- High horse - 1 Update
- Christianity is a religion - 2 Updates
- Question on app safety - 3 Updates
- Data structure in C++ or C - 2 Updates
- And here is another project called PascalABC.NET - 1 Update
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jun 24 08:38AM +1200 On 22/06/18 08:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: > to answer in a calm and rational way, and very plainly not > overstate the case. Otherwise you are just proving his > point. He doesn't appear to be capable of arguing in anything other than Boolean. -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Jun 23 05:20PM +0100 Please ignore the fake Rick C. Hodgin poster that claims Christianity is not a religion as his motives are manipulated by Satan. Christianity is a religion. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): Jun 23 07:03PM In article <PvudnV5KXObH7rPGnZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com>, >Please ignore the fake Rick C. Hodgin poster that claims Christianity is >not a religion as his motives are manipulated by Satan. >Christianity is a religion. Of course. But Rickianity isn't. And what Rick preaches is the later, not the former (regardless of what terminology he uses). -- "You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." -- Anne Lamott |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jun 23 05:15PM +0100 On 22/06/2018 17:48, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > /IF/ you were wrong, Leigh, /IF/ you were wrong ... would you > want to know? That's a yes or no question only you can answer. > You will know the answer in your heart. Speed of light mate. /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." |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: Jun 23 07:59PM +0200 Am 21.06.18 um 10:43 schrieb Alf P. Steinbach: > number with over a hundred zeroes. Just extremely unlikely. Ditto for > the energy density of vacuum. It's off by a similar super-extreme > factor, some hundred+ zeroes, compared to what theory says it should be. There is a simple fallacy behind that argument, namely the "survivor bias". "The oxygen level in the atmosphere is exactly right for humans. Also the many edible plants. This is proof that the world was made for humans!" - this is clearly wrong, it's the other way round, humans have evolved and adapted to this kind of conditions, which were there before us. If the conditions would be different, humans would a) either have evolved to a different biology to cope with the different conditions, or b) not have evolved at all, in which case you couldn't ask these questions. The same is true for the law of physics. You can't say "look, how sensible and intelligent the laws of physics are made, so that we can exist!". It's the exact same fallacy, if it were different, we either would have adapted or wouldn't exist. Also, you can't cherry-pick some laws of physics which "could be different" and then keep others the same and claim that the world wouldn't work. Nobody can answer what the world would be if gravity would be ten times stronger, because what forces electromagnetism to be the same in that case or even other forces or particles to be the same? Survivor bias. Christian |
| bitrex <user@example.net>: Jun 23 02:49PM -0400 On 06/23/2018 01:59 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > electromagnetism to be the same in that case or even other forces or > particles to be the same? Survivor bias. > Christian Applying "statistical arguments" at the level of the whole cosmos as arguments for or against anything is IMO currently exercise in futility. Look there's a lot of more basic shit we ain't even know before we can start debating why the fundamental constants are precisely what they are. We don't know if the particular Universe we find ourselves in is even topologically finite or infinite or not, if conservation of energy holds on the scale of the whole Universe (related question), or if the fundamental constants are indeed even constant over large distances or timescales. "survivor bias" or what's called the anthropic principle is a fine argument for "why things are" as far as it goes but it feels a bit disappointing and unsatisfactory and like it's not really science, it's a "theory" that doesn't really have any predictive power, it can only predict the past. |
| Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid>: Jun 23 07:28AM +0200 On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 14:09:55 -0700, red floyd wrote: >Try creating one >with an ordered sequence (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ...). You wind up >with a linked list. yes what about put first 100 in a buffer and random swap them just first than insert them all in the binary tree? so the data container is a buffer, and a binary tree |
| Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid>: Jun 23 07:33AM +0200 On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 23:15:12 +0100, Vir Campestris wrote: >behaves. Which is O(log N). >(I did have to wrote a hashmap ~5 years back. Because it needed to be in >C - which of course doesn't have STL) there are good sides and wrong sides in rewrite something wrong sides are that they could be wrong, or slow in some fundamental case...the workaroung on this is find the right test using rand() function the good side is that code drive itself in what it is useful, and one can modify all or follow the path code show be ok |
| Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com>: Jun 22 08:16PM -0400 Hello.. I am also working with modern Object Pascal of Delphi and FreePascal compilers.. And here is another project called PascalABC.NET that is also "modern" Object Pascal, i think i will port many of my projects to it too, look at it here: http://pascalabc.net/en/ 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.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment