century is likely to be in press for
another century."
 
""We don't know what language engineers will be coding in in the year
2100. However, we do know that it will be called FORTRAN." — C.A.R. Hoare"
 
Lynn
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com>: Aug 31 09:54PM +0800

On 31/8/2017 9:08 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
 
> ""We don't know what language engineers will be coding in in the year
> 2100. However, we do know that it will be called FORTRAN." — C.A.R. Hoare"
 
> Lynn
 
No mention of xBase and its dialects... Sad. No COBOL as well!
 
--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>: Aug 31 12:09AM -0400

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 16:46:48 +0100
 
> Yes you are a fucking child mate.
 
Says the guy hiding behind the name of a Red Dwarf puppet. Do you live
in your parents basement too?
 
Mate? I'm definitely not your sex partner. Apparently, British have a
different meaning for "mate" than Americans. As the meaning of your
words are bizarre to me, I'm really somewhat confused when it comes to
British swearing ... Does insulting me make you an arsehole, wanker,
bellend, dickhead, or a twat? It's really hard to decide from the
descriptions. You seem a bit effeminate, so I'm partial to that last
one. It plays well in American English too. But, as a munter Billy
no-mates muppet chav, it's clearly your choice as to which one you're
called.
 
 
Rod Pemberton
--
Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't
anti-protesting just protesting by another name?
Peace is a choice that both sides rejected.
leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Aug 31 12:08AM -0700

Take your medication mate.
 
/Flibble
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 30 08:33PM +0200


>> God bothering in any form is unwanted here.
 
> Leigh, a kind word here would be to say congratulations on this
> milestone and best wishes in the years ahead.
 
If everybody made a self-congratulatory post for every birthday of the
company where they work, the newsgroup would be as useless as Facebook.
 
If you make a big new release, or suddenly get serious interest for your
software from someone big, then maybe it would be interesting. But no
one here cares if your company is 18 years old or 19 years old - it is
utterly irrelevant to anyone but you. It is not a milestone of any
significance to the outside world.
 
And yes, your post is an excuse for religious drivel and nothing to do
with C++. What you believe is up to you - religious freedom is a key
human right. But you can talk about that in religious newsgroups, not a
C++ group.
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 30 12:20PM -0700

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:33:52 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> one here cares if your company is 18 years old or 19 years old - it is
> utterly irrelevant to anyone but you. It is not a milestone of any
> significance to the outside world.
 
Sorry if you don't appreciate my rehashing things, but people
need tools that will outlive their projects. The idea of private
property (closed source) is solid and will help the company for
years to come.
 
> And yes, your post is an excuse for religious drivel and nothing to do
> with C++.
 
I'm asking for ideas on how to improve my software and
documentation.
 
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
http://webEbenezer.net
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 31 12:11AM +0200

> need tools that will outlive their projects. The idea of private
> property (closed source) is solid and will help the company for
> years to come.
 
I can't make sense of that paragraph - sorry.
 
>> with C++.
 
> I'm asking for ideas on how to improve my software and
> documentation.
 
Ask away - but do so without the preaching. When you talk about C++, or
ask about C++, that's fine. Just don't bring religion into it. (If you
feel some god guides your programming, that's no problem to me - but it
is a matter between you and him, not a matter for a technical newsgroup.)
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 01:55PM -0700

On 8/27/2017 1:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 
> It is very basic information, and not going to help wrt creating a
> topographic map of NUMA nodes. We basically need some OS specific
> information here.
 
Just brainstorming here, fwiw:
 
Since C++ has std::thread::hardware_concurrency, well, what about
thinking of creating something like:
 
std::thread::hardware_concurrency_tree
 
That returns information in the form of a tree structure that describes,
or encodes the way the system actually arranges the number of cpu's
returned from std::thread::hardware_concurrency? You basically get a
root node that has all of the NUMA nodes in the "system".
 
So, crudely and quickly, for instance, if there are 2 NUMA nodes, it
gives you a linked list NL with two items, each of which are a NUMA
node. Each node in NL represents a CPU item; each CPU item has multiple
nodes representing its virtual cores VCPU; each VCPU has its
"hyper-threading" cores on each VCPU; and down to per-thread...
 
Afaict, this is zooming down from the high level at 2 NUMA nodes, into
the per-thread leaves. The "fractal" zoom ends in a tree where
terminating leaves are thread nodes. I guess we can go one level deeper
and add n fibers to each per-thread leaf, transform the thread leaf into
a fiber leaf, in a sense. Humm... The overall layout for NUMA down to
thread and/or fiber has always sounded sort of "fractal in nature" to me.
 
My crude rational for a possible proposal would be:
 
We have std::thread::hardware_concurrency. This is good information,
however its not very useful wrt mapping out the system. An additional
and optional function just might be in order:
 
std::thread::hardware_concurrency_tree, or something.
 
That gives deeper information on how the result of
std::thread::hardware_concurrency is arranged.
 
Also, what about:
 
std::thread::hardware_memory_tree
 
that gives various cache line sizes and how they are padded, and
arranged in the NUMA tree.
 
Combine this with optional thread affinity masking, and a program in C
and/or C++ can combine this with standard atomics to create highly
scaleable, low level, systems.
 
Imvvvho, something like:
 
std::thread::hardware_concurrency_tree
 
is probably "low-level enough" for C or C++ wrt providing aid to a
programmer that wants to use threading and atomics effectively, and
continue to use the standard wrt gaining the cache line size to properly
pad and align their structures in memory: We do not want any
false-sharing, damn it!
 
;^)
Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Aug 30 08:19PM +0200

Op 21-Aug-17 om 6:43 schreef Daniel:
 
> https://github.com/danielaparker/jsoncons
 
Slightly off-topic; a year ago I was looking for a C++ JSON library for
a quick proof-of-concept. Though there are plenty to choose from I
didn't find any I liked. So I wrote my own and considered putting it on
GitHub if I ever got around to polish it a bit.
 
