- I was reading about the Threadpool of the Microsoft CLR - 8 Updates
- Bat - 1 Update
- Jesus Christ The Bastard - 9 Updates
- method return object bug - 3 Updates
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 11 10:50PM -0400 Hello, I was reading about the Threadpool of the Microsoft CLR, and 'Hill Climbing' (HC) is used to control the rate at which threads are added to the Thread Pool, but i think this is not good , because if other "applications" that are using Threadpools or many threads are running in the same computer, so Hill Climbing algorithm will maximize with more more threads that will be started and this will cause the other applications to obtain less and less the CPU, and this is not good, so i don't think Hill Climbing algorithm of Microsoft CLR Threadpool is good. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 11 08:54PM On 12/03/2018 02:50, computer45 wrote: > don't think Hill Climbing algorithm of Microsoft CLR Threadpool is good. > Thank you, > Amine Moulay Ramdane. Did you post several days ago that you would never post in this forum again? So why have you? /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 11 11:01PM -0400 On 3/11/2018 4:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Did you post several days ago that you would never post in this forum > again? So why have you? > /Flibble I am posting just "very" few posts, i have posted this to just explain my point about an interesting subject. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 11 09:12PM On 12/03/2018 03:01, computer45 wrote: >> /Flibble > I am posting just "very" few posts, i have posted this to just explain > my point about an interesting subject. So you are a liar. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 11 11:14PM -0400 On 3/11/2018 5:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > So you are a liar. > /Flibble Logic is not just boolean logic, it can be an approximation like in fuzzy logic, so 0.95 is not 1, but you can sometime call it 1 by approximation. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 11 09:28PM On 12/03/2018 03:14, computer45 wrote: > Logic is not just boolean logic, it can be an approximation like in > fuzzy logic, so 0.95 is not 1, but you can sometime call it 1 by > approximation. Fuck off you egregious cunt. /Flibble -- "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: Mar 11 09:40PM On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:01:59 -0400 > I am posting just "very" few posts, i have posted this to just explain > my point about an interesting subject. It doesn't matter whether you think it is an interesting topic or not. The Microsoft CLR has nothing to do with C++ and this is another example of your terrible posting practices. You have previously shown that you know virtually nothing about C++. Instead of continuing to make an idiot of yourself, stick to your commitment not to post to this newsgroup. |
| computer45 <computer45@cyber.com>: Mar 11 11:52PM -0400 On 3/11/2018 5:40 PM, Chris Vine wrote: > You have previously shown that you know virtually nothing about C++. > Instead of continuing to make an idiot of yourself, stick to your > commitment not to post to this newsgroup. You have a good point, since it is related to programming and not related to C++, so i think it must be posted on comp.programming and not on this forum. Sorry for this mistake, i will not repeat this mistake. Other than that i am posting just very very few posts on this C++ forum, so don't bother about me. Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:48PM When reading my posts where I reject reality please allow for the fact that I am batshit crazy. -- Thank you, Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 10 10:12PM -0800 On Saturday, 10 March 2018 14:11:42 UTC+2, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > environment, how do you possibly think multi-celled mass organisms > evolved with all their incredible diversification in just a few > hundred million years? It is not too simple mathematics and you will deny facts anyway so what is the point to explain? I believe into humans having rational mind hiding under whatever madness so I try. Prove me wrong, please. :D The mutation rate in alive beings is somewhere from 10^-10 to 10^-8 per base-pair per generation. So for particular one base pair mutant to occur we need 10^8 to 10^10 reproduction events. How fast mutation is selected for depends on advantage that mutation provides over others and that takes also lot of generations. Lenski had populations daily fluctuating between 5*10^6 and 5*10^8 in his 12 flasks. E.coli genome is 5*10^6 (actually 4.5*10^6 to 5.5*10^6) base pairs. The experiment was set up so that there was about 6.5 generations per day (71000 in 30 years). So most beneficial mutation occurred in couple of days. In Lenski experiment it took in average about 1000 generations (or about 150 days) per occurred beneficial mutation to be selected. Therefore in those 71000 generations there was about 70 new base pair changes selected from about 5 million base pairs per flask. It was still E.coli indeed, is anybody surprised? > It's not possible. Evolution does not exist. Only adaptation, > and that is by design for the very environment the creations would > live in. Only utter morons deny facts. