| seeplus <gizmomaker@bigpond.com>: Oct 26 05:54PM -0700 On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 7:41:56 AM UTC+11, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > I said to the priest: "Confess _ALL_ of your sins to me first! Then I > just might think about conversing with the likes of you. You are way > older than me, therefore you must have MUCH more sin to confess buddy! :^D" Ha ... what a great comeback from a little kid. At least you didn't get touched up? Must have had a high degree of precociousness.... Hence getting into programming :) |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Oct 26 10:20PM -0700 On 10/26/2017 5:54 PM, seeplus wrote: >> just might think about conversing with the likes of you. You are way >> older than me, therefore you must have MUCH more sin to confess buddy! :^D" > Ha ... what a great comeback from a little kid. :^D Got a bit yelled at for it though... Oh well. > At least you didn't get touched up? No! Thank God. Thank the FSM: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/86/e2/c5/86e2c537defc02529c34c34dabba02d0.jpg and all the Unicorns as well: https://www.thezorklibrary.com/history/unicorn.html ;^) God willing for strength, I would violently attempt to gravely wound any entity that tried to pull that shi% on me, or anyone else if I was in close proximity and knew I could do something about it right then and there, spur of the moment fight or flight type of feeling. > Must have had a high degree of precociousness.... Sometimes, I would get in trouble for sarcasm. Luckily, my parents were always pretty damn nice. > Hence getting into programming :) Oh yeah! |
| asetofsymbols@gmail.com: Oct 26 10:21PM -0700 Rick wrote: #I write > In the Vangelis, it is written that for to forgive all sins; one has > to request it to a Church priest (prete) > Giovanni 20,20 It is wrong. The Catholic system has it wrong. There is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. May has no divinity, and there is no line going from one of us to any man, and then to God. It goes from each of us personally, directly to God. #than what it means above Giovanni from 20, 20 especially #"A coloro che li rimetterete saranno rimessi #a coloro che non li rimetterete #*resteranno non rimessi*" #Jesus want to create one organizations one Church (the only one right) When Jesus died, the veil in the Temple was rent in two: #that broken veil # should mean that God went out from the temple of Israel #because He went to the Romanic Church Catholic #and each one that want adore one God #it is only by means of Catholic Romanic Church #so all ones have to abandon his own religion and go to Romanic Catholic Church https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+2%3A5-7&version=KJV 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. The veil existed to separate man from God. Only the High Priest could go in behind the veil, and only once a year, and only with blood and water and incense and much ceremony. He even had to wear a special outfit with bells and pomegranates on it which made noise, and be tied around the waist with a stout rope, and if that priest went before God in that special room behind the veil unworthily, God would strike him dead. The bells would stop making noise, and the other priests used the rope to drag him out because if any of the priests entered in to that special room (called the Holy of Holies) they too would be struck down in an instant. That was the Law, but Jesus nailed the Law to the cross by His body and death given to man, given to God as a one-time offering for sin. Jesus tore the veil in two by His death, so that now we no longer go through that ceremony, no longer go through the priests or even the high priest, but now we go directly to the Father, and not through any other man, but only through Jesus Christ: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A51&version=KJV 51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; We have a direct advocate: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A1&version=KJV 1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And we can go directly to the Father ourselves through Christ: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A23&version=KJV 23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. |
