Monday, March 5, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 5 topics

leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com: Mar 05 11:01AM -0800

Perhaps you should watch a video which actually explains what evolution is and how it works as it is painfully obvious that you don't understand it and how adaption to environmental factors plays a role.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 11:24AM -0800

> Perhaps you should watch a video which actually explains what evolution
> is and how it works as it is painfully obvious that you don't understand
> it and how adaption to environmental factors plays a role.
 
There is "evolution" in adaptation. It moves from one thing to the next,
with distinct changes as it goes. There's no question about that. But
that is micro-evolution.
 
The evolution that does not exist, is from nothing to Big Bang, to macro
molecules, to single-celled organisms, to Bombadier Beetles and Orange
Trees.
 
It doesn't happen, no not in billions of years.
 
Creation, on the other hand, is easy to visualize.
 
You're a developer, Leigh. With your mind, you could envision some very
complex software programs, and a wide range of them (graphics, network,
compute, etc., along with variations of the same). With a larger mind
(the mind of God), it can be visualized how He could create the things
we see, because we learn through science how it is a system of creation
from the definition of the "universe.c" program that defines the fundamental
operation of the entire universe from things on Planck scales up, to the
use of that design to handle macro things like molecules, to the use of
those molecules to form structures, to the use of those structures to form
organisms and all their variability, subtlety and nuance.
 
Creation explains everything. To buy the unobservable notion of molecules-
to-man evolution is ... unprovable, and arguably insane because we do not
see any evidence that something is spontaneously produced from nothing.
 
Think about the possibility, Leigh. #1 A creator making everything as He
has done ... compared to #2 a universe spontaneously arising out of nothing,
then evolving over billions of years to produce galaxies, ants, and Mozart.
The #2 idea there is insane.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 11:57AM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 2:24:38 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Creation explains everything.
 
Everything, and nothing. Now it becomes necessary to explain creation. Sigh.
 
Daniel
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:03PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 1:01:41 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> I correct the incorrect
 
Multiple choice, please choose the best answer
 
(a) Rick the wise
(b) Rick the foolish
(c) Rick the revelator
(d) Rick the prick
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:07PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:03:44 PM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> (b) Rick the foolish
> (c) Rick the revelator
> (d) Rick the prick
 
Daniel,
 
I've tried to explain that we all:
 
1) Have sin
2) Sin condemns our soul to Hell
3) Jesus doesn't want that, and came to save us from that end
 
... but it's not received. So, I move toward teaching how God is real
in His own creation (the universe).
 
It's easy to visualize, but not everybody will be saved. I won't
argue with you, but I do try and teach you in multiple different ways
the truth. If you will not receive it, there's nothing I can do. I
have tried, and that's all the Lord asks us to do.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 05 08:08PM

On 05/03/2018 19:24, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> The evolution that does not exist, is from nothing to Big Bang, to macro
> molecules, to single-celled organisms, to Bombadier Beetles and Orange
> Trees.
 
The Big Bang is unrelated to evolution (see below) so what you say can
be easily dismissed as a straw man.
 
 
> It doesn't happen, no not in billions of years.
 
An assertion without evidence: summarily dismissed.
 
> (the mind of God), it can be visualized how He could create the things
> we see, because we learn through science how it is a system of creation
> from the definition of the "universe.c" program that defines the fundamental
 
I recommend that you stay off the analogies because that one was
childish at best.
 
> use of that design to handle macro things like molecules, to the use of
> those molecules to form structures, to the use of those structures to form
> organisms and all their variability, subtlety and nuance.
 
How the universe "evolved" is entirely separate to biological evolution
on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
 
> Creation explains everything. To buy the unobservable notion of molecules-
> to-man evolution is ... unprovable, and arguably insane because we do not
> see any evidence that something is spontaneously produced from nothing.
 
An assertion without evidence: summarily dismissed.
 