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 11 03:28AM -0700 On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 1:12:39 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote: > generations there was about 70 new base pair changes selected > from about 5 million base pairs per flask. It was still E.coli indeed, > is anybody surprised? When you look at the diversity of life, the various forms, the aesthetic beauty, the varying chemistries, the range of abilities, each in their distinct form, clearly distinct from the others, the well-suited abilities for each of their environments, the complexities of thought, reason, instinct, epigenetics, all built atop such a fragile replication system that introduces failures at a steady rate through random mutations ... do you really think that nothing ... turned into something ... and that something ... turned into everything ... all by itself? > > and that is by design for the very environment the creations would > > live in. > Only utter morons deny facts. I agree. The evidence of overt creation is staggering. And the evidence for God is everywhere. Only in sin are we able to deny the truth, or hold falseness up before us as though it were truth. Öö Tiib, go to the Answers in Genesis YouTube page and watch some of their videos. "One Race One Blood" teaches the true history of creation and species diversification observed here in this world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m0s The videos by Dr. Georgia Purdom are also very informative. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 11 05:12AM -0700 On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > When you look at the diversity of life I note that you did not exactly respond to Öö Tiib's rebuttal. I'm left to assume that you conceded the point :-) > The evidence for God is everywhere. What do you mean by "God", Rick? What are its properties? What are you suggesting that there is evidence for? Can you ascribe enough properties to this entity that you could meaningfully test for its existence? I think by "God" you mean some unspecified entity to which you attribute everything you personally find incomprehensible, much as the early Germanic peoples attributed thunder to the Norse god Thor. Would you agree? Thanks, Daniel |
| bartc <bc@freeuk.com>: Mar 11 12:40PM On 11/03/2018 06:12, Öö Tiib wrote: >> and that is by design for the very environment the creations would >> live in. > Only utter morons deny facts. (Since everyone else seems have given up on language discussion...) He has a point; evolution is a tiny part of the picture. For evolution to work, 99.99% of what first needs to already exist must be taken for granted. Once you assume that then, sure, you don't need a god any more. -- bartc |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 11 09:03AM -0500 > system that introduces failures at a steady rate through random > mutations ... do you really think that nothing ... turned into something ... > and that something ... turned into everything ... all by itself? After abiogenesis occurred all of what you describe can be attributed to evolution. Evolution is a fact: it happens and only a fool denies the evidence for evolution being a fact, > I agree. The evidence of overt creation is staggering. And the > evidence for God is everywhere. Only in sin are we able to deny the > truth, or hold falseness up before us as though it were truth. Another baseless assertion easily dismissed. > creation and species diversification observed here in this world. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=16m0s > The videos by Dr. Georgia Purdom are also very informative. Videos made by creationists have some comedic value sure but I have better ways I would rather spend my time than watching them. /Flibble |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:14AM -0700 On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 8:13:02 AM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > The evidence for God is everywhere. > What do you mean by "God", Rick? You aren't looking for the truth, Daniel. You'll never find it with your prosecuting attorney approach. If you ever want to truly learn about God, start here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=KJV -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 11 09:23AM -0700 On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:14:42 AM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > If you ever want to truly learn about God, start here: > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=KJV Rick, If you're interested in creation myths more generally, check out https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-where-did-creation-story-come-from-1.5404560 If that wets your appetite, I would then suggest The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith Be well, Daniel |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 11 12:11PM -0700 On Sunday, 11 March 2018 14:41:00 UTC+2, bartc wrote: > >> live in. > > Only utter morons deny facts. > (Since everyone else seems have given up on language discussion...) Sorry about that. I try to respond what I know about C++ but traffic of such discussions in this group has become very low. I don't care when Rick posts his junk about his relations with his