Friday, September 28, 2018

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Andreas <nospam@gmx.de>: Sep 28 03:05PM +0200

Am 27.09.2018 um 15:51 schrieb Stefan Ram:
> and a plain overload for g. (As I would call them, I am not
> sure whether these are correct designations.)
 
> Is there any difference in meaning or effect?
 
There's a "Guru of the Week" article by Herb Sutter from 2001 named
"Why Not Specialize Function Templates?"
http://www.gotw.ca/publications/mill17.htm
 
TLDR?
Okay, here you go: "Specializations don't overload."
Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 27 03:34PM -0700

On 9/27/2018 3:23 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> brought it into being?  Brought Allah into being?  That would
> make Allah a subordinate.
 
> -- Rick C. Hodgin
 
Hello..
 
You have to be smart, the Quran said that Allah is the creator of
everything because Quran has wanted to enforce laws for more order,
because you have to believe that Allah is the creator of everything to
be able to be more "order", so now you are understanding that
the Quran is not the complete truth because it needs to govern humans,
the Quran is also a story that was invented to be able to govern humans,
and the Quran is not only the saying of Allah but it is also
the saying of prophet Mohamed.
 
Read all the rest of my thoughts to understand better my views:
 
Perhaps you are not understanding the nature of Allah or God !
 
Allah is not the creator of humans and is not the creator of the
universe and is not the creator of everything !
 
 
Allah or God is only a spirit and the world of Allah or God
is spirits or souls !
 
So Allah has not wanted to dictate all to prophet Mohamed,
because Allah or God is not the creator of the human that is
prophet Mohamed ! so Allah or God has those limitations so
he has wanted humans to believe in him ! and be guided
by our believing in him ! because he will welcome our souls
after our death ! he has not wanted from us to follow the Quran or to
follow Islam ! read the following to understand why:
 
Again about Allah or God...
 
As i said that Allah or God is not science or technology,
he is not artificial intelligence, his nature has nothing to
do with science and technology, this is why the Quran
was not science and technology ! i think the world of Allah or God
is of a different nature, it is like the souls or the spirits !
and now you are understanding why the prophet Mohamed was "handicaped"
thinking because it was not thinking of science and technology !
because Allah or God is not science and technology !
 
Read again to understand my following thoughts:
 
Who is Allah or God ?
 
You have seen me doing political philosophy here,
and I think i have understood what is Allah or God !
 
I think Allah or God is a Spirit(like a soul), and the world of Allah or
God is a world of spirits(like souls) ! this is the limitation !
because Allah or God can not act on the physical world ! he only
can act on the spiritual world(or the souls !), this is why Allah or God
can not do anything for you over this earth ! but Allah or God will
welcome your soul after your death ! so this is why you have to
transcend your living conditions by for example doing science and
technology and this is why i am doing more serious computer programming
and this is why i am doing political philosophy here.
 
 
This is why i said the following:
 
I am an Islam that is different..
 
And I don't believe in the Islam of ISIS or Al Qaida..
 
I am an Islam that is more "sophisticated", this is why
i am doing political philosophy here..
 
I give you an example:
 
When in Islam the Quran says that we have to cut off the hand of the
thief by refusing compassion on him even if he is poor and has stolen he
stole a "small" amount of money, this is not "logical", because God can
not say this stupidity, so from here you can understand that the Quran
is a mixture of God writing and of the human prophet writing, so
from here we can say that God has also let the prophet Mohamed
that is human to write rules in the Quran to also govern with the
prophet Mohamed rules that contain human defectuosities such as the rule
of of cutting the hand of a thief, this why the Quran is
not only from God but it is also from human that we call prophet
Mohamed, so Islam of today is not Islam that is
logical for our today world ! so i think that in Islam we have to retain
the very important of Islam that is we have to believe in Allah
and be guided by this our believing in Allah, not by the Quran or
by Islam.
 
 
In christianity also there is logical contradictions such
as you can do more and more sins but if you come in the end to
Jesus christ and you repent and you believe in him , you will be saved !
this is not logical either.
 
So i think that in Islam we have to retain the very important of Islam
that is we have to believe in Allah and be guided by our believing in
Allah, not by the Quran and not by Islam, so we have not to believe in
the Bible or the Quran or Christianity or Islam.
 