| asetofsymbols@gmail.com: Oct 26 10:52PM -0700 Il guaio é che stanno distruggendo l'unica Chiesa vera quella cattolica romana, per sostituirla con quella falsa protestante, come false sono tutte le altre chiese e religioni. Tutti gli altri dei delle vane religioni sono falsi o demoni. Anche gli ebrei si devono convertire alla Chiesa Cattolica, e riconoscere la divinità di Gesù, se vorranno essere salvati. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 08:38AM +0200 On 27/10/17 01:07, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > couple of months, I started unknowingly learning some assembly, without > actually understanding it wrt playing around with PEEK and POKE in > BASIC. Very dangerous! ;^) I was, as I said, about 6 at the time. But I remember a hangman game, and a tank battle game, and seeing my father doing some programming (he had the machine home for his work, which required occasional bits of programming). And I thought I wanted to program computers - alternatively, I wanted to /design/ computers. (I design microcontroller-based electronics boards as well as programming them, so I guess I'm pretty close to that.) I didn't start on assembly until I was about 11 or 12. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 27 05:24AM -0700 > #a coloro che non li rimetterete > #*resteranno non rimessi*" > #Jesus want to create one organizations one Church (the only one right) It means the Giovanni 20,20 is extra-Biblical, a teaching of man, and not an inspired writing of God as by His Holy Spirit. > #because He went to the Romanic Church Catholic > #and each one that want adore one God > #it is only by means of Catholic Romanic Church That is a teaching by man, and it is incorrect. The Catholic Church teaches that God gave power to a man in this passage: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A13-20&version=KJV 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Peter's name literally means "Rock." His former name, Simon, means "shaky." So the Catholic Church doctrine teaches that when Jesus gave him a new name, changing his name from shaky to rock, from Simon to Peter, and then said, "Upon this rock I will build my church," that somehow that translated special power to Peter. But we continue reading the Bible, the teachings of Christ, and we see Peter's ministry to the Jews in Acts, and Paul's ministry to the Gentiles (non-Jews) in Acts, and then in the rest of the Bible as well, it becomes clear that there was no explicit ministry given to any one man, or any one sect of followers. We are all to come to Jesus Christ directly, ask Him for forgiveness, and then He becomes the head of our lives and guides us from within to be a part of our local communities. You'll remember from Revelation that Jesus instructed John to write letters to the seven churches, each one from an immediate region: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+1%3A11&version=KJV 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. ----- God has given us a pattern in our bodies. We have the head which has the brain and instructs all the other parts of the body to move. It is Christ who is the head of the church. Each of the parts of a body are moving based on guidance from the brain. The pinky doesn't know why it is moving when you wiggle it. It just knows to wiggle when it is commanded to do so. It is the same with each of us. As God's Holy Spirit moves in our lives, He naturally moves also in our churches. It is a collective movement of the body of Christ, and not of individual men within, though He does call specific men into specific service, but they too are merely part of His body of Christ, and are merely performing the roles for which they were called and prepared. ----- Roman Catholicism is incorrect in its teachings. It is Christ, and Him alone, who saves us. It is us coming to God personally, by that call He gives us from within (John 6:44), that saves us, and not any confession to man, be he priest or believing friend, minister or evangelist, neighbor or spouse. We come to Christ, and Him alone, for salvation. And we come to the Father, and Him through Christ, from that day forward, directly, in all of our seekings from God. Remember how Jesus taught us to preach? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A9-13&version=KJV 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. In our daily prayers (give us this day...), we go directly to God the Father (which art in Heaven), and not anyone on Earth. And Jesus even goes so far as to teach us directly not to call anyone on Earth our father, for we have one Father in Heaven: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23%3A9&version=KJV 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. It is clear. But if you only read Catholic writings and doctrine, it will say other things. But if you examine the full writings of God, and not just what you find in the Catholic Bible, you will see that the intent of God is clear: us to Him directly. No middle men any longer. It's the whole purpose of why Christ went to the cross, to reconcile us directly to Himself. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| asetofsymbols@gmail.com: Oct 27 09:43AM -0700 Rick wrote: It means the Giovanni 20,20 is extra-Biblical, a teaching of man, and not an inspired writing of God as by His Holy Spirit. __________ No, all the Bible is "inspired writing of God as by His Holy Spirit" The first autor of Bible is God For the remain i advise you to not follow the heretic Luter and protestant theory, because he wrote and said many errors and not right think The Romanic Catholic Church is the main way for obtain grace and help from God. "Non c'è salvezza fuori dalla Chiesa" |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 27 10:23AM -0700 > For the remain i advise you to not follow the heretic Luter and protestant theory, because he wrote and said many errors and not right think > The Romanic Catholic Church is the main way for obtain grace and help from God. > "Non c'è salvezza fuori dalla Chiesa" There are studies online which will compare the content of the Catholic Bible with that of the King James. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| asetofsymbols@gmail.com: Oct 27 10:38AM -0700 Can came out the bible of the King John or Artur or some the one of 1700 1500 ecc I had seen a very old photo of the translater people for a protestant bible they were all with the hidden hand in that photo... Who say the autors of online bible are not they? I believe only the paper one, I have (even could be falsed to something due to Concilio Vaticano II) |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Oct 27 11:49AM -0700 > I had seen a very old photo of the translater people for a protestant bible they were all with the hidden hand in that photo... > Who say the autors of online bible are not they? > I believe only the paper one, I have (even could be falsed to something due to Concilio Vaticano II) Read them. Compare them. Seek for yourself. If you are interested in pursuing the truth, God Himself will reach into your understanding and open it up. If you seek the truth, you will know the truth because God will guide you from within. It's not a matter of reason. It's not a matter of man's ability to align things up in a row and say, "A-ha! There it is. I see it now. 1.. 2.. 3.. and x.. y.. z.. Yup. It makes sense." That is flesh, and God is spirit, and knowledge of God is spirit. God must enable you from within to be able to receive the truth, which is also spirit. Seek the truth, and you will find it, when you seek for it with all your heart. Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Oct 27 05:20PM +0200 On 20.10.17 00.01, Paavo Helde wrote: > In the constructor, if the extra smartpointer goes out of scope, your > object gets destroyed before it has even finished constructing. In > destructor, it would become destroyed twice. OK, but classes with embedded lifetime management should be aware of that and this is in no way unique to intrusive reference counts. Typically their constructor is private an the public factory has something like my_lifetime_management_container_with_smart_ptr.add(new myclass()); which is perfectly valid. In fact I have never seen a temporary smart pointer that is assigned from this. I think this is always an anti-pattern. When I am already in a instance method there is no need to deal with a smart pointer anymore. >> The disadvantage is that you need to use the custom allocator all the >> way. > std::make_shared() uses the standard allocator. You are right. They provide the appropriate deleter. But I still would prefer intrusive ref counts unless I need weak references. Marcel |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Oct 27 04:11PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> spake the secret code >But I still would prefer intrusive ref counts unless I need weak references. I've worked in a code base with intrusive reference counts and in that code base it meant that I couldn't forward declare such classes when I wanted to hold them with an inline smart pointer as a member: #inlucde <smart_ptr.h> class A { // ... private: smart_ptr<B> m_b; }; Because smart_ptr's definition is inline, it exposes the inc/dec operators on the enclosed class B that has an intrusive reference count. Therefore I couldn't forward declare B, I had to include it's complete declaration so that smart_ptr could see it's inc/dec reference count methods. It's not that I don't know how to solve this problem (include B's header), it's that I'd rather just forward declare B instead. Did you find a way to have such a smart pointer class for your intrusive reference counted classes in such a way that you could do type erasure and only forward declare B? -- "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> |
| Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Oct 27 06:44PM +0200 On 27.10.17 18.11, Richard wrote: > I've worked in a code base with intrusive reference counts and in that > code base it meant that I couldn't forward declare such classes when I > wanted to hold them with an inline smart pointer as a member: Hmm, I am pretty sure that this worked for me in a larger project. [...] Just checked: class PlayableInstance; ... class Location : public Iref_count { ... vector_int<PlayableInstance> Callstack; ... } vector_int<> was my implementation of a vector of intrusive smart pointers. Obviously it could deal with the incomplete type. I have also to admit that it was not std::intrusive_ptr, mainly because C++11 was not existent that time. > Because smart_ptr's definition is inline, it exposes the inc/dec > operators on the enclosed class B that has an intrusive reference > count. Hmm, wasn't there a rule that template functions are instantiated lazy? > Did you find a way to have such a smart pointer class for your > intrusive reference counted classes in such a way that you could do > type erasure and only forward declare B? In some way I must have managed this years ago. Maybe the trick was that the destructor of Location wasn't inline. So the destructor of the intrusive pointer was only instantiated in the /implementation/ of Location, where all include files have been parsed and the type PlayableInstance is complete. Unfortunately a quick sight of the old source disproved the statement. The destructor was declared in the class header though virtual. No idea why this compiles. But I am sure that the type is really incomplete during the definition of class Location because the header of class PlayableInstance strongly depends on Location. Marcel |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Oct 27 09:51AM -0700 On Friday, 27 October 2017 19:11:48 UTC+3, Richard wrote: > Did you find a way to have such a smart pointer class for your > intrusive reference counted classes in such a way that you could do > type erasure and only forward declare B? What is wrong with boost::intrusive_ptr that only needs such things: namespace richard { class ForwardDeclared; void intrusive_ptr_add_ref(ForwardDeclared* p); void intrusive_ptr_release(ForwardDeclared* p); } boost::intrusive_ptr<richard::ForwardDeclared> that; There it is made business of ForwardDeclared and those two functions exactly where (and how thread safely) the references are counted and what happens when the count drops to zero. |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Oct 27 05:17PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> spake the secret code >No idea why this compiles. But I am sure that the type is really >incomplete during the definition of class Location because the header of >class PlayableInstance strongly depends on Location. I'll see if I can come up with a minimal example. In this particular code base VS 2008 didn't complain, but VS 2017 started complaining. They changed some stuff with the way templates work in between those two releases. VS 2008 parses the template declaration but takes the definition as a stream of tokens that are replayed at instantiation. This leads to some breakage with respect to so-called "two phase name lookup" for templates. This blog post goes into more details: <https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2017/09/11/two-phase-name-lookup-support-comes-to-msvc/> -- "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> |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Oct 26 08:16PM -0400 On 10/26/2017 04:49 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Illegal aliens. Giving 4 billion dollars to an enemy government. > Storing classified information on insecure servers... And the list goes > on. There are the good noble guys and the bad evil guys. The bad evil guys are out to destroy America. The good guys fight for rule of law, the Constitution, God, family, country, and all that is noble and true. If only all the bad evil-doers were removed, perfection would be achieved and peace and prosperity would reign for a thousand years. I understand. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 09:19PM -0400 On 10/25/2017 2:13 PM, Gareth Owen wrote: > http://www.weeklystandard.com/lawmakers-call-out-trump-administration-for-russia-sanctions-delay/article/2010193 > http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/06/26/governors_respond_to_gay_marriage_ruling_texas_louisiana_mississippi_weighing.html > https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/ And how is any of that a violation of laws? Unlike Obama's executive orders? Or Clinton's illegal (and insecure) mail server? Or CLINTON'S campaign's collusion with the Russians? Nope. Not even close. Trump is at least attempting to follow the law - the State Department hasn't given him information he needs for the sanctions (never mind that Congress's "mandate" is not a law and is arguably an infringement on the separation of powers). Governors also have free speech rights, and are free to have their own opinions. None of that suggests they are going against the Supreme Court - even if they don't agree with it. And once again, the ObamaCare "mandate" is a reversal of an Executive Order by Obama, not a law. Sorry. None of your references show what you would like to believe. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 26 09:20PM -0400 On 10/25/2017 3:08 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/ > Or even the poor young lady in Texas this week. Took the courts to > get the right thing done. And exactly which law did Trump violate? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Oct 26 11:46PM -0400 On 10/26/2017 09:19 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > And how is any of that a violation of laws? Unlike Obama's executive > orders? Or Clinton's illegal (and insecure) mail server? Or CLINTON'S > campaign's collusion with the Russians? The CIA under Bush, Obama, and Trump have been flying drone strikes in and out of six sovereign countries at last count, violating US and international law every day of the week for years, btw. Or maybe not. AFAIK they all said their DOJ lawyers checked it all out and it's fine. Won't release the documents, though. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 08:32AM +0200 On 25/10/17 21:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/02/15/trump-tells-irs-not-to-enforce-obamacare-mandate/ > Or even the poor young lady in Texas this week. Took the courts to > get the right thing done. Folks, how about we keep the local politics out of c.l.c++? Perhaps move it to sci.electronics.design, where it belongs (but for the love of the FSM, please do /not/ cross-post it there!). |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Oct 27 09:35AM -0400 On 10/26/2017 11:46 PM, bitrex wrote: > international law every day of the week for years, btw. > Or maybe not. AFAIK they all said their DOJ lawyers checked it all out > and it's fine. Won't release the documents, though. Exactly which laws are violated by drone strikes against enemy combatants? As opposed to killing U.S. citizens without a trial - which is against U.S. law. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Oct 27 10:16AM -0400 On 10/27/2017 09:35 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Exactly which laws are violated by drone strikes against enemy > combatants? As opposed to killing U.S. citizens without a trial - which > is against U.S. law. Indeed, it relies on how the DOJ interprets the term "enemy combatant." In practice it seems to be the way it is defined is "Any foreign national the President determines to be." That's the way it seems outside the loop at least; the DOJ claims otherwise and that they have had their lawyers look it all over and it's fine. Needing to make calls like that and keep rulings secret may be something which must be done from time to time out of necessity; but trying to make the case that when one defines the terms of the laws the way one wants them to be without independent oversight, and then they adhere to the "rule of law" which they defined themselves, and to claim that too as being a noble and respectable enterprise, is a very hard sell. Wake me up when a presidential candidate of any political party shows up who even promises to constrain the power of the executive branch in theory, rather than expand it in practice. Then I'll believe this "rule of law" stuff. |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Oct 27 10:24AM -0400 On 10/27/2017 02:32 AM, David Brown wrote: > Folks, how about we keep the local politics out of c.l.c++? Perhaps > move it to sci.electronics.design, where it belongs (but for the love of > the FSM, please do /not/ cross-post it there!). There's always Stack Overflow where instead of local politics you just get reputation farmers trying to close your question every 5 seconds and making comments like "but WHY would you want to do that" and "*sigh*. you're clearly not familiar with the latest C++17 std::blarsharglap, unbelievable you would be asking this question" |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Oct 27 04:36PM +0200 On 27/10/17 16:24, bitrex wrote: > making comments like "but WHY would you want to do that" and "*sigh*. > you're clearly not familiar with the latest C++17 std::blarsharglap, > unbelievable you would be asking this question" Are you trying to say that it is okay to discuss politics here in a C++ newsgroup because another discussion arena has different problems? Please just drop the topic here - we have enough off-topic stuff already (and at least the religious folk can argue that - assuming they are right - their topic is important and that we can all do something about it). In particular, /don't/ argue with Jerry Stuckle. It is pointless, whether it is on topic or not. If you /really/ want to discuss this more, invite Jerry to a new thread in sci.electronics.design where he can compete in pissing contests with the other grumpy old right-wing has-beens. (Yes, I know I sometimes take part in such threads in s.e.d. - they are on-topic in that group.) I know you are interested in C++, and have good ideas and good questions. But by posting here about politics, you are simply going to get yourself in the killfiles of the people you would want to talk to. |
| bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net>: Oct 27 01:05PM -0400 On 10/27/2017 10:36 AM, David Brown wrote: > right - their topic is important and that we can all do something about it). > In particular, /don't/ argue with Jerry Stuckle. It is pointless, > whether it is on topic or not. Good to know > can compete in pissing contests with the other grumpy old right-wing > has-beens. (Yes, I know I sometimes take part in such threads in s.e.d. > - they are on-topic in that group.) Accurate > I know you are interested in C++, and have good ideas and good > questions. But by posting here about politics, you are simply going to > get yourself in the killfiles of the people you would want to talk to. Fair enough |
| 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