- [OT] USA solar eclipse Aug.21.2017 - 16 Updates
- What can love do? - 1 Update
- OT: Github - 2 Updates
- abort core dump message into a user file as log message - 2 Updates
| Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>: Aug 23 05:30PM >>>>> On 8/22/2017 4:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> But the world is flat according to the Bible yes? >> No. Not even close. JFTR, Wikipedia has a whole article [1] on this misconception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth [...] > writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time > after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete > hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law. The Pauline letters are a decent evidence that around 50-60 CE, the existence of Jesus was not questioned by at least the early Christians themselves. It doesn't seem plausible that an entirely fictional person could become an undisputed historical figure, even in a specific "subculture," in mere 20 years. Of course, Wikipedia has this one covered [2], too. Also of interest could be [2] (which I haven't read yet.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_for_the_historicity_of_Jesus [2] http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Ehrman-v-Craig.html > If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence > to the contrary (e. g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils > confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales) I see it could only be "contrary" if we assume that "days" in the first chapter of Genesis refer to regular "earthly" days. Frankly, I'm not sure that there's an easy way to say "a billion years" in either Aramaic or biblical Hebrew, and I'm even less sure that there would have been any need for such specificity. Hence, I stand by my point that Genesis does not necessarily contradict "evolution and evolutionary time scales". [...] -- FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 07:37PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 18:30, Ivan Shmakov wrote: [snip] > Hence, I stand by my point that Genesis does not necessarily > contradict "evolution and evolutionary time scales". If we ignore the days may or may not be billions of years bullshit Genesis also says that Adam had no parents but as evolution is true we know humans evolved so there was no first human. Obviously the number of such flaws in Genesis is legion. /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 07:41PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 08:15, David Brown wrote: > provoke Rick to post more religious waffle, which nobody wants. They > spoil every thread they touch. > So please take your own advice, and stick to C++. Correct me if I am wrong, mate, but this newsgroup doesn't exist for your personal entertainment and I certainly am not here for your personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++ related projects ONLY; not egregious posts about "God" or similar posts dressed up as posts about fucking eclipses. I will call out Rick and other idiots who post OT shite including pointing out, using sound logical, and rational intelligence why the shite is shite. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 23 02:43PM -0400 On 8/23/2017 2:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Genesis also says that Adam had no parents but as evolution is true we > know humans evolved so there was no first human. Obviously the number > of such flaws in Genesis is legion. There appear to be flaws in Genesis because you look at the world's teachings and viewpoint as though it were true. You accept it based on what you've been taught as though it were simply true. There is another examination of that same data, and it is based on addressing issues which remain in the worldview account. If you examine the Biblical account, you would see that it is logical and does account for everything we see in nature through what we can observe today. It answers questions that remain un- answered by the worldview account. And it simultaneously validates the Bible and all Biblical teachings. The reason why you can so easily believe the worldview point is because there's an active spiritual enemy leading you toward that thought in your mind, Leigh. If you would say to that voice, "You know what? You may be right or wrong, but I'm going to investigate it for myself," and then really investigate it. You would find the truth and it would reveal itself to you because of who/what truth truly is. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 07:45PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 19:43, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > There appear to be flaws in Genesis because you look at the world's > teachings and viewpoint as though it were true. You accept it based > on what you've been taught as though it were simply true. Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true. Well consider this: Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and Eve are a fiction. Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition? IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law. If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity. [snip] /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 23 02:48PM -0400 On 8/23/2017 2:45 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > [carbon copy reply snipped] Do you believe you are in pursuit of truth, Leigh? You are not listening to another who is teaching you there is an account which validates the Bible and addresses everything we see in nature. You discount it summarily. Is that really a pursuit of truth? All who seek the truth will find it. The rest will perish. You are at the place of perishing right now, Leigh. If that means anything to you ... pursue the truth. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 07:49PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 19:48, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > All who seek the truth will find it. The rest will perish. You > are at the place of perishing right now, Leigh. If that means > anything to you ... pursue the truth. Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true. Well consider this: Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and Eve are a fiction. Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition? IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law. If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity. /Flibble |
| Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>: Aug 23 08:51PM +0100 On 23/08/17 19:41, Mr Flibble wrote: >> So please take your own advice, and stick to C++. > Correct me if I am wrong, mate, but this newsgroup doesn't exist for > your personal entertainment Nor for yours. Rick is in my killfile, so it's entirely your fault that I'm seeing his drivel. It's also entirely your fault that I'm seeing /your/ drivel. David Brown is a valued contributor to comp.lang.c whereas I don't recognise your name at all except in the context of re-posting Rick's nonsense. > and I certainly am not here for your > personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++ C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted. > dressed up as posts about fucking eclipses. I will call out Rick and > other idiots who post OT shite including pointing out, using sound > logical, and rational intelligence why the shite is shite. And thus you spread the shite around so that everyone gets a share, and that's supposed to be intelligent behaviour, is it? *PLONK* -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 09:30PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> and I certainly am not here for your >> personal amusement. This newsgroup is for posts about C++ and C++ > C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted. C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a dead language. C++ has subsumed C. /Flibble |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 23 