 
And read the following:
 
You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read
especially the outer body experience of the 57-year old man below):
 
"A University of Southampton study has revealed that people could still
experience consciousness for up to three minutes after the heart stops
beating.
 
The study interviewed 2,060 patients from Austria, USA and the UK who
have all suffered a cardiac arrest.
 
The Express reports that 40% could recall some form of awareness after
being pronounced clinically dead.
 
One 57-year old man seemed to confirm an outer body experience by
recalling everything that was going on around him with eerie accuracy
while he was technically dead."
 
 
Read more here:
 
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/516195/university-southampton-study-science-life-death-hell-heaven
 
 
And read the following:
 
Does God exists ?
 
You will say that God doesn't exist, but read the following(read
especially about the following study where two per cent exhibited full
awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events – or
out-of-body )
 
 
Read more here:
 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largest-ever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-near-death-experiences-9780195.html
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 27 06:40PM -0400

On 9/27/2018 6:34 PM, Horizon68 wrote:
> Hello..
> You have to be smart,
 
You have to be smart. Okay. Got it.
 
> everything because Quran has wanted to enforce laws for more order, because
> you have to believe that Allah is the creator of everything to be able to be
> more "order", so now you are understanding that
 
Allah deceived us into believing he created everything,
when in fact he did not, to muster us into obedient
slaves so we'd obey the law. Okay. Got it.
 
> the Quran is not the complete truth
 
I would not trust a God who did not reveal the truth to
us, but deceived us.
 
There is one deceiver, Amine. Satan. If you seek the
truth about Islam, you will learn the truth about it,
and in seeking the truth you will also find Jesus Christ,
who is literal truth:
 
https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/index.aspx
 
Myths. Falsehoods. The truth about Islam.
 
> the Quran is also a story that was invented to be able to govern humans, and
> the Quran is not only the saying of Allah but it is also
> the saying of prophet Mohamed.
 
You didn't answer my question: Who created Allah? Who
created the universe your lying Allah so casually claims
he did, when a smart person would realize he did not?
 
Are you starting to see through the falseness of Islam's
web of lies yet?
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 27 11:59PM +0100

On 27/09/2018 23:23, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Allah is literally Satan, Amine, a liar and an imitator only.  He is not a
> creator, nor is he /THE/ creator.
 
"Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" you fucktard. Muslims worship
the same fucking God that you Christians cretinously follow and it still
doesn't exist, fucktard.
 
/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>: Sep 28 03:57AM -0700

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:59:33 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
 
> "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" you .. . Muslims worship
> the same .. God that you Christians cretinously follow and it still
> doesn't exist, .. .
 
Allah is the generic name for "god," but it's also the proper name for
the god of Islam.
 
If you knew more about Islam and Christianity, you would realize that
the god of Islsm and the God of Israel, are unrelated. It reveals itself.
 
Have you ever heard of gifted students with so much potential, but they don't
apply themselves to study so they wash out?
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
rob <robdnewsgroups@gmail.com>: Sep 28 11:50AM +0100

I have about 30 lines of code which I need to test. However, just
leaving the code in situ is not easy as getting the previous code to
meet all the possible initial conditions would increase the SNR
enormously. Is there any way I should make myself aware of to do this
other than to turn the code into a function and wrap a test harness
around it.
I'm testing in visual studio but ultimately need to port the whole thing
as a class into arduino. The whole thing will ultimately be processing
GPS signals so i'd like to keep one eye on performance issues as I go.
cheers
Rob
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 28 10:57PM +1200

On 28/09/18 22:50, rob wrote:
> enormously. Is there any way I should make myself aware of to do this
> other than to turn the code into a function and wrap a test harness
> around it.
 
Breaking code down into smaller, testable parts is always a good idea.
There are plenty of mature unit test frameworks such is googletest to
help you on your way.
 
--
Ian.
Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid>: Sep 28 09:48AM +0200

Am Wed, 19 Sep 2018 06:13:40 -0700
> types/.
 
> (The /'s indicate italics in the original, signifying a
> definition of the italicized term.)
 