The link above made me curious what you came up with. For some reason
this library hasn't popped up on my radar before. I must say I really
liked what I saw. In many ways your library is very similar to what I
created, it also has a couple of things that I planned to do if I had
the time (or need) and things I hadn't even considered. If I had found
your library a year ago I most likely wouldn't have bothered to create
my own, but if I ever need a JSON library again I know where to look
now. Nice work!
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.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 3 topics

Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Aug 30 06:58AM +0200

Am 29.08.17 um 21:37 schrieb Mr Flibble:
> Timing results:
> QThreadPool: 1051ms
> neolib::thread_pool: 222ms
 
Interesting. How about the compiler built-in solution:
 
#pragma omp parallel for schedule(dynamic)
// of course, schedule(guided) or schedule(static) will give much better
// performance, but schedule(dynamic) is more closely to what you
// presumably do - start a thread for each loop iteration
for (...) { ...}
 
and compile with OpenMP (/openmp on VC++, -fopenmp on gcc)?
 
 
> deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have
> significantly better performance.
 
> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D
 
:D As soon as you have an HTML widget and a DB abstraction layer you can
try to compete....
 
Christian
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 01:01AM -0500


>> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D
 
> :D As soon as you have an HTML widget and a DB abstraction layer you can
> try to compete....
 
If I want an HTML widget then it is a simple matter of making WebKit a
dependency just like Qt does but I disagree that I need to provide a like
for like of every single Qt feature to be able to compete.
 
/Flibble
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 30 08:42AM +0200

On 29/08/17 21:37, Mr Flibble wrote:
> My thread pool class seems to be 5x faster than Qt's QThreadPool class...
 
<snip>
 
> Not only is my thread pool class easier to use (lambdas instead of
> deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have
> significantly better performance.
 
How many threads does each version have in its pool? That might make a
difference.
 
In normal use, the functions passed to the thread pool are going to be
longer running (if not, they why bother with the threading?), so you are
not going to see such a big difference. Still, a 5x reduction in the
overhead is not insignificant.
 
For me, it is the use of lambdas (or presumably functors or anything
else that looks like a function) rather than a derived class that makes
your pool a nicer and more modern solution. That's not just doing the
same thing a bit faster - it is a big step up in ease of use.
 
Well done!
 
 
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Aug 30 02:09PM +0300

On 29.08.2017 22:37, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Timing results:
> QThreadPool: 1051ms
> neolib::thread_pool: 222ms
 
So the task launching overhead is 10 ns with Qt and 2 ns with neolib.
Not something which I would lose my sleep over, to be honest, but still
interesting.
 
Have you profiled this and found out the reasons? Is it because of
avoiding a virtual call and the resulting inlining, or is it because of
faster synchro primitives?
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 09:57AM -0500


> Have you profiled this and found out the reasons? Is it because of
> avoiding a virtual call and the resulting inlining, or is it because of
> faster synchro primitives?
 
You failed to provide "better design" as a reason.
 
/Flibble
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 03:30PM -0700

On 8/29/2017 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Timing results:
> QThreadPool: 1051ms
> neolib::thread_pool: 222ms
 
Please try to forgive my ignorance, but at a brief glance, it seems the
lambda is faster in your version vs the "undercover" virtual call to run
in QT? I am also thinking of massive contention wrt the underlying
memory allocator in the QT version that uses an explicit call to new...
 
100,000 threads is extreme! However, seems to get a "point" across. Try
to create some array hybrids before creating shi%loads of linked
data-structures where each node needs an explicit call to new under the
contention of a loaded system! Use clean ingredients to make the damn
sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different possibly
diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package.
 
 
> deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have
> significantly better performance.
 
> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D
 
Sounds good to me. :^)
 
Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 11:58PM +0100

On 30/08/2017 23:30, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> lambda is faster in your version vs the "undercover" virtual call to run
> in QT? I am also thinking of massive contention wrt the underlying
> memory allocator in the QT version that uses an explicit call to new...
 
Nope, I also allocate a task object under the covers using new and it
has a virtual function.
 
 
> 100,000 threads is extreme! However, seems to get a "point" across. Try
 
Nope, there are 100,000 tasks not a 100,000 threads; by default my
thread pool creates N threads where N is number of CPU cores and I
believe QThreadPool does the same.
 
> contention of a loaded system! Use clean ingredients to make the damn
> sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different possibly
> diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package.
 
Sorry I failed to parse/understand any of that.
 
 
>> Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D
 
> Sounds good to me. :^)
 
> Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/
 
Your comments are erroneous if that is what you mean.
 
/Flibble
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 04:53PM -0700

On 8/30/2017 3:58 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> call to new...
 
> Nope, I also allocate a task object under the covers using new and it
> has a virtual function.
 
Are these calls to raw new? No special override to a custom allocator?
 
 
 
> Nope, there are 100,000 tasks not a 100,000 threads; by default my
> thread pool creates N threads where N is number of CPU cores and I
> believe QThreadPool does the same.
 
100,000 async individual state-machines multiplexed by N threads is
workable, and can be scaleable.
 
 
>> damn sausages! Not a heap of ground up crap from a 1,000+ different
>> possibly diseased cows trying to compress together in a coherent package.
 
> Sorry I failed to parse/understand any of that.
 
Try to create a nice sized single allocation of properly aligned and
padded memory before any threads and/or tasks are created. This can help
reduce some calls to new during a tasks lifetime. The alignment and
padding can help get rid of false sharing.
 
 
 
>> Sounds good to me. :^)
 
>> Sorry if my comments are misrepresenting you. ;^/
 
> Your comments are erroneous if that is what you mean.
 
Did I do any better in this message, or worse? Trying to understand why
you got your speed up. Better use of data-structures wrt alignment,
layout and logic?
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 05:14PM -0700

On 8/30/2017 4:53 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> padded memory before any threads and/or tasks are created. This can help
> reduce some calls to new during a tasks lifetime. The alignment and
> padding can help get rid of false sharing.
 