04:48PM -0400 Mr Flibble wrote on 8/23/2017 4:30 PM: >> C++ is not topical in comp.lang.c to which this thread is cross-posted. > C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a dead > language. C++ has subsumed C. Is this an attempt to return to being on topic? I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either? -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>: Aug 23 10:14PM +0100 On 23/08/17 21:48, rickman wrote: > Mr Flibble wrote on 8/23/2017 4:30 PM: >> On 23/08/2017 20:51, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 23/08/17 19:41, Mr Flibble wrote: <snip> >> C has no place in modern software development and discourse; it is a dead >> language. C++ has subsumed C. > Is this an attempt to return to being on topic? No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one. > I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either? Nor indeed the Fith language. Or the Sicth. :-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Aug 23 11:33PM +0200 On 23/08/17 20:41, Mr Flibble wrote: > dressed up as posts about fucking eclipses. I will call out Rick and > other idiots who post OT shite including pointing out, using sound > logical, and rational intelligence why the shite is shite. Equally, the newsgroup does not exist for /your/ egregious posts encouraging the religious posts here. If /you/ stick to posts about C++ only, then I will be happy. I have no hope of stopping Rick from making off-topic posts - but you claim to be rational and logical, and to be interested only in C++ here. Please stop your hypocrisy and stop rising to every off-topic post here. Your posts are as off-topic and unpleasant as the ones you are responding to. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 10:46PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 22:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> language. C++ has subsumed C. >> Is this an attempt to return to being on topic? > No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one. It might look like a troll but it was in fact an attempt to bypass your kill file and it looks like I was successful. /Flibble |
| rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>: Aug 23 06:04PM -0400 Richard Heathfield wrote on 8/23/2017 5:14 PM: > No, it's an attempt at trolling, and a poor one. >> I suppose you are not a fan of the Forth language either? > Nor indeed the Fith language. Or the Sicth. :-) Looks like I'm adding flibble to my killfile. -- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998 |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 23 06:34PM -0400 On 08/23/2017 02:49 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > [snip] The enemy tries to get us to focus on man's reasoning because he has victory there. He owns our flesh because our flesh is in sin. God is spirit and truth. His existence is different than that which we are familiar with in our flesh. As a result, knowledge of Him comes a different way than man's reasoning. ----- It's all I can offer you, Leigh: the truth. I can't make you receive it or believe it. That's something only God can do from within your core man, your inmost self. My job with regards to you is complete, Leigh. I have told you the truth. It is before you. These messages I've written to you can be searched and reviewed at your leisure. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Apart from that, the rest is on you. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 24 12:08AM +0100 On 23/08/2017 23:34, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > God is spirit and truth. His existence is different than that which > we are familiar with in our flesh. As a result, knowledge of Him > comes a different way than man's reasoning. Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true. Well consider this: Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and Eve are a fiction. Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition? IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law. If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity. [snip] /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Aug 23 07:43PM +0100 On 23/08/2017 13:19, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Jesus came to the Earth to set us free from judgment. > Because of this, He is the way, truth, and the life -- > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14:6 Everything you say is predicated on your belief that the Bible is true. Well consider this: Assumption #1: Genesis creation story is a myth/allegory and Adam and Eve are a fiction. Assumption #2: Jesus Christ (either biblical or historical) existed. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) describe the genealogy of Jesus Christ all the way from Joseph and Mary back to Adam and Eve. Given our two assumptions at what point does this 50-generation genealogy transition from fact to fiction and what is the proof of this transition? IMO the entire genealogy is suspect and assumption #2 is bogus. There is no evidence contemporary to Christ's existence of his existence: it all came out in the latter part of the first century in writings from the likes of Josephus and Tacitus a significant time after Jesus's supposed death. The Gospels themselves are complete hearsay which wouldn't hold water as evidence in a court of law. If you now claim that assumption #1 is false despite all the evidence to the contrary (e.g. weathering of the Grand Canyon, fossils confirming evolution and evolutionary time scales) then you really are beyond help as nothing can be done to mitigate such obtuse stupidity. [snip] /Flibble |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Aug 23 10:31AM -0700 Could someone tell me how to get the license to show up in the line that has commits/releases/contributors? https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards I guess there's more to it than having a file called LICENSE. Thanks. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Aug 23 02:08PM -0400 > https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards > I guess there's more to it than having a file > called LICENSE. Thanks. I went to Google and searched for: "stack overflow how to make license appear github" and this was the first response: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31639059/how-to-add-license-to-an-existing-github-project Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| red floyd <dont.bother@its.invalid>: Aug 23 08:45AM -0700 On 8/23/2017 4:55 AM, kushal bhattacharya wrote: > Hi, > Is it possible in Linux,that I can dump the abort message to my own named file when the program crashes? > Thanks You are off-topic here. The ISO C++ standard does not discuss "Linux". Try asking in a Linux group. This is OS specific. A good way to determine if you are on topic here is to ask yourself, "If I changed the language, would it still be the same question?" Or "If I changed the OS, would the question still be relevant?" For the first, if the answer was yes, you would be off-topic. For the second, if the answer was no, you would be off-topic. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Aug 23 04:24PM >> any fashion. Most shells will print a message to stderr. >Suppose if the program aborts with a message like >Terminate called with active exception ,i want to dump this message into a file.I want to do this because the user program is runing as a daemon so no message would be printed on the terminal and the user wont be notified normally in this case So find the code that prints that message and fix it to print the message to a file. It's either the program itself or some library that the program is linking with (or the C++ runtime for e.g. uncaught C++ exceptions). Generally, a daemon will either use the 'syslog' library function or will print a message to stderr. In the latter case, one simply needs to redirect stderr to a disk file, presumable one opened with O_APPEND. |
| 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