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

comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• std::hexfloat - 5 Updates
• [Jesus Loves You] How'd we become so depraved? - 16 Updates
• Undefined Behaviour - 2 Updates
• C and C++ Training in Chennai - 1 Update
• offsetof - 1 Update

std::hexfloat

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 29 09:04PM -0700 > Ah, thank you so much. I hope this did not take too long. I > thought it would be the result of a number of passages but it > never occurred me to to look at lifetime.   Let me describe my method briefly in case it might be helpful to other searchers. I had no particular idea where to look. I did though have the phrase "active member", and I searched for that phrase in the document (using a PDF viewer, not a web browser). That search turned up several interesting hits but not enough to make the case. I expanded the search to look just for "active", which turned up (among other things) the definition. Both the search for "active member" and the definition of when a member is "active" mentioned "lifetime", so that prompted a third search looking at all the uses of "lifetime". (As I recall there were about 50.) I identified what looked like key sections, read individual paragraphs more carefully, and also followed cross- reference links when they looked like they might lead somewhere useful. A thread began to emerge, but it was rather twisty. When I sat down to write the posting, I pretty much had all the citations I needed, but they needed to be assembled in a coherent order. I don't remember how I did that. :) But it helped to gather all the citations and put them in an editing buffer, and use cut/paste to move blocks of text around, and occasionally write a little bit of "glue" prose to stitch different pieces together. In a sense the process was pretty easy, because all the indicators pointed in the same direction, but it did take longer than I would have hoped. Oh well, next time maybe it will be someone else. :)

Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk>: May 30 11:24AM +0100 On Wed, 29 May 2019 20:51:32 +0100 > > the C++ standard I didn't find anything.   > Would it still be UB if p was a std::byte*? You would probably hate my > casting adventures.   I do not believe it is undefined behaviour in the case of trivial types (which includes float) for reasons I have given separately. Aside from that, aliasing through a pointer to char, unsigned char or std::byte is specifically allowed by the C++ standard, as an exception to the strict aliasing rules.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 07:01AM -0700 > not /hard/ to grasp. If you think of memory as a store for /typed/ > objects, plus the extra accomodations for char* and unions, you have > the rough picture.   It isn't hard to get a rough understanding - that much I agree on. But getting a complete understanding is more difficult, especially since the rules in C are not exactly the same as the rules in C++. And it's a LOT more difficult to figure out what the rules are by reading the respective Standard documents. The recent exchanges concerning the behavior of unions illustrates this issue.   In short, I mostly agree, but the whole story is a bit more complicated.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 07:07AM -0700 > am happy to believe that the intended behaviour for unions has not > changed between C90 and C99, and it is merely the wording that has > been made clearer.   IME what is covered, or not covered, in the Rationale document is a pretty reliable indicator for what has changed (or not) between different versions of C. But I am offering it here only as evidence on one side of the scale, and there is other evidence (some of which I mentioned). When all the evidence falls on one side of the scale that makes a pretty strong argument for the conclusion.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 07:18AM -0700 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:   [...]   > have been a bit vague on the details of volatile - in particular, > they discuss "access to volatile objects". With C17, this changes > to "volatile accesses" [...]   A distinction without a difference. It has always been true that using a volatile-qualifed type implies a volatile access, because of a statement in the "Other operands" section under Conversions: "When an object is said to have a particular type, the type is specified by the lvalue used to designate the object." Perhaps this change was made to clarify what meaning was intended, but the semantics is the same as it has been back to and including the original ANSI standard.

Back to top

[Jesus Loves You] How'd we become so depraved?

fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: May 29 04:35PM -0700 W dniu czwartek, 30 maja 2019 01:17:30 UTC+2 użytkownik Mr Flibble napisał:   > > (im new in this place haunted by idiots so im not yet sure who is who here - but hionestly it feels like in special school for iq40 idiots... really disgusting place   > Hi fir,   > Try not to be a fucktard like Rick pls.   i maybe said, i dont know you fella - so im not sure if youre medical idiot or not (in rick case he is totaslly certified medical moron)   but watching you aside as you are repeating that brainless trash over and over it doesnt look good... instead of letting imbecile idiot dick live in his own space of heavy idiot alone you go into it and yet intensify it, dragi it out here to live   this is trolling and i strongly suggest anding that sick and maniacal work maybe.. one hevy moron here is far too much, isnt it?

Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 29 07:05PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 4:08:49 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:   > > No, Rick isn't stupid   > lol if you think that your intelligence is about iq 50   Does that mean my intelligence is iq 50? Then it must be iq 50 :-( Because I don't believe that he is stupid. Or tells lies.   Be well, Daniel

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): May 30 02:32AM In article <1c900ef3-c207-4cd7-a53a-9501c36eb68c@googlegroups.com>,   >> lol if you think that your intelligence is about iq 50   >Does that mean my intelligence is iq 50? Then it must be iq 50 :-( Because I >don't believe that he is stupid. Or tells lies.   He obviously lies. That's beyond any discussion.   And:   Stupid is as stupid does (Forrest Gump)   (A criterion Rick certainly meets)   -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/Pedantic

Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: May 29 08:26PM -0700 On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 10:32:27 PM UTC-4, Kenny McCormack wrote:   > He obviously lies. That's beyond any discussion.   Not so. Lies have to have intentionality. As far as I can tell, Rick genuinely believes in a literal interpretation of the biblical texts, a young earth, and dinosaurs romping around with man, so not lies. But wrong.   > And:   > Stupid is as stupid does (Forrest Gump)   I don't see it. Beliefs can be strange riders, coloring the mind. People who are not stupid can believe very strange things.   Daniel

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): May 30 05:48AM In article <241ba98a-cfcb-44c6-b1fd-b8e7c925fb91@googlegroups.com>, Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> wrote a bunch of BS, ending with: ... >I don't see it. Beliefs can be strange riders, coloring the mind. >People who are not stupid can believe very strange things.   I'm sure the big turd appreciates your advocacy on his behalf.   Everyone is entitled to (at least) one friend/defender.   -- Just like Donald Trump today, Jesus Christ had a Messiah complex.   And, in fact, the similarities between the two figures are quite striking. For example, both have a ragtag band of followers, whose faith cannot be shaken.

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>: May 30 12:45AM -0700 On 5/28/2019 6:13 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: [...]   Satan sounds a lot like Jeearr:   https://www.thezorklibrary.com/history/jeearr.html (read all...)   Wow. The accuser, the one that suggested doing something wrong, then attacks anything that actually does it... The backstabber.

"Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com>: May 30 12:52AM -0700 On 5/30/2019 12:45 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > (read all...)   > Wow. The accuser, the one that suggested doing something wrong, then > attacks anything that actually does it... The backstabber.   Something like: ____________________ The first indications of Jeearr's return can be found in the diary of the mage Belboz. He wrote in his notebook that the ancient demon's powers could endanger the Circle and possibly the entire kingdom. Without consulting any others, Belboz decided to conduct some dangerous experiments, operating alone to shield the Circle from the perils involved. In attempting to entrap this demon, these experiments left Belboz open to his power. He became possessed by the Jeearr's spirit, causing Belboz to grow troubled, preoccupied, and withdrawn. This monstrous creature used Belboz's body as a host, intertwining himself throughout Belboz's mind. It was in this pathetic condition that Belboz was forced by Jeearr to leave the Council Hall in Accardi and travel to Egreth, where he would become the physical embodiment of the demon as he furthered his plans. ____________________

fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com>: May 30 01:37AM -0700 W dniu czwartek, 30 maja 2019 05:26:15 UTC+2 użytkownik Daniel napisał:   > > Stupid is as stupid does (Forrest Gump)   > I don't see it. Beliefs can be strange riders, coloring the mind. People > who are not stupid can believe very strange things.   the most reason he is imbecile is that he dont understand things that all 99% of people understoods.. most importants are some things about rational thinking   this moron simply rejects that as a specially trained monkey (specially trained to avoin fundaments of reason)   he turned this in outcome of disgusting stupidity he flows on abybody liek stream of shit   i dont want to go if his lies must be fully intentionall or it is rather some kind of gray zone driven by idiot who may develop this stupidity just for that it would help him to spread lies   all in all his lies lead to great and disgusting results tat mark only heaviliy animalistic moron, like lied to absurds, when he states he is polite when he is extremally disgusting.. or he would pretend he is 'modest' when he is extremally arrogant moron and all that swamp of lies and absurd that surround this idiot   he wouldnt be so bad if not constant stream of trolls who feed him - in effect his stupidity "eclipses" more intelligent programming topics (and realated aura of inteligence, which eventually could appear or reappear) and this is real harm...thats why various trrolls should really limit themselves and if want talk with this idiot simply go to dedicated group for imbeciles and talk to this idiot ad will but not 'eclipse' programming topics here and destroy unique groups that had no substitute)

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 04:42AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 3:45:21 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > (read all...)   > Wow. The accuser, the one that suggested doing something wrong, then > attacks anything that actually does it... The backstabber.   What did Jesus say about him?   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=NIV;KJV   [Jesus, speaking to the highly religious Jews who could not recognize Him or hear His words -- read the whole chapter]   44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is NO TRUTH IN HIM. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for HE IS A LIAR, and THE FATHER OF it [lies].   People make hats about this:   https://www.ebay.com/itm/FAITH-FACTORY-Baseball-Cap-RED-Satan-is-a-Big-Fat-Liar-Embroidered-One-Size-/232756573816   I have one from a few years ago that reads simply, "Satan is a liar."   ----- Note that there are only three times recorded in all the Bible where we actually hear