> has done ... compared to #2 a universe spontaneously arising out of nothing,
> then evolving over billions of years to produce galaxies, ants, and Mozart.
> The #2 idea there is insane.
 
In my worldview #2 is more likely than #1 unless our universe is a
simulation.
 
/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."
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:26PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:07:44 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> I won't argue with you ...
 
Of course not. You have no arguments. You assert, nothing more.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:30PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:09:13 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> How the universe "evolved" is entirely separate to biological evolution
> on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
> has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
How do you conclude this? I've never heard someone say this before. In
order to produce "the Earth," "the universe" has to have come into existence.
With the Big Bang theory being the most prevalent theory taught in schools
to date, that would produce the environment which then allows the Earth to
form.
 
But even so, it goes from nothing (pre-Big Bang) to Big Bang to cooling and
coalescing and the formation of molecules, to aggregation of molecules into
macro molecules, to ... elephants, palm trees, and tuna.
 
How do you explain the conditions existing to begin the formation of the
Earth?
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:33PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:27:09 PM UTC-5, Daniel wrote:
> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:07:44 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > I won't argue with you ...
 
> ...You assert, nothing more.
 
My assertions are claims. But I don't just stop there. I don't
espouse something and then say, "TRUST ME!" Rather the reverse.
I say exactly, "DO NOT TRUST ME! Go to the Bible and see for yourself.
Go to local churches and speak to the people there yourself. Go and
look and see and read and study and examine the Biblical narrative for
yourself and see for yourself if it is as I indicate."
 
I do not leave it at me. I point you to other sources. It's easy to
disregard and discount me. It's much harder to disregard and discount
the Biblical narrative because you won't be able to find any flaws with
it, and when you go to speak to multiple people they'll teach you from
their perspective, using different words than I do, different examples.
 
You won't be able to discount it as easily as you summarily discount me.
The Bible teachings are profound and deep beyond measure.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 05 08:35PM

On 05/03/2018 20:30, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
>> has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
> How do you conclude this?
 
Because the definition of evolution within the context of the theory of
evolution is fucking biological evolution which has nothing to do with
how the fucking universe came into existence.
 
You don't have the luxury to redefine well established terminology to
suit your bullshit lunatic theories; you might think you do but everyone
else disagrees.
 
/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."
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:45PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:35:34 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> Because the definition of evolution within the context of the theory of
> evolution is .. biological evolution which has nothing to do with
> how the .. universe came into existence.
 
I've never heard of that before. The Earth is part of the universe, and
obeys the same laws as everything else.
 
> You don't have the luxury to redefine well established terminology to
> suit your .. lunatic theories; you might think you do but everyone
> else disagrees.
 
I don't think you realize how absurd the idea is you're proposing. I
don't think you've ever thought it through, but have just heard the
professors speaking and agreed with them.
 
First, you try to divorce the creation of the universe and the creation
of life on Earth. The two cannot be divorced because the Earth is part
of the universe, and everything at a particular level is built atop lesser
things. Trees are built atop a system that's been designed which supports
their leaves from materials brought up through the roots. There has to be
tubes to bring up resources, pumps which lift it against gravity, the
general structure of the tree has to be there to support the branches,
and sub-branches, and leaves need to be able to point toward the sun, and
be comprised of materials that can do their work.
 
But then you get into greater details: leaves have cells, cells have
protein structures, protein structures have atoms, atoms have electrons,
protons, and neutrons, each of which have constituent parts.
 
Without the universe forming as it has, nothing above would work. And
when you look at the balanced-on-a-knife-edge set of equations that we
have discovered, some of which contain constants which are accurate
out to even 120 decimal places!!, you can see how finely tuned the uni-
verse itself is. Then you get into the design of the things at each
level to allow the things above it to work. Then the design moves from
mechanics into aesthetics.
 