Thanks for pointing that out. It somehow proves my point. There are
character types whose primary task is to serve the purpose of character
and string handling. So operator overloads to facilitate formatted in-
and output are very desirable. However, why can't [u]int8_t be separate
types and not typedef'ed to [un]signed char thereby »inheriting« those
operator overloads? What is gained by these typedef? If there is no 8
bit char type on a certain platform then there is also no [u]int8_t as
David pointed out. I can't think of any task done with [u]int8_t that
can't also be done as easily without it.
 
The situation is different for wide characters. The standard says:
»Types char16_t and char32_t denote distinct types with the same size,
signedness, and alignment as uint_least16_t and uint_least32_t,
respectively, in <cstdint>, called the underlying types.« And yet
std::is_same<uint_least32_t,char32_t>::value is false. I know this is
the other way around char32_t being »defined« in terms of
uint_least32_t. But at least here is a clear distinction between a
character type and a corresponding integer type. Why is that not the
case for 8 bit char?
Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 28 10:33AM +0200

On 2018-09-28 09:48, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> uint_least32_t. But at least here is a clear distinction between a
> character type and a corresponding integer type. Why is that not the
> case for 8 bit char?
 
The 8-bit integer types were designed by the C committee. As C doesn't
have operator overloading there was no problem with using typedefs.
 
C++ just followed the C lead here, for compatibility reasons.
 
char16_t and char32_t are newer types, and could therefore be done properly.
 
 
 
Bo Persson
Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: Sep 28 12:45PM +0300

On 28.09.2018 11:33, Bo Persson wrote:
 
> C++ just followed the C lead here, for compatibility reasons.
 
> char16_t and char32_t are newer types, and could therefore be done
> properly.
 
So this means we are lacking the char8_t type. Oh, other people have
discovered this as well:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0482r1.html
 
Alas, this wouldn't fix the ostream << uint8_t problem.
Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid>: Sep 28 11:46AM +0200

Am Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:33:27 +0200
 
> The 8-bit integer types were designed by the C committee. As C doesn't
> have operator overloading there was no problem with using typedefs.
 
> C++ just followed the C lead here, for compatibility reasons.
 
Fair enough. But the question above remains also in C.
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Sep 28 03:16AM -0700

On Friday, 28 September 2018 10:48:58 UTC+3, Ralf Goertz wrote:
> bit char type on a certain platform then there is also no [u]int8_t as
> David pointed out. I can't think of any task done with [u]int8_t that
> can't also be done as easily without it.
 
Manipulating individual bytes in a row is most portable form
of data processing and so C had whopping three distinct types
of bytes. Note that the difference between bytes, narrow character
types and tiniest integers is dim to nonexistent in C. C++ did not
want to be booed down for dropping compatibility with most portable
form of data processing and so followed it.
 
> uint_least32_t. But at least here is a clear distinction between a
> character type and a corresponding integer type. Why is that not the
> case for 8 bit char?
 
But from C++17 we *have* also byte in C++, std::byte. That is not
typedef of some other integral type and also does not promote or
convert into those out of blue because it is required to be enum class:

enum class byte : unsigned char {};
 
That is somewhat safer for representing raw memory. It has number of
bitwise operators defined for it instead of promoting into int silently
like those chars do. Also it has to be explicitly converted to int
with static_cast or with to_integer<int>(b) when that is needed.
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 28 05:36AM

On Thu, 2018-09-27, David Brown wrote:
> got data in a database, use LibreOffice (or, if you are richer and
> slightly masochistic, MS Access) to read from the database and generate
> the reports you want.
 
It's also not clear what real-world problem he wants to solve. The
"excel or word" part puzzles me, since they are very different tools
for very different needs.
 
For tasks where you want to present data and Excel and Word are both
candidates -- then things like HTML, SVG, PDF, TeX, troff and so on
are candidates, too.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>: Sep 28 11:06AM +0200

> Hello members am Ricky I would like to get advice how to make a report using excel or word I.e output from my file in c.
 
With reasonable effort?
 
Simply write an HTML. If you choose a filename extension like .xls it
would open with Excel. Most of your CSS style will survive this. If this
is not sufficient you can use the "mso-..." CSS styles, e.g. to prevent
Excel from destroying large numbers like GTIN codes.
 
