- The Rapture (Reprise ad infinitum) - 12 Updates
- template madness - 2 Updates
- What does "ill-formed" mean? - 1 Update
- Undefined Behaviour - 8 Updates
- cmsg cancel <pn4a7n$du7$10@dont-email.me> - 2 Updates
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Sep 10 09:54PM -0700 On 9/2/2018 4:03 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> you murdered millions of people! >> There is a difference. > One sin condemns a soul to Hell forever: [...] Stealing candy vs murdering millions? There has to be a degree of sin! God damn it. YIKES! |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 08:08AM -0400 On 9/11/2018 12:54 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > [...] > Stealing candy vs murdering millions? There has to be a degree of sin! God > damn it. YIKES! Consider the binary state of innocent person and law transgressor. One breaking of the law and you move from innocent to transgressor. That's how it is with sin. The Bible does talk about degrees of sin. For example, for a person in a teaching position to mislead those who are God's (to give people a false teaching), the Bible says "it is better for that person to have a millstone tied around their neck and be cast in the sea." And there are some who did not receive the Apostles when they went out, and Jesus commanded the Apostles to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against them, stating it would be better for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for them. So there are degrees. But, moving from unsinful to sinful requires one sin. And, we actually all carry Adam's original sin (dead in our spirit because of what Adam did, and because we all descend from Adam and Eve). All of us need to be forgiven. Those who can see their sinful state are being blessed by God with that knowledge so they can come out from the world, from their sin, repent of the bad things they're doing (to stop sinning), and to ask Jesus to forgive them. All who do this are saved. The rest remain as they are (unsaved, on their way to judgment). You can see a visualization of this in this video: Begins at 23:33: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es7w8G6Q5oc&t=23m33s The guilty come forward with the "red" in their folders showing their sin. All have guilt, including those Jesus saves. But, in the case of those who ask Jesus for forgiveness, He exchanges an empty folder for their sinful folder, leaving them sin-free and innocent again be- fore God. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 11 01:44PM On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:08:36 -0400 >sin. And, we actually all carry Adam's original sin (dead in our spirit >because of what Adam did, and because we all descend from Adam and Eve). Funny how the bible claims that we're all descended from 2 people yet incest is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that contradictory circle. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 09:58AM -0400 > Funny how the bible claims that we're all descended from 2 people yet incest > is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that > contradictory circle. Incest wasn't sin in the beginning. It's only become sin since the time of Moses, when the accumulation of genetic defects from the time of our creation began to impact our DNA. God knew this would happen, so he made a law to not marry close relatives. Why? Marrying close relatives meant the errors you have will be similar to the errors your close relatives have, meaning the DNA would not be via- ble for the offspring. If you marry someone who's not your close rela- tive, then you'll be far less likely to have the same errors, so be- tween the two of you, viable DNA will be passed on to your children. But in the beginning, Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect. It only began to accumulate errors at a certain rate, and it took a couple thousand years to accumulate enough errors to begin affecting things. Going back to Adam and Eve, that original DNA actually contained all of the different variations of people types that we see (the Eskimos, those with blonde hair, blue eyes, green eyes, dark skin, red skin, yellow skin, long legs, short legs, wide faces, narrow faces, etc.). It's similar to how you take a mutt and when it has puppies there's a wide range of dog styles that come out. With Adam and Eve, they would've had children of all different kinds, who would've gone on and done the same, but over time more and more specialized, just as is seen when you breed animals. Here's a video explaining how it works: Begins at 8:52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbODW6XO8zY&t=8m52s It all aligns with science. It all aligns with what we can observe and see and test and examine. And it explains the things we find in the fossil record. The Bible does not hide from science. It explains science in the way which maintains God's presence in our lives, and it points out the flaws and errors in the worldview with evolution, which is un-provable. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 11 02:24PM On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 09:58:18 -0400 >Incest wasn't sin in the beginning. It's only become sin since the time >of Moses, when the accumulation of genetic defects from the time of our >creation began to impact our DNA. God knew this would happen, so he made Odd, I don't remember the bible mentioning DNA coding errors either. But perhaps my school RE lessons weren't up to scratch. >But in the beginning, Adam and Eve's DNA was perfect. It only began to Was it? Presumably they weren't human then because the human body is full of piss poor optimisations that no self respecting divine designer would have put in. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 10:49AM -0400 >> creation began to impact our DNA. God knew this would happen, so he made > Odd, I don't remember the bible mentioning DNA coding errors either. But > perhaps my school RE lessons weren't up to scratch. The Bible teaches also: "Come, let us reason together." Do you expect a 5 year old to understand calculus? That child has to grow, and learn, and when they mature and enter a university math class they can then be introduced to calculus. In our history, there has not been great technology throughout most of our time on this Earth. There was useful technology being introduced, but it's only been in the past several hundred years that we've had more and more knowledge being conveyed and built upon, through books, through a sharing of information. This was prophesied in the book of Daniel simply: Daniel 12:4 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. > Was it? Presumably they weren't human then because the human body is full of > piss poor optimisations that no self respecting divine designer would have > put in. Sin has affected the whole world. Animals used to all eat grass and herbs. Trees and plants didn't have thorns and thistles. The snake used to have legs. Sin resulted in natural changes to the Earth, plus there were things that sin introduced which now enabled things apart from God's plan per His original design. He promises to restore all things to the way they were intended in the millennial reign. ----- You are hostile toward the things of God, boltar. You begin with the assumption you are right, and the things of God are wrong. That attitude keeps you from learning the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 11 03:12PM On Tue, 11 Sep 2018 10:49:04 -0400 >You are hostile toward the things of God, boltar. You begin with >the assumption you are right, and the things of God are wrong. That >attitude keeps you from learning the truth. Scientific truth: Evidence based assumptions tested in the field. Biblcal truth: Some stories written by donkey riding peasents 2000+ years ago and mistranslated ever since. Hmm, I wonder which I should trust more? Tricky.... |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 11:28AM -0400 >> attitude keeps you from learning the truth. > Scientific truth: > Evidence based assumptions tested in the field. Everything the Bible teaches on can be correlated with what we do observe in the fossil record, in the laboratory, or in intelligent reason and conjecture. The parts that require faith are those thing which are the miracles of God ... but even then, through intelligent reason an conjecture, couldn't an all-powerful God do miracles? Of course He could. So even those miracles stand up to our reason. > Some stories written by donkey riding peasents 2000+ years ago and mistranslated > ever since. > Hmm, I wonder which I should trust more? Tricky.... Not everybody will be saved, boltar. This information is given to you so that if you can hear the truth on the inside, then you will come out from the world, repent of your sin, ask forgiveness and be saved. If you cannot hear the truth, then it's given as a wit- ness against you on the day of judgment. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid>: Sep 11 01:17PM -0700 > Funny how the bible claims that we're all descended from 2 people yet incest > is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that > contradictory circle. I always thought there were people in the land of Nod. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 12 08:18AM +1200 On 12/09/18 01:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > variations of people types that we see (the Eskimos, those with blonde > hair, blue eyes, green eyes, dark skin, red skin, yellow skin, long legs, > short legs, wide faces, narrow faces, etc.). And the Neanderthals (who weren't into C++ either) who gave us some of our DNA? Oh wait, they died out before the earth was created. Tough one that. -- Ian. |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 11 04:31PM -0400 On 9/11/2018 4:17 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> is also sin. It remains strangely silent when it comes to squaring that >> contradictory circle. > I always thought there were people in the land of Nod. You should point some of that high-powered intellect you apply toward decryption