Should explicitly point out that the pre-thread/task allocation would be
used for task structures themselves and for allocation needs during
their lifetime. When this pre-allocated pool runs out, then another call
to new can be performed to allocate another large chunk of memory. We
amortize calls to new.
 
 
 
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>: Aug 29 08:54PM -0400

Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 
 
Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
 
No God needed in this "hypothesis".
 
--
Debian Hint #20: Want to keep track of what version of a package you have
installed (especially useful for those running hybrid stable / testing /
unstable systems)? Check out apt-show-versions.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 29 06:29PM -0700

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:06:13 PM UTC-4, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 
> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
> No God needed in this "hypothesis".
 
A printed page follows the rules of physics and chemistry for how
the ink works on the page, but it is in the arrangement of the data/
information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural,
and artificially created.
 
It is the same with the information in DNA, except the information
contained in DNA is like the most complex math formulas you've ever
seen integrated over and over and over again to provide for use in
a physical medium, creating proteins which are able to read itself,
replicate itself, and all the while employing that complex inter-
relational system of data.
 
There is an alphabet that is arranged into a code. The code has
error checking, redundancy, and for various applications a sequence
of content is trimmed for use in this location, while trimmed
differently for use in another, while used in full in a third, and
it continues out for up to 12 separate uses the genetic researchers
have been able to identify so far.
 
-----
DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also
all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the
information at work, which makes it non-chemical.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>: Aug 30 04:13AM -0400

On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:22:45 +0100
> > of said group or it's agenda, i.e., annoyed by Rick's numerous
> > religious rants.
 
> You are incredibly immature.
 
Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take
personal responsibility to filter posts, who has no integrity because
he blames others for his life problems, who wishes to enforce his own
immature, non-standard, group thought, entirely made-up Usenet
etiquette rules upon everyone else, who doesn't see things his way,
like a little cry-baby. Are you a little cry-baby? Oh, yes, you are.
 
> You are not a victim:
 
Yes, I was, by definition. I had every right to respond in a thread
clearly marked OT without being attacked by anyone. How many times do
I have to say this before you comprehend it as the truth? Rejection
shows your wrongheaded confirmation bias, but does nothing to correct
your erroneous beliefs.
 
> you were repeatedly responding to Rick's off topic posts
 
Yes, and those posts which were marked off-topic per Usenet etiquette.
So, what exactly justifies you having the right to complain about
something when it followed standardized Usenet etiquette? (rhetorical)
 
> knowing that it would encourage him to post more.
 
That's a lie. He doesn't respond to every post.
 
And, I can't control whether he posts or not, just as I can't control
your anger issues. I can help him think about what he says instead of
just repeating religious propaganda, if he wants to think about the
issues.
 
> You were not as your claim trying to change his posting habits,
 
On what grounds can you claim that you know what I was doing? I told
you what I was doing and did, yet you claim I was doing something
else entirely. Are you an idiot?
 
> which would clearly be hopeless.
 
That is a matter of opinion. Your tactic with Rick is clearly not
working. It's clear to me that your and c.l.c./c.l.c++'s group thought
"policy" of repeatedly ignoring his posts is doing absolutely nothing to
stop them. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over again, but expecting different results," which is attributed to
Albert Einstein. Imagine that, Albert Einstein apparently agrees with
me.
 
Your anger at me is only an attempt to victimize others who needn't be,
which is wrong as you don't have that right.
 
> Instead you said that you were posting your crap
 
Crap? That's entirely false. No crap was posted by me. My arguments
with Rick were 100% serious. It's only "crap" because you refuse to
accept standard Usenet etiquette, because you dislike Rick's posts.
 
> Instead you said that you were posting [...] to make Rick
> "actually /THINK/ deeply about some of these things he says, not
> just accept them because it's part of his Faith".
 
With the blatantly false "crap" insult excised, that's true. If he
did, might realize it's not worth posting to people uninterested in
his message, or he may simply burn out from arguing.
 
> The only part of your posting that is right is that "two wrongs do
> not make a right".
 
False.
 
> Responding to off topic posts with off topic posts
> does not make off topic posting OK.
 
Off-topic posting is perfectly acceptable per Usenet etiquette standards
as long as it is clearly marked as such, as it was in this case. RTFM.
It's clear to me that you never have read the Usenet etiquette FAQ.
 
> Stop it (and your attempts at self-justification).
 
You need to stop spreading your lies. Repeating them doesn't make
them true. You are completely wrong to criticize off-topic posts
clearly marked as such. If you want to criticize Rick's off-topic
posts not marked as such, that's fair game, of which there are many.
 
The solution, like everything else here stated previously, is to filter
out posts by Rick or marked OT. That's called personal
responsibility. It would also demonstrate integrity. If you had any,
you wouldn't be blaming others for your self-created misery and
problems. You'd filter.
 
 
Rod Pemberton
--
Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't
anti-protesting just protesting by another name?
Peace is a choice that both sides rejected.
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us>: Aug 30 05:16AM -0400

Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 
> information that makes it non-spontaneous, non-chemical, non-natural,
> and artificially created.
 
> It is the same with the information in DNA, ...
 
Nope.
 
> DNA is a chemical, and its interaction with other things are also
> all chemical. However, it is the way it has been engineered, the
> information at work, which makes it non-chemical.
 
DNA is not engineered, though lately we have figured out techniques
to "engineer" it to some extent.
 
What "Nature" does easily, according to the "laws" of physics, we
have to work hard at. Thus arises the inability of some people to
believe that there is no God-engineer needed to create the complex
world we see.
 
Oh, and buh bye.
 
--
There's small choice in rotten apples.
-- William Shakespeare, "The Taming of the Shrew"
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 06:02AM -0400

On 8/30/2017 5:16 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> and artificially created.
 
>> It is the same with the information in DNA, ...
 
> Nope.
 