 
Marcel
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 27 08:59PM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:31AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:31AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:32AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:32AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:32AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Elephant Man <conanospamic@gmail.com>: Sep 28 08:33AM

Article d'annulation émis par un modérateur JNTP via Nemo.
Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 27 04:26PM -0700

Hello,
 
Read this:
 
 
Here is my conclusion about Allah or God !
 
Since saying of Allah or God in the Bible and the Quran is "inferiority"
and "contradictions" , so this makes us not believe in Allah or God and
this makes not necessary by logical law to believe in Allah or God,
that's the right way.
 
 
This is the right philosophy !
 
 
 
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 27 10:21PM -0400

On 9/27/2018 7:26 PM, Horizon68 wrote:
> makes not necessary by logical law to believe in Allah or God, that's the
> right way.
 
> This is the right philosophy !
 
 
You've learned the truth about Allah, but truth still exists
and it emanates from somewhere... If you read the Bible and
seek the truth in so doing you'll find that truth has a name,
and that His name is Jesus.
 
Not everything is deception and lies, Amine. Study Jesus.
Learn about His life, death, Life. You'll learn the truth.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>: Sep 28 12:51AM

Öö Tiib wrote:
>> Hello....
 
> Hey, stop that not topical spamming, Amine. If you need then post
> your ideas to philosophy groups like alt.atheism and such.
 
You misspelt /dev/null .
 
 
--
|_|O|_| Registered Linux user #585947
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
Horizon68 <horizon@horizon.com>: Sep 27 04:59PM -0700

Hello..
 
Read this:
 
 
The way of logic..
 
I said the following:
 
"Here is my conclusion about Allah or God !
 
Since saying of Allah or God in the Bible and the Quran is "inferiority"
and "contradictions" , so this makes us not believe in Allah or God and
this makes not necessary by logical law to believe in Allah or God,
that's the right way.
This is the right philosophy !"
 
Now as you have noticed i am not believing in Allah or God because
of the above , and because i want to avoid inferiority of the Bible and
the Quran, so what do we have to do?
 
I think we have also to be guided by logic, and as you have noticed that
mathematical logic logically says that the "implication" of logic is not
causality, so this is important because from this we can construct some
important rule of logic that is the following:
 
And A -> B(that means: A implies B) is equivalent to not(A) or B
 
And A, B are logical variables
 
This is a very important rule who makes us doing more efficient
proofs in logic.
 
for example by the above rule of logic we can "infer" the following:
 
that A -> B is equivalent to not(B) -> not(A)
 
and also that not(A) -> 0 is equivalent to A and this proves A.
 
And A, B are logical variables
 
 
This is how science of mathematical logic has evolved.
 
 
Also I have proved that morality is perfection at best.
 
But this perfection at best must know the following:
 
What is the essence of a human society ?
 
We can not call a human society a society if it is not "order" , order
is fondamental to a society, but there is not only order but also the
sens of "sacrifice", and there is hard sacrifice and soft sacrifice,
if we want today to be a "civilization", we have not to generalize
"hard" sacrifice, like being a warrior type of people, like soldiers of
an army, to the general population and tell them to be this hard
sacrifice, because this violence of warriors like the military and the
police has to be kept in control inside the sphere of the military and
the police so that to not cause violence in the rest of the society,
this is the same for the hard sacrifice of other part of the population
like scientists and engineers, because they are doing a "hard" work and
we can call it "hard" sacrifice, so to be able to call a civilization by
the name of a civilization , we have not to generalize this "hard"
sacrifice to the rest of the population and tell all the population to
be hard sacrifice, because it is too much violence, and the rest of the
population that is not hard sacrifice has to understand that there is
also what we call "soft" sacrifice that is much less violence such as
being tolerance and being compassion and helping the others without
being a hard sacrifice.
 