fictional demons but I dislike when he posts lies about science. > He has a point; evolution is a tiny part of the picture. For evolution > to work, 99.99% of what first needs to already exist must be taken for > granted. Notice that it was not even discussion about what amount and of what picture biological evolution takes. There was lie of its nonexistence and lie it being nowhere observed. But Rick being "under grace" may "bear false witness" seventy times seven without problems. I brought examples, one was Lenski's experiment. It is easy to conclude that when 30 years can cause couple dozen tiny beneficial changes to evolve then 30 million years can cause couple dozen million beneficial changes to evolve. That is several times more changes than there are base pairs in whole current genome of E.coli and it is free to happen just with single, small bacterial population. The "brillant point" that we received back to it was that E.coli didn't readily evolve into dogs in those flasks. 8) :D Isn't it parody of argument? > Once you assume that then, sure, you don't need a god any more. I do avoid discussing god because I know nothing about god. * I believe that lore about Lord Christ, God the Son is myth like all other such folk tales but consider Christianity to be humane philosophy and most Christians nice people. * I believe that Rick's claims that he is now born again under grace of Christ to be unfounded. Christ is pictured as wise man in Bible. How can his grace express itself as pretended stupidity? * I believe that Rick's posting videos how his talking serpent Ken Ham also speaking outside limits of parody nonsense does disservice to their cult of stupidity, but it is none my business. * I believe that Rick spitting at common morality, insulting others as "flesh", and threatening them with "hellfire" while not following his own "divine law" (it is "peanut shells" or what it was) to look irresponsible and repulsive to humane people. * I believe that Rick's behavior does collateral damage to Christianity as whole (not only to his sect), but it is up to Christians, not mine business again. * I believe that most of our troubles are caused by mistakes of humans (not gods) and therefore have also to be corrected by humans and there may be difficult times ahead but people like Rick just distract us from those real issues. That is what I only believe and how I feel and I may be wrong and/or unjust in those beliefs, time will show. However these views of mine have nothing to do with biological evolution. Biological evolution was by all factual evidence that our science has (and there are huge piles of it) the prime cause of diversity of nature that we observe on surface of our home planet. There are none competing scientific explanations to it. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 11 01:10PM -0700 On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 3:11:47 PM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > Rick posts his junk about ... but I > dislike when he posts lies about science. I do not post any lies. I have the Biblical perspective of what we both see in scientific data. The Bible teaches 6,000 years since creation, and observable evidence corroborates that claim. You believe millions and billions of years because man has made many assumptions which are unprovable, but which seem possible to our flesh- based minds, and since you reject God you will believe man. Same evidence, different perspectives. The mutation rate you speak of could not be a factor in evolution, for example, because the Earth is only 6,000 years old. There is much evidence to corroborate that, but you and others reject it all because it points to the existence of God, and you reject Him in your rebellion in sin. They just found soft tissue in a 500+ million year old fossil in Greenland. They were able to obtain DNA from it and reconstitute its genome. Such things are not possible. DNA will breakdown completely in a few thousand years under ideal conditions. The evidence is there, Öö Tiib. Consider it from the Biblical perspective, and try to find any flaws with our reason given the assumption that God is real, and the Bible is the word of God. We are not flawed. We believe God and what He teaches us. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>: Mar 10 06:03PM -0600 On 3/9/2018 11:28 PM, Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > is very short) it's nice. > Cheers & hth., > - Alf So I do need to use the override keyword always in order to get a proper method lookup. Bummer. Lynn |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 11 01:11PM +1300 On 03/11/2018 01:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: >> - Alf > So I do need to use the override keyword always in order to get a proper > method lookup. Bummer. No, you don't. Why do you object to using it? -- Ian. |
| Louis Krupp <lkrupp@nospam.pssw.com.invalid>: Mar 10 08:14PM -0700 On Sat, 10 Mar 2018 18:03:37 -0600, Lynn McGuire >> - Alf >So I do need to use the override keyword always in order to get a proper >method lookup. Bummer. I don't believe adding "override" to the declaration of CrudeGroup::dataTransferItemsToDIIW will make any difference. The code you posted is legal either way. Louis |
| 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