Information does not arise from purely mechanical processes. If
you put a paper substrate into a pool of ink, it would never be able
to arrange the ink molecules in a way so as to produce the writing
War and Peace, and DNA is infinitely more complex than would be the
arrangement of letters into a document like War and Peace.
 
The research is out there regarding how much information and how
many information systems are at work in DNA, Chris. The twelve
dimensions I mentioned state that a single piece of DNA is used
in twelve separate functions differently, and not just differently,
but differently in a very specific way which is also triggered by
additional information contained within the DNA.
 
If you want to seek the truth, then go and research it for yourself.
If you get a handle on what's taking place inside of DNA ... I don't
believe a person could ever be the same again. It's simply one of
those fundamental things you come to realize and you look at it and
you just stand back in awe and say, "Hold on. Wait a minute. What's
going on here?" because you realize it could not just happen. It was
purposefully designed, and is of such complexity that it's totally
mind boggling.
 
-----
There is an active enemy at work in this world attempting to keep
you from coming to the knowledge of God, and from seeking the truth.
But if you will resolve within yourself to know the truth, God
Himself will make sure you find it.
 
God is real and created all things a few thousand years ago, so
the enemy takes God out of the equation and ascribes the infinitely
complex processes of God's genius to natural processes over millions
of years, something we can't possible prove or disprove, so as to
give us seeds of doubt that make us wonder if it's really true or
not. All the while, God is teaching us what is true, but because
of sin, only those who seek the truth will find it. The rest will
be fooled by the enemy.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Aug 30 04:00AM -0700

On Wednesday, 30 August 2017 04:06:13 UTC+3, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Rick C. Hodgin wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
 
> Rick doesn't seem to realize that DNA follows the rules of chemistry.
 
> No God needed in this "hypothesis".
 
What Rick posted was a link to computer animation (that follows rules
of its animator, not chemistry). His posts always contain such logical
errors ("atheist scientist" of age 16) and misreports ("real news" from
prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May
be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God
made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 08:17AM -0400

On 8/30/2017 7:00 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> prank news sites). If to reply then he posts more of such things. May
> be he really looks at computer animations and thinks that awww God
> made it! Then it is not nice to laugh at him.
 
The animation was posted from a Google TEDTalk by a leading expert
in the field of genetics research. His animation is one of several
produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the
2000s, only to publish a paper in the mid-2010s which stated that
they've found that 80% of the information in DNA is used in bodily
processes. Researchers involved in that project have come forward
since then and said it's likely to be 100%, but they cannot solidly
verify the last 20%, so they used conservative estimates.
 
God is revealing Himself to us through all things, Öö Tiib. It is
not God's design or creation BECAUSE Rick says so, but because it
is that way, and the evidence we find continually is pointing to it.
 
Here's how the fossil record of change over time we see really works:
 
"One Race, One Blood"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m1s
 
And here's a talk describing the complexity of genetics:
 
"The Wonder of DNA" -- Dr. Purdom, Genetics Researcher
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ACCIu3jPrc
 
And here's more information by Drew Berry:
 
"Animations of Unseeable Biology" at TED Talk Sydney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfB8vQokr0Q
 
At TED Talk CalTech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC1MZ-xAu4
 
-----
This information couples with the balanced knife edge set of
constants and equations which hold our universe together, which
scientists have said seems unreasonably balanced to support
life, meaning it doesn't make sense for the values to be what
they are, unless they were purposefully tweaked to support
life.
 
But more fundamentally:
 
(1) Do you have sin?
(2) Do you want to be judged by God for that sin?
(3) Jesus gives you a way out by asking forgiveness.
(4) He can give you eternal life today, and restore to you
a future in the paradise of God. It is His great pleasure
to give man this, but He will not force Himself on anyone.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 08:26AM -0400

On 8/30/2017 8:17 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> in the field of genetics research.  His animation is one of several
> produced by the team of researchers who began studying DNA in the
> 2000s,
 
The research team he works with is here:
 
https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/genomics
https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/epigenetics
https://www.wehi.edu.au/research/research-fields/cell-signalling
 
They perform research in a wide range of genetics fields, including
genomics, epigenetics (characteristics which span lifetimes, and
even go across generations -- such as a near starvation period in
history in a particular region, and nearly all offspring born
during that time had far greater cardiovascular health than others),
cell signaling which is a type of Internet within our cells for
cell-to-cell communication, along with chemical markers, and the
underlying proteins which produce these things.
 
>     (4)  He can give you eternal life today, and restore to you
>          a future in the paradise of God.  It is His great pleasure
>          to give man this, but He will not force Himself on anyone.
 
These are not idle scientists. And his work is the presentation end
of that full body of research.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 04:46PM +0100

On 30/08/2017 09:13, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> religious rants.
 
>> You are incredibly immature.
 
> Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot, who fails to take
 
Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god
bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot.
 
/Flibble
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Aug 30 04:22PM

In article <jqmdnVLJs7N7QDvEnZ2dnUU7-fGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> wrote:
...
>Yes you are a fucking child mate. Rick doesn't always mark his god
>bothering rants as off topic so your so called argument is moot.
 
Worrying about whether or not the '[OT]' header is provided is nonsene.
It's the proverbial "Re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" sort of
thing.
 
The fact is that everything Rick posts is OT, so if you want to screen out
OT, just killfile him and be done with it. I'm saying that even when Rick
posts stuff that, superficially, seems to be "on topic", it's still and
always is and always will be, the same old garbage. It's just a thin
veneer of topicality wrapped around it, but it's the same old crap.
 
So, just make a decision. Either killfile him or selectfile him (I do the
later, because I find his stuff so darn amusing - even though even I can't
actually read his most recent crap - he really does seem to be suffering
some sort of chemical change in the brain as of late) - and be done with
it. In either case, stop whining about it!
 
--
Rich people pay Fox people to convince middle class people to blame poor people.
 
(John Fugelsang)
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 03:57PM -0700

On 8/30/2017 1:13 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> religious rants.
 