Now i think there is something really important about the essence of
humanity, i think that it is "related" to morality, i said that morality
is perfection at best, and the goal to attain is the goal of life that
is to attain absolute perfection or absolute happiness, so morality that
is perfection at best is pushed towards absolute perfection or absolute
happiness, but we have to do more philosophy to understand better the
essence of human evolution, i think that morality of past history has
needed more "diversity" to be able for humans to survive and to be more
quality, and diversity has given "immensity" or big "quantity", and you
can notice it inside the evolution of life, that life has needed a
greater number of monkeys and many tests and failures by evolution on
them to evolve towards quality and smartness and so that the monkey
become human and smartness of human. So as you are noticing "diversity"
has given "immensity" or "big" "quantity" and that both diversity and
immensity or big quantity have given quality and smartness(read below
about the essence of smartness to notice it). This is too how "morality"
has evolved, morality has needed diversity and immensity or big quantity
so that to be more perfection, this is why morality too of today is
needing diversity and immensity or big quantity so that to be
perfection, and morality of today knows that perfection of today is also
having the right "imperfections" (that are also diversity) to be
able to be the right perfection(read what i wrote about neo-nazism below
to notice it).
 
What is the essence of truth ?
 
This is a good subject of political philosophy !
 
How do we measure the truth ?
 
The truth is measured by our our senses and by our smartness and by
rationalism and by empiricism !
 
So i think we can feel the relativeness of truth, i mean that the truth
is measured by a reference of measure , but there can be many references
of measure that gives different results of truth ! and thus we have to
"prioritize" to be able to succeed ! i give you an example:
when i said (read below) that decent morality has to be measured by the
reference of measure that is perfection at best so that the government
enforce more correctly "order", this government needs to prioritize
wich of the reference of measures of the truth are more "valid" !
so there is the reference of measure that is happiness or absolute
happiness , but since law enforcement of "order" that is of a "highest"
priority, so the "truth" of: is it decent morality or not ? must be
measured by the reference of measure that is perfection at best in
itself so that to say that it is decent morality or not ! so here again
you are noticing the relativeness of the truth since the reference of
measure is choosen among many and is prioritized !
 
Read my following previous thoughts about the essence of smartness and
the essence of morality, about the essence of smartness and the essence
of morality so that you understand better:
 
 
What is the essence of human smartness ?
 
This is a good subject of political philosophy..
 
So we have to be smarter to answer it correctly..
 
Individual human smartness is composed of genetical
smartness and cultural smartness..
 
But if you keep talking about individual smartness neglecting
the smartness of a group of humans, this is not correct.
 
But what is the smartness of a group of humans ?
 
It is composed of individual smartness , and the smartness
of the interaction of the group of humans, but this is not
a sufficient definition because it must be more understood,
because the smartness of the interaction of a group of people
is also the fact that we have to know that you can fail to solve the
problem because you have not found the right "path" that is more hidden
to smartness that leads to the solution of the problem, and this makes
us understand that the smartest among us can fail at solving a problem
or inventing algorithms if he didn't find the correct path that is more
"hidden" to smartness that leads to the solution of the problem , and
this is why we can say that a great number of people that are smart and
less smart can permit us to find the path that is more hidden to
smartness that leads to the solution of the problem, so this makes us
understand that the smartness of a "group" of humans is also dependent
on less smart people that can find the right path that is hidden to
smartness that leads to the solution of the problem. This is why our
world needs arabs and needs white europeans and needs asians and needs
south americans etc. to be able to solve problems and to be able to
invent new things.
 
 
More about me:
 
As you have noticed i am a white arab, and a more serious computer
programmer, but you have to know more about me, my father is very
smart, the genetical IQ of my father is 135, and my
genetical IQ is around 120, but i have lost some IQ points because
my nutrition was not so good because i was disliking many vegetables
and my nutrition was not balanced so i have lost some IQ points
because of this envirenmental factor, but my genetical IQ is around 120.
 
 
And i invite you to read the following webpage:
 
Raise Your Child's IQ with Multivitamins
 
http://tipsdiscover.com/health/raise-your-childs-iq-with-multivitamins/
 
 
 
And here is my proof of what is morality:
 
 
About the essence of morality
 
More political philosophy now..
 
If you have noticed on my writing i said that:
 
1- Morality is reliability
 
And i said that:
 
2- Morality is reliability at best
 
And i said that:
 
3- Morality is perfection at best.
 