Leigh ... you've been told an outright lie that, because of sin, you are
able to believe. But the truth is the master. The truth rules over all.
When you learn of the truth of design, the lie of <insert other teaching
here> MUST fall away.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Mar 05 08:51PM

On 05/03/2018 20:45, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> able to believe. But the truth is the master. The truth rules over all.
> When you learn of the truth of design, the lie of <insert other teaching
> here> MUST fall away.
 
And here lies what is at the root of the problem with your belief
system: your own misunderstanding in thinking that direct causal
connections exist when in fact they do not; without such direct causal
connections an intelligent creator would make no sense. But of course
you are too blinkered to see the problem here.
 
So try to assimilate this new information (your bedded in belief system
may make this hard psychologically): biological evolution is unrelated
to abiogenesis and abiogenesis is unrelated to the Big Bang.
 
/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."
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:53PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:30:47 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
> > has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
> How do you conclude this? I've never heard someone say this before.
 
It is the essence of science. Science does not start with the idea of
producing a theory of everything. The theory of evolution is on very
firm ground. Cosmology is necessarily more speculative.
 
> In order to produce "the Earth," "the universe" has to have come into
> existence.
 
All scientific theories take some things as given. It's like in math,
you have to start with something, it can be the natural numbers, or it
can be sets, but something. As science advances, what is taken as
given gets pushed back, and is itself explained in terms of more basic
things.
 
Take your own way of thinking, which is reminiscent of an older pre-
scientific way of thinking. Your mind can't grasp the idea of being
uncertain, of not knowing, you must know! you must know now! so ergo, you
assert that god did it all. But if you were to think deeper, you'd realize
that that god is just an undefined concept that explains nothing. It might
help if you used the letter X to denote this undefined concept rather
than use the word god.
 
Daniel
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 06 09:55AM +1300

On 03/06/2018 09:30 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> on Earth; abiogenesis is not traditionally view as part of evolution and
>> has separate theories that attempt to explain it.
 
> How do you conclude this? I've never heard someone say this before.
 
Your willful ignorance of the science you deny (I won't say attempt to
disprove or debunk because you offer no evidence) is astounding. The
physical universe is governed by the laws of physics and we have the
brave souls (who I assume you would still burn as heretics) who defied
religious dogma to thank for our enlightenment.
 
If your deity created the laws of physics, it did great job of masking
its own existence.
 
--
Ian.
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:59PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:45:44 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > evolution is .. biological evolution which has nothing to do with
> > how the .. universe came into existence.
 
> I've never heard of that before.
 
That's great! you've learned something new. And now is the time to read a book about scientific methodology to learn more, while you're digesting these insights.
 
Best regards,
Daniel
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 01:01PM -0800

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 3:52:13 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> So try to assimilate this new information...: biological evolution is unrelated
> to abiogenesis and abiogenesis is unrelated to the Big Bang.
 
You're simply wrong, Leigh.
 
Even in chemistry physics is at work. The fundamental laws of our
universe determine how chemical interactions will occur. You cannot,
under any circumstances, divorce the two.
 
I'm amazed this is a real theory that exists. I've honestly never
heard it before.
 
You cannot take "the universe existing" as a given, and then build
atop that construct with a beginning for biology. The universe's
existence is the fundamental factor which lets everything thereafter
exist.
 
I am truly sorry if you have been taught that the two are separate.
I can only conclude that teaching exists because it makes it easier
or more palpable to deal with just one part of the whole, but it's
the whole that is reality, not just parts.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Mar 05 09:09PM

>> > I won't argue with you ...
 
>> ...You assert, nothing more.
 
>I say exactly, "DO NOT TRUST ME! Go to the Bible and see for yourself.
 
The bible is just another book of collected folk tales, like the Iliad.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 06:04PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
(Richard) legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com spake the secret code
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device>
><http://wiki.c2.com/?DuffsDeviceInDuffsOwnWords> (ha ha ha ha, he was
>dumping words into the command FIFO of an E&S Picture System II!)
 