>> You are incredibly immature.
 
> Says the apparently completely wrongheaded idiot
 
Afaict, Chris Vine is not an idiot.
 
[...the snip, sorry...]
"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>: Aug 30 04:16PM -0700

On 8/28/2017 6:50 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Why can't some people stop doing the thing they don't want to do?
> They can't stop taking drugs. They can't stop having an affair
> with so-and-so. They can't stop drinking alcohol.
 
Wine/alcohol abuse, the raw power of certain positions, and other
dogmatic "unrelated" lines of thinking can have the power to create bad
outcomes in the damn babbling cauldron of an individuals thinking
processes: Ready to be stewed together, into a most interesting amalgam
of sin and/or good, according to the observing teaching party's personal
ideas of good and bad. Run on sentence, demarcation! ;^)
 
> They can't stop abusing their children.
 
Damn it Man! Why the heck not! This pisses me off right here Rick. Makes
me want to think of the following clip from South Park:
 
https://youtu.be/pwIMwvDvmaY
 
Please answer me in a technical sense that gives said answer as an
output in a standard C program. Make it use a couple of variables as
well... You can create a tiny little AI using your knowledge. The
generated output of the running agents can be ruled by the teacher, that
coherently answers yes, no and maybe. The program has a programmed sense
of bad, or burning if it gets the answer wrong! Its sensors are pulsing
in the scheme of things. Can we truly simulate good or bad without a
teacher or, prior programming?
 
;^o
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 30 09:49AM -0700

"If you are indeed asking the way to Zion with your face
thitherward, I bid you good speed. Behold an open door is
set before you, which none can shut. Yet prepare to endure
hardship, for the way lies through many tribulations."
 
John Newton, Preface http://www.desiringGod.org/books/the-pilgrim-s-progress
 
It hasn't been easy, but G-d has been faithful through
the first 18 years of Ebenezer Enterprises. Stepping
into the 19th year, I want to ask for your ideas on how
to improve the software and website.
 
https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
 
 
Thanks in advance.
 
 
Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 30 06:05PM +0100

> to improve the software and website.
 
> https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards
 
> Thanks in advance.
 
Brian, you are not trying very hard to disguise the fact that your posts
are little more than proselytization just like Rick's.
 
God bothering in any form is unwanted here.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 30 01:25PM -0400

On 8/30/2017 1:05 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> God bothering in any form is unwanted here.
 
What you say is true only for those who are perishing.
 
For those who have been and will be redeemed, God's presence in
one's life is as the air or water or food ... absolutely essential.
God teaches us to have Him out in front of us so we are not mis-
guided into the enemy's traps and pitfalls. And even then, here
in this fallen world, with a real, conscious, concerted effort in
serving God, yet still do we make mistakes because the enemy we
face is that clever, crafty, and evil.
 
God upholds us even in our failings, and He calls us to have Him
out front in our lives, which is why Christians move forward in
the things we do with regard to Him.
 
God first.
Other things second.
 
It is the natural way of the entire universe ... everywhere except
here on fallen-in-sin Earth due to fallen-in-sin man's folly. But
even this Earth is passing away and won't be here much longer, but
God will remain forever, as will all those who put their faith and
trust in His Son, Jesus, given to us as a propitiation for our sin.
 
He restores us to Himself, pulls us out of this world and into His
domain in Heaven forever. No more pain. No more tears. No more
hate. No more death. It is "Heaven" in the true sense of the word.
 
It is God's domain, and He calls each of us to it. All we have to
do is acknowledge the truth: We are a sinner, we need forgiveness,
and Jesus came here for that purpose to forgive us so that we might
have a way out of that which we could not make a way out of on our
own.
 
God is glorious. He is all rightness, all truth, all power, all
purpose. He deserves to be first in all things.
 
Thank you,
Rick C. Hodgin
woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 30 10:34AM -0700

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:05:42 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> Brian, you are not trying very hard to disguise the fact that your posts
> are little more than proselytization just like Rick's.
 
> God bothering in any form is unwanted here.
 
Leigh, a kind word here would be to say congratulations on this
milestone and best wishes in the years ahead.
 
 
Brian
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.
Posted by at No comments:

Digest for comp.programming.threads@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 3 topics

rami18 <coco@coco.com>: Aug 25 01:31PM -0400

Hello....
 
Read this:
 
RAAIS 2017 - Raia Hadsell, Senior Research Scientist at DeepMind
 
Look at this video:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e_uGa7ic74
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
rami18 <coco@coco.com>: Aug 24 05:37PM -0400

Hello....
 
 
My Parallel archiver version 4.2 is here, and now i have stress tested
it and it is much more stable.
 
I have just added the following methods to the interface:
 
function FixArchive(Stream:TStream):boolean;
- To fix the stream
 
function AnalyzeArchive(filename:string):TypeError;overload;
- Analyze the Archive file, the returned TypeError is ctCorrupt if the
file is corrupt or ctUnknown if the file is of an unknown format.
 
function AnalyzeArchive(Stream:TStream):TypeError;overload;
- Analyze the Archive Stream, the returned TypeError is ctCorrupt if the
stream is corrupt or ctUnknown if the stream is
of an unknown format.
 
 
Now it has become powerful, also it is correctly Fault tolerant to power
failures etc.. , also now the returned exceptions of the constructor is
ELoadIndex if it can not load the index or EUnknownFileFormat if it
isn't the right file archive format, also i have added a boolean
property called ExtractFullPath that allows to Extract the full path or
not, i have also modified the demos inside the zip file, please take a
look at the demos inside the zip file to learn more how to use my
Parallel archiver, and now you can be more confident because it is much
more stable.
 
You can download the new version 4.2 of my Parallel archiver from:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-archiver
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
rami18 <coco@coco.com>: Aug 24 06:38PM -0400

Hello.....
 