But you will have the tendency to say that my above definitions
are not correct thinking, but here is my logical proof of my above
definitions:
 
When i said that:
 
1- Morality is reliability
 
 
Look at the dictionary here:
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliability
 
It says that:
 
Reliability is: The quality or state of being reliable.
 
So when i say that: Morality is reliability that means that it can
be Morality is the quality of being reliability, so it is like a
"concept" of reliability, that means that it can vary from 0% to 100%,
and we know that since morality is perfection at best from my following
logical proof:
 
Because morality exists because we have to avoid the bad
And we have to avoid the bad by also trying to maximize at best the good
And trying to maximize at best the good is also called: perfection at best
So morality is pushed towards absolute perfection
So that to be able to solve all our problems
And be absolute happiness that is the goal
But morality of today must at least be a decent morality
To avoid desorder and violence inside the system
 
And we know that it is inherent to maximizing at best the good that
it is also minimizing at best "failures", so i think my above logical
proof is correct.
 
So when i say above that: Reliability is the quality of being reliable,
it means that the quality of being reliable is also measured by
measuring prefection at best, because being reliability is also
solving the problem to be able to be perfection at best.
 
Also when i say Morality is reliability, it means that it is not only
that reliability is the quality of being reliable, but it is
also a state of being reliable, because as i said in my above logical proof:
 
"But morality of today must at least be a decent morality
To avoid desorder and violence inside the system"
 
That means that reliability that is the quality of being reliable must
be at least decent morality, because without being at least decent
morality we can not call it morality, because there is like a constrain
over morality that must be at least decent morality to be able to call
it morality.
 
So here again we have to be smart, how can we "measure" to be able
to call it decent morality ? here again we have to be smart, there
is "absolute" measure and "relative" measure, so you can measure
morality by absolute measure that is "absolute perfection" that
is like absolute happiness, or you can measure morality relatively
by "happiness", or you can measure morality relatively by
the actual perfection at best in itself ! and i think that we have
to measure morality by the actual perfection at best and say
for example that this actual perfection at best is "order" that enforce
calling morality a decent morality , so the actual perfection at best
can call morality a decent morality to enforce "order" that is "necessary".
 
Also i think that the tendency of today is that Perfection at best of
today is balancing perfection with "civilization" so that to not being
savagery or desorder.
 
Now i also said also that:
 
 
And i said that:
 
2- Morality is reliability at best
 
And i said that:
 
 
3- Morality is perfection at best.
 
 
 
And that can be understood by my above proof and my above writing.
 
 
More political philosophy now..
 
I will speak about an important subject in political philosophy:
 
As you have noticed beauty and love has been created by wildness of
nature, and after that in the past since perfection was not enough to
ensure a decent morality , that is a decent perfection, humans have
behaved more violently with wars and by practicing slavery etc, so in
that past people were suffering more desorder and violence etc, so i
think we have to be wiser by looking at our actual morality that is
perfection at best,and to be able to judge it more "wisely", so do we
have to be pessimistic of our morality ? i don't think so, because there
is a also a big constrain that morality has to be at least a decent
morality that is a decent perfection to avoid desorder and violence
inside the system, but here comes an important question: How to judge
that it is a decent morality ? here again there is also interpretation
of neo-nazism that is too violent that don't know how to tune
perfection correctly, because neo-nazism is racism and it is extremism
of "perfection" this is why they are discriminating too much, and this
is not perfection at best that is morality, because perfection(and thus
morality) is also knowing how to maximize at best success by minimizing
at best failures, here again to be successful at minimizing the failures
you have to "prioritize", this is why neo-nazism must know how
to accept the right "imperfections" to be able to be "correct"
perfection, this is why countries such as Canada and other european
countries are accepting arab immigrants even if some arab immigrants
are less beautiful than white europeans, because beautifulness is
interpreted as being less important than the fact that arab
immigrants are useful for economic growth and for the the social system
etc. and this is morality that prioritize to be able to be successful,
this is why neo-nazism that is too violent towards immigrants is not
correct morality that knows how to manage itself, so i don't
agree with neo-nazism and such idelogies that contain many bugs.
 
 
 
 
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.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)