...and even in Duff's device, the goto is done via switch, so you
don't even need goto for that :).
--
"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>
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>: Mar 05 01:59PM -0600

On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:57:00 +0000 (UTC),
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duff%27s_device>
><http://wiki.c2.com/?DuffsDeviceInDuffsOwnWords> (ha ha ha ha, he was
>dumping words into the command FIFO of an E&S Picture System II!)
 
 
One of the main issues Dijkstra was writing about was the use of gotos
with very large spans. People in those days people were writing Cobol
programs of many thousands* of lines, with gotos jumping willy-nilly
all over that mass. In most cases, with "modern" sized functions,
even grossly unstructured and goto-laden code would be much less of a
problem. The amount of control flow insanity possible in a 50 line
routine is inherently limited. That's made even better when you
restrict goto usage to one of a few idioms which are well understood,
and straight-forward.
 
And, as an aside, the problem is not so much the goto - it's hard to
imaging a more straight-forward control flow operation, rather the
code at the label, where you now have a much more complex case trying
to figure out how your program got to that point.
 
 
*10 and 20kloc Cobol programs were hardly uncommon.
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Mar 05 08:28PM

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
 
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> spake the secret code
 
>[...] In most cases, with "modern" sized functions,
>even grossly unstructured and goto-laden code would be much less of a
>problem.
 
Getting back to C++, the most common use of a goto is to handle common
cleanup due to an error condition encountered in the middle of a
complex sequence of conditional operations. (Think COM HRESULTs
returned by almost every method invocation.) These are better handled
in C++ by RAII techniques and exceptions than goto.
 
Realistically, that's the entirety of where I've seen goto used in C++
code over the past couple of decades. Given that there are better,
less error-prone alternatives, I don't think there's much of a case
for goto given its most prominent use case in real-world code.
--
"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>
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Mar 06 09:41AM +1300

On 03/06/2018 05:23 AM, Egor wrote:
 
> Blindly avoiding goto statement at all cost is a great example of cargo
> cult programming. It's widely known that goto is usually frowned upon,
> but not many know *why* it is considered a Bad Thing(tm).
 
There's nothing blind about it. I someone can put up a good case for
why goto is the best option they'd be free to use it. I simply have
never seen this happen!
 
> multiple patterns, including the double-break, which read like a hack
> when written in the best traditions of structured programming, while
> the goto version is clean and straightforward.
 
Those arguments my apply to C code, where it's reasonably idiomatic to
use goto for error processing, but not to C++ where we have better tools.
 
> To conclude, when used properly, goto doesnt sacrifice readability, but
> actually improves it.
 
Maybe; however "property" has different meanings in different languages.
 
--
Ian.
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Mar 05 11:45AM -0800

On Monday, 5 March 2018 20:01:10 UTC+2, Richard wrote:
> >about it.
 
> >Anyway, it's <url: https://github.com/alf-p-steinbach/Wrapped-stdlib> now.
 
> alflib would be better :)
 
But maybe alflib is planned as name for something more fundamental?
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Mar 05 12:23PM -0800

> shorter is better
 
I also like stdnoleakwrap ...
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Mar 05 10:13AM -0800


> > --
> > Rick C. Hodgin
 
> Rick C. Hodgin is a .. .. and keep spamming many different newsgroups
 
Have you examined your own posts, Peter? You post insults, hate, rage, and
vulgarity in the extreme. Even death threats. Even mocking dead people.
I've never seen such hate given by an individual, Peter. You're in a class
by yourself.
 
I teach about Jesus Christ and how to receive forgiveness of sin, and
eternal life. What I teach you is important. What you do to me is the
very thing you can be rescued from by Jesus Christ.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Egor <egor@ruby.local>: Mar 05 02:48PM +0200

> A C-oriented answer using C2011 could use thrd_sleep()
Sadly, C11 support is still trash.
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:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)