algorithms toward a one-evening study of the book of Genesis to remove your wrong thinking with facts. There were people in the land of Nod ... AFTER Adam and Eve had them. If you read in Genesis 5, you'll come across where it says when Adam was 130 years old he lay with Eve and she conceived Seth, and "they had other sons and daughters." Adam and Eve began having children shortly after they were banished. They may have had their first child ~9 months after being created, be- cause before sin they would not have disobeyed God. And we know that God gave them a command to be fruitful and multiply. But we also know that Cain was born outside of Eden, indicating Adam and Eve's time in the garden was not long, only a few months at most, and more likely, only a few days or weeks. All of the people came from Adam and Eve, and their children who then began having children, who followed with more children, etc. All of these questions are answered by study. And all of them have half-answers and wrong answers given by the world by people who have not looked intently into the Word of God studying it. All such people who causally glance at the truth, but do not pursue so as to know it and own that pursuit of it, will be left behind because they embraced the lie, and would not seek the truth. You can read Genesis 1-11 in a short stretch. The entire rest of the Bible is based upon an understanding of what happened there: Genesis 1-11 in scripture (and you can read the NIV, ESV, or other version if you prefer more modern English, but go back to the KJV for the truest conveyance of the original language message): https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-11&version=KJV ----- Here's a video giving you a 40,000 foot flyover of the book of Genesis: Genesis 1-11: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQI72THyO5I Genesis 12-50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4isSyennFo That overview does not go into details, and is glosses over a great many important things, but it is a high-level starting point that will pique the curiosity of those seeking the truth. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 11 03:30PM -0700 On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 23:19:09 UTC+3, Ian Collins wrote: > And the Neanderthals (who weren't into C++ either) who gave us some of > our DNA? Oh wait, they died out before the earth was created. Tough > one that. It does not matter. He can hand-wave away all science, whole biology, geology, all physics, astronomy, paleontology and whatever other science. It is totally pointless to discuss. For example geology: Tens of millions of years of swampy forests of huge ferns and scale trees fossilized as peat then another three hundreds of millions of years of geological processes turned it into lignite -> sub-bituminous coal -> bituminous coal -> anthracite. There are more than tens of thousands of tonnes of it per square mile of earth surface and so we have mined it for thousands of years since copper age, burnt thousands of billions of tonnes of it as good fuel with what one can smelt metals or fuel steam engines and there are still way more of it left. But ... his bronze age Arabian shepherd fairy tale says that it somehow formed during single 40 (or was it 150) days long flood together with rest of miles thick fossil-rich sedimentary rocks everywhere. From what? If cover all dry land with thick forest and then turn that all into coal then there are still several orders of magnitude of material missing and we are only talking about single geological layer from Carboniferous. What can be there even to discuss? |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 11 10:26PM > compiler, but to other people maintaining the code. If it is in fact > not acceptable, I'm going to blame your use of assert() for being > misleading, not their use of -DNDEBUG. I think I might have inadvertently stepped into an old debate about assert, and don't want to enter it permanently. Just to clarify my view a bit: I believe that if it matters whether I disable assert(), I have a bug. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 11 10:27PM On Sat, 2018-09-08, Öö Tiib wrote: >> Why? I don't define my own std::printf() just because I never use the >> %g format specifier. > That was rhetorical, tongue in cheek? No; I genuinely didn't understand. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o . |
| jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu: Sep 11 03:27PM -0700 On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 6:35:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: ... > "shall", it does not result in the program being ill-formed. > (I'm not as familiar with the C++ standard as I am with the C one so I > am feeling my way here.) The two standards say this is pretty much the same way: Re: pointer + integer: "If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object, the evaluation shall not produce an overflow; otherwise, the behavior is undefined. If the result points one past the last element of the array object, it shall not be used as the operand of a unary * operator that is evaluated." (C 6.5.6p8). "If both the pointer operand and the result point to elements of the same array object, or one past the last element of the array object, the evaluation shall not produce an overflow; otherwise, the behavior is undefined." (C++ 5.7p4) However, the last sentence of the C 6.5.6p8 doesn't seem to have a corresponding clause in the C++ standard, which surprises me. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 10 08:29PM -0400 > >complicated concept to understand. > For the type of content and the code page (or not) there's the usenet header > field "Content-Type" - the clue is in the name. You don't need mime unless And do you know where the Content-Type: header came from, Einstein? MIME. Thank you for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you. > >> Yes, it is. > >No, it's not. > Ok, define binary data for us in the context of NNTP. It means "you don't know what you're talking about". |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 10 08:37PM -0400 > >another one! > Perhaps you'd like to explain to us why your newsreader is base64 encoding > your pgo sig then? It is not, Einstein. > Oh, whats that, you've never seen it? Here it is: Of course I've seen it. After all, I wrote it. > >Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Oh, whats this? ^^^^ It's called the "Content-Transfer-Encoding" MIME header. HTH. > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >iQIcBAABAgAGBQJblk1hAAoJEGs6Yr4nnb8l9DYQAPYAfnA8Mw+cambFb/J6apOn > >7mwK7QIiOTy6FNTyOb8oKVj0/2jDRuOb5iM+7p49zXr+OgrSIZfExWan0+S9Fz2x And that's called an ascii-armored PGP signature. It may come as a shock to you, but it was not created by my newsreader. You really have a lot to learn, grasshopper. > etc. > Education is very useful. You should try it sometime. You should try doing your homework. And listen, and learn from, your mental superiors. > >I'm pretty sure you are. > You seem to think its an insult. If I had to choose between living in france > or the USA it wouldn't be the latter. Au revoir. |
| boltar@cylonHQ.com: Sep 11 08:43AM On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:29:02 -0400 >And do you know where the Content-Type: header came from, Einstein? >MIME. >Thank you for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you. 24 hours and thats the best you can come up with? Where it came from doesn't matter, the fact is you don't need MIME in a usenet post which brings us back full circle. >> Ok, define binary data for us in the context of NNTP. >It means "you don't know what you're talking about". Is that yankie for "Excuse me while I escape from this corner I've painted myself in to"? >> >iQIcBAABAgAGBQJblk1hAAoJEGs6Yr4nnb8l9DYQAPYAfnA8Mw+cambFb/J6apOn >> >7mwK7QIiOTy6FNTyOb8oKVj0/2jDRuOb5iM+7p49zXr+OgrSIZfExWan0+S9Fz2x >And that's called an ascii-armored PGP signature. It may come as a shock to Woah, "ascii-armoured", thats a big impressive phrase! Armour! Tough and manly! No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) I won't ask if you actually know what it means since clearly you don't and have just learnt it parrot fashion from PGP For Dummies. Also since you can't use google either I'll just point this out to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary-to-text_encoding "These encodings are necessary for transmission of data when the channel does not allow binary data (such as email or NNTP) or is not 8-bit clean. PGP documentation (RFC 4880) uses the term ASCII armor for binary-to-text encoding when referring to Base64." ^^^^^^ Have another 24 hours to think up a good backpedal for this why don't you. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Sep 11 01:44PM >> field "Content-Type" - the clue is in the name. You don't need mime unless >And do you know where the Content-Type: header came from, Einstein? >MIME. Actually, the headers in USENET articles are defined in RFC 1036, not RFC 822. "the USENET News standard is more restrictive than the Internet standard, placing additional requirements on each message and forbidding use of certain Internet features" Given that you're the only person posting MIME it seems you're the outlier. You may also wish to consider that the second "M" in "MIME" stands for MAIL. |
| Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>: Sep 11 03:26PM +0100 >>MIME. > Actually, the headers in USENET articles are defined in RFC 1036, not > RFC 822. RFC 1036 is obsolete. The format is defined in RFC 5536: Appendix B. Differences from RFC 1036 and Its Derivatives o MIME is recognized as an integral part of Netnews. <snip> -- Ben. |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: Sep 11 07:24PM +0200 On 11.09.2018 16:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Appendix B. Differences from RFC 1036 and Its Derivatives > o MIME is recognized as an integral part of Netnews. > <snip> Bah. Microsoft propaganda. Cheers!, - Alf |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 11 06:14PM -0400 > >MIME. > >Thank you for playing. We have some lovely consolation prizes for you. > 24 hours and thats the best you can come up with? Short, precise, and on the point, is the only requirement. No need to be verbose. And I do not have a specific posting schedule. I choose to grace you with my presence whenever I feel like it. Sometimes it's very often, sometimes it's every once in a while. You never know, so it's always a pleasant surprise, and that's how I like it. > Where it came from doesn't matter, Let's ignore facts that are somewhat inconvenient, ok? > the fact is you don't need MIME in a usenet post which brings us back > full circle. You also don't need a "Subject:" header either. Or a valid "From:" header either; none of which are required by NNTP. It seems that whatever point you were trying to make by that: it's so profound, so mind-blowing, and so Earth- shattering, that you are the only person in the world who actually knows what it is. > >It means "you don't know what you're talking about". > Is that yankie for "Excuse me while I escape from this corner I've painted > myself in to"? You misspelled "yankee". I wouldn't normally make a point of it, but you seem to be quite particular and sensitive to spelling and proper grammar, according to your prior scribbling. So it's only fair that you should be held up to the same standards you expect from everyone else. Oh, and it's "Mr. Yankee" do you. > Woah, "ascii-armoured", thats a big impressive phrase! Armour! Tough and > manly! > No pussy encoding for you eh? LOL :) It's not my term. I am just a mere conveyance of accurate and truthful information. Your allergic reaction to factual statements is not something that modern science can cure, so I won't try myself. > encoding > when referring to Base64." > ^^^^^^ Congratulations for mastering the art of copying and pasting. I'm sure you're very proud of your accomplishment, and you're expecting someone to pat you on the head for it. Unfortunately, your hyper-active cranial matter failed to note that the content in question was explicitly identified as carrying a Content-Type: application/pgp-signature MIME type which is defined in RFC 3165 and specified this explicit format. If you don't like how this standard works, I'm afraid there's nothing that I can do about it, and you will need to take your complaints to the IETF, instead of me. Or, perhaps, you're having your nervous breakdown because you believe that I implemented this standard incorrectly. You are more than welcome to cite a specific section, and identify, with specificity, how this particular implementation is non-compliant with that particular standard. I welcome the opportunity to correct an implementation error. But, regretfully, you've yet to demonstrate that not only that you're in possession of a clue at this precise moment in time; but you even know what a clue looks like, how big it is, whether it's alive, or dead, or pining for the fjords; and whether you ever had one, and know how you can tell one apart from a wet fart. Before you can even begin to argue Internet standards with me you have to actually know them, and understand what they are and how they work. That's a skill you've yet to master, young padawan. Copying and pasting the only sentences from Wikipedia that you managed to understand, in part, will not be sufficient. And until such time that one of the standards- setting, acronym organizations come to you, for assistance with relevant matters, you will continue flail, fail, and flame out every time, before your mental superiors. Finally, I regret to inform you that a wikipedia article is not authoritative when it comes to Internet standards. That's obviously something that you know very little, if any, about. Not that any information sourced from Wikipedia is always inaccurate, of course. Many times it's quite accurate but before you can actually use it, as a crutch, you have to understand what it means, and to what exactly it applies. Just because you recognie a few words of it doesn't mean that it actually applies to whatever subject matter you're trying to wrap your brain around. > Have another 24 hours to think up a good backpedal for this why don't you. Have you picked up your consolation prizes, yet? It includes a copy of my original helloworld.cpp, that was written even before the obsolete newsreader that you're using, while you were still in diapers. It comes autographed and with a certificate of authenticity. It's very rare, and valuable. |
| Sam <sam@email-scan.com>: Sep 11 06:15PM -0400 Scott Lurndal writes: > Actually, the headers in USENET articles are defined in RFC 1036, not RFC > 822. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1036 "Obsoleted by: RFC 5536, RFC 5537". You may wish to consider checking into this late-breaking newsflash, that came out in November of 2009. |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 11 04:54PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 11 04:54PM Article d'annulation posté via Nemo. |
| 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