I am actually implementing a sophisticated software programs
 
I am actually implementing a sophisticated commandline 32 bit and 64 bit
programs that use my Parallel archiver that will allow you to archive
using the best parallel compression algorithms, also they will be
NUMA-aware and NUMA efficient and they will support processor groups on
windows, so that they can use more than 64 logical processors and they
will scale well , so all in all i think you will be soon happy with my
new product that is coming.
 
Now you can take a look at my new Parallel archiver version 4.2:
 
https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-archiver
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
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.programming.threads+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 9 updates in 5 topics

Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 29 08:37PM +0100

My thread pool class seems to be 5x faster than Qt's QThreadPool class...
 
Qt QThreadPool test case:
 
struct task : public QRunnable
{
int i;
std::vector<int>& v;
task(int i, std::vector<int>& v) : i{i}, v{v} {}
 
void run()
{
v[i] = i;
}
};
 
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QThreadPool threadPool;
std::vector<int> v;
v.resize(100000);
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point begin =
std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
threadPool.start(new task{i, v});
threadPool.waitForDone();
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end =
std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
std::set<int> s;
for (auto n : v)
s.insert(n);
std::cout << "\ns: " << s.size() << "\ntime: " <<
std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end -
begin).count() << "ms" << std::endl;
 
}
 
My neolib::thread_pool test case:
 
int main()
{
neolib::thread_pool threadPool;
std::vector<int> v;
v.resize(100000);
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point begin =
std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i)
threadPool.run([i, &v]()
{
v[i] = i;
});
threadPool.wait();
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point end =
std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
std::set<int> s;
for (auto n : v)
s.insert(n);
std::cout << "\ns: " << s.size() << "\ntime: " <<
std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(end -
begin).count() << "ms" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
 
Timing results:
QThreadPool: 1051ms
neolib::thread_pool: 222ms
 
Not only is my thread pool class easier to use (lambdas instead of
deriving of classes from QRunnable) it also appears to have
significantly better performance.
 
Game on for neoGFX being serious competition for Qt... :D
 
/Flibble
Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net>: Aug 26 06:40AM +1000

On 26/08/17 00:01, Bo Persson wrote:
 
> With C++17 you could get away with that if you declare it `inline
> constexpr`.
 
> Bo Persson
 
Thanks Bo. I had figured that. But this is a template - there doesn't
seem to be anywhere I can put a declaration. How would you write it? I'm
still a bit of a newb with templates.
 
Clifford Heath.
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Aug 25 11:53PM +0200

On 8/25/2017 10:40 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
 
> Thanks Bo. I had figured that. But this is a template - there doesn't
> seem to be anywhere I can put a declaration. How would you write it? I'm
> still a bit of a newb with templates.
 
The ODR has a special rule for static members of class templates.
 
You can define that member in the header file.
 
 
Cheers & hth.,
 
- Alf
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Aug 25 08:53PM +0100

On 23/08/2017 06:18, Juha Nieminen wrote:
 
> I doubt you'll find a mobile phone for which you can write your own software
> which doesn't use hardward and an OS supporting (and using) memory
> protection and mapping.
 
I should have worded that differently. I'm pretty sure _all_ mobiles
will have a memory controller, and definitely anything more capable.
 
> you can even write software for them in C++, but from the average user's
> perspective they are quite a rarity. They may be really common in certain
> industries, but not amont the average programmer.
 
I suspect quite a few of the people on this group aren't average
programmers. I admit it's nearly 2 years since I used such a device.
 
Andy
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>: Aug 25 03:36AM -0400

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 07:58:34 -0400
 
> Before the world was created, God had a plan for us for salvation.
> It was to take us through school, to establish a baseline for our
> creation, to teach us a lesson we could learn no other way.
 
Why does God, who gave you and us life and free will according the
Bible, need you to worship him? Why does an omnipotent entity need to
be worshiped at all? Shouldn't an omnipotent entity need nothing from
no one? Unless, his power is not inherent within his being, but comes
from your worship of him. ... In which case, he's more likely Satan or
Lucifer, or some lesser deity, or fallen angel, than God.
 
> to do was diminish their negative, anti-God influence upon the
> world, so that their false teaching would not exist in the many
> generations to come, even out to thousands of years later.
 
So, it's acceptable for God to give people permission to murder others,
but it's unacceptable for humans, whom God gave free will to, to chose
to murder others on their own using their free will, simply because God
commanded men to follow the Ten Commandments? What was the point of
having free will again, if we must obey God's commands and arbitrary
laws, or be punished? That's not exactly free will is it? This is not
only contradictory, but self-defeating for God. Did an omniscient being
make a mistake by giving man free will? It's clear that he back
tracked away from free will with the Ten Commandments. ...
 
Man must follow the Ten Commandments or be punished, but God can give
you permission to violate those same commandments on a whim. ... It
would seem like God is making up this shit as he goes along. Doesn't
it? One day, he tells people to follow the rules. The next day, he
tells people to violate the rules. Is he Schizophrenic?
Manic-Depressive? Alzheimer's? It's clear that there is no consistency
in his commands, which would imply he's wishy-washy, indecisive, amoral,
and/or a lunatic. Inconsistency prevents people from following
leaders. An omniscient being would know this and wouldn't be
inconsistent, unless the being was a child, or retarded, or
unconcerned. If God is unconcerned, i.e., doesn't give a shit, then why
bother to command us to worship him?
 
> > was going to happen to us in advance. He didn't prevent it. He
> > chose not to. I.e., he chose not to save us.
 
> He gave the world Jesus Christ before He created the world.
 
Did he? It's rather odd that Jews and Muslims don't believe that, but
yet, they worship the EXACT SAME God as you. Now, how is that
possible? If each major religion received the exact same Word of God
from God, then why the extreme discrepancy? They don't even believe
that Jesus Christ existed. Jesus Christ is not a part of their Word
of God. ...
 
 
Rod Pemberton
--
Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't
anti-protesting just protesting by another name?
Peace is a choice that both sides rejected.
Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem>: Aug 25 04:54AM -0400

On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:20:30 -0400
> which build up to assemblies / machines, which build up to factories
> of all kinds (biological, mechanical, industrial), which build up
> to provide grander constructs.
 
What makes you believe that a supreme entity is required to do this?
I.e., why is it that you don't believe that complicated systems can
build up naturally from the interaction of dynamic processes? You
probably accept the scientific idea that planets were built up from
smaller celestial objects moving about dynamically and colliding. Why
you can't accept the same concept on the smaller scale of atoms or DNA
without the need for God seems odd.
 
> unique function, which come together to support the body, which
> in turn supports our mind and ultimately by God's design also is
> driven by spirit.
 
Yes. I was staying away from science, since I doubted that you
believed in it, at all, from your strong religious stance. However,
you brought up DNA and atoms and the implications of Science thereupon.
 
So, since you apparently believe that God is the source of DNA, let's
some discuss DNA facts and contrast that with what the Bible says. Our
DNA is 96% the same as a chimp. Did God recycle the chimpanzee's DNA
from us? That would create a contradiction with Genesis, i.e., invalid
time order since beasts were created before man. Did God recycle our
DNA from the chimp? That too would create a contradiction with
Genesis. In this contradiction, God would've lied about how he created
us, i.e., not from scratch, not pure, not in his image, nor from mud,
etc. Our intestinal tract matches that of a deep-sea worm. In fact,
70% of our DNA comes from that worm. Did God recycle us from a worm
too or is evolution involved? Our mitochondrial DNA is not even part
of our DNA, but comes from an ancient bacteria. How did it become a
part of us? Do you believe that God put it there? Or, did Satan or
Lucifer put it there to convince us that evolution is real? If
that's true, why didn't God correct the evil manipulations? ...
 
> The goal was the person inhabiting the body, not the body, yet
> everything of marvelous design and assembly was put together to
> produce that final form which we are able to inhabit and enjoy.
 
It seems like that when your religious beliefs fail you, that you fall
back to alternate explanations or ideologies that perhaps intertwine
them with science, e.g., Creationism.
 
> Our sun is one of many around the galaxy. Our galaxy is one of
> many around clusters. Our cluster is one of many in this immense
> universe.
...
 
> what we can physically see here in matter, into the realm of the
> spiritual world, which the Bible records is not inhabited by the
> same decay we see here in the material world.
 
That could be true, if we're a part of a computer simulation. That
might also be true in a multidimensional universe. What does this have
to do with God? Both of those could exist without the existence of
God.
 
Since you brought up science, how would God survive the Big Bang? I.e.,
Einstein's E=MC^2 prohibits the existence of anything in our universe
which is neither energy or matter. This means that God would have to
be made out of energy or matter. How did God survive the Big Bang
without being destroyed? The massive conversion of energy into matter
and vice-versa during the Big Bang would've even destroyed God as
everything in this universe is subject to E=MC^2. Our universe is a
closed system, at least presently. The only way God could continue to
exist after the Big Bang is if he exists OUTSIDE our universe and is
looking in, like a snow-globe or ant-farm.
 
> or brick, a component of a larger structure. Perhaps there is
> a plan for mankind to continue our education beyond this first
> existence on the Earth.
 
1500 mile cube? Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Googled 1500 mile cube.
 
If Wikipedia is correct, biblical authors for different parts of the
Bible record wildly different sizes for New Jerusalem, anywhere from
about 70 feet to 1500 miles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem#Description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem#Geometry
 
> result, I am constantly learning with regards to its teachings,
> and there is an internal confirmation which I get when I hear
> things which are significant.
 
That's called confirmation bias. It's one of many flaws in the ability
of the human mind to reason logically. There's an entire page for it on
Wikipedia. There are numerous cognitive biases, 103 logical fallacies,
at least 57 behaviorial biases, etc. But, as a religious man, you
probably don't believe in psychology either.
 
> Seek the truth in your considering, Rod. It's all God asks.
> Seek the whole truth, and He will do the rest in your life.
 
Unfortunately, those who seek the Truth, usually find science which
proves things, not religion which takes things on Faith, as the logical
contradictions, inconsistency, and lunacy of the events and parables in
the Bible can't be rationalized by the truly rational.
 
 
Rod Pemberton
--
Isn't anti-hate just hate by another name? Isn't
anti-protesting just protesting by another name?
Peace is a choice that both sides rejected.
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>: Aug 25 03:15PM

>> respective DNA by the virtue of belonging to the same species.
 
> But that is the point. Then I share 99.5% of my DNA with my mother
> which make the 96% a lot less impressive.
 
Perhaps. Then again, science is boring.
 
(In a way.)
 
For perspective, you may want to compare human DNA to that of
other species, such as dogs, rodents, lizards, fishes, etc. I'm
pretty sure I saw such comparisons, although I won't necessarily
vouch for their veracity.
 
>> right.
 
> If genes is correct, how can we be sure that a gene in a human codes
> the same thing as in a chimp? The latter have 48 genes
 
Chromosomes; each comprised of up to about a thousand of
individual genes (AIUI.)
 
> and humans 46. Therefore, a one-to-one correspondence is difficult.
 
Basically, you get the whole sequence, and look for
similarities. Or, rather, you let the computer do it for you.
 
The point is that a specific sequence of triplets is bound to
result in the same protein. And a specific protein nearly
always is bound, by its very design, to serve the same or
similar function. (Such as keratin being the principal
component of human hair and fingernails, and also fur and claws
and hooves of other mammals, etc.)
 
The good part is that once you've established that locus 13 of
chromosome ChA of species X maps to locus 37 of ChB of Y, it
more or less stays the same across the individual specimens.
(Or so I think.) And for sufficiently close species, nearby
loci in one species tend to correspond to nearby ones in
another.
 
> And the same amino acid in two different proteins doesn't need to
> perform the same task in both places, right?
 
Neither is the same function call required to perform the same
"task" in C. But when you see two mostly identical pieces of
code, wouldn't you note the similarity?
 
> statement that Einstein used 20% of his brain capacity whereas we
> lesser mortals use only 10% of ours. I would really like to know
> what 100% refers to in that case.
 
Having a seizure? [1]
 
[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NinetyPercentOfYourBrain
 
--
FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A
Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>: Aug 25 06:12PM


>>> He must've known that our state of sin would result. If he knew of
>>> this result in advance, since he is omniscient, how is this any
>>> different from him actually planning for it to happen to all of us?
 
Last time I've checked, "knowing about the consequences" and
"being the cause thereof" were actually different things.
 
> Bible, need you to worship him? Why does an omnipotent entity need
> to be worshiped at all? Shouldn't an omnipotent entity need nothing
> from no one?
 
I'm by no means a theologian, and hence unsure whether this goes
in line with the opinion of the Church Fathers, but here's my
take on the issue at hand. It's an indirect answer, though.
 
Why do we need to worship medics? I mean, when you climb a mountain
and break a leg, why do you have to be taken to one of their shrines?
If they're meant to help, why can't they help you then and there?
 
Also, why do they need to DRAW YOUR BLOOD for their rituals?
I mean, it's 21st century, man! Surely we're grown civilized enough
to not need such barbaric customs!
 
Or, alternatively.
 
We've checked your samples, and we're sorry to inform you that
you've got a disease. More like a hereditary condition, actually.
Yes, it's fatal unless treated. Lifetime treatment it is,
unfortunately. Indeed, we do offer treatment at our offices
worldwide. No, the procedures are much experimental at this point,
but we do plan to publish them within the next few millenia; we also
hope to devise a way to actually cure it at that date.
 
For now, there's only one doctor able to perform the treatment, and
he's very busy; you see, this condition is quite widespread around
the world. So I'm afraid you'd need to visit one of our offices
regularly to receive the treatment.
 
Of course, we're not forcing you to accept the treatment; this would
go against medical ethics. Should you agree, however, you can fill
the papers at any of our offices. Or, if the situation is dire
enough, we can send our representative to the closest body of water
near your place. Or, in the most severe cases, to your deathbed.
 
Thank you for calling. We wish you well.
 
[...]
 
> others, but it's unacceptable for humans, whom God gave free will to,
> to chose to murder others on their own using their free will, simply
> because God commanded men to follow the Ten Commandments?
 
Well, I'm not going to speak for the Church, but here's a
scenario to consider. Suppose you have a few dozens of children
(imagine having a harem if you need to), and you know for sure
that two of them are set in their mind to kill most of the rest.
 
You live with your family in the wilderness (some sci-fi movies
and shows, set in space or in "post-apocalyptic" Earth, provide
quite detailed picture for the situation, BTW), so there's no
police, army or mental institutions to call for.
 
Your solution?
 
It's a different question why God did need the involvement of
his chosen people, instead of going with the "Sodom Solution,"
but we can imagine that the latter would've been too harsh a
punishment for the crimes committed.
 
> commands and arbitrary laws, or be punished? That's not exactly free
> will is it? This is not only contradictory, but self-defeating for
> God. Did an omniscient being make a mistake by giving man free will?
 
(Did you mean "omnipotent" here, BTW?)
 
Remember that "could God create a stone so heavy that even He
could not lift it?" paradox? Well, some argue that human soul
/is/ such a stone (although St Augustine disagrees), in the
sense that if you do not want God in it, then He won't enter.
Whether that is to be considered a "mistake" is up to debate.
 
> Commandments. ...
 
> Man must follow the Ten Commandments or be punished, but God can give
> you permission to violate those same commandments on a whim.
 
Well, to be honest, those who follow the "Thou shalt not kill"
commandment solely to avoid being punished, or think of it as a
restriction of their free will, make me worry a lot.
 
[...]
 
 
>> He gave the world Jesus Christ before He created the world.
 
> Did he? It's rather odd that Jews and Muslims don't believe that,
> but yet, they worship the EXACT SAME God as you.
 
It happens all the time; Lamarck and Darwin saw the same living
world, yet came to two largely different takes on evolution.
 
Also, one curious thing I've experienced personally. I remember
once reading a response to my earlier post and finding more or
less a direct insult in it. At which point I decided to take
some time before replying.
 
When I came back, I found that the other party was actually
thanking me.
 
So, the word that is said is not necessarily the one which one
will end up hearing.
 
The Christian take on the issue is that Jews were told of the
coming of Jesus, but failed to see who they expected to be their
literal king, the one to lead them in their war for
independence, in a mere carpenter.
 
Then, Islam is deemed to be largely inspired by Christianity.
Or, well (that's a huge speculation, and a quote from Wikipedia
as well):
 
[There's] a remote, supreme Godhead, the Monad. From this highest
divinity emanate lower divine beings, known as Aeons. The Demiurg,
one of those Aeons, creates the physical world. Divine elements
"fall" into the material realm, and are locked within human beings.
This divine element returns to the divine realm when Gnosis,
esoteric or intuitive knowledge of the divine element within is
obtained.
 
-- this kind of "Christianity." Except that, AIUI, Muhammad
tried to excise much of the complexity.
 
> Now, how is that possible? If each major religion received the exact
> same Word of God from God,
 
Huh? Who says that?
 
> then why the extreme discrepancy? They don't even believe that Jesus
> Christ existed.
 
Quite the contrary; Jesus is venerated as one of the prophets in
Islam, and at least his existence is acknowledged in Judaism.
 
 
--
FSF associate member #7257 np. En Vie -- Apocalyptica 3013 B6A0 230E 334A
kushal bhattacharya <bhattacharya.kushal4@gmail.com>: Aug 28 10:59PM -0700

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 9:54:13 PM UTC+5:30, red floyd wrote:
> from a C++ group, since the answer would be the same for C, Pascal,
> or any other language.
 
> You need to ask in a group that has "Linux" in its name.
 
ok thanx i am going to ask this on a linux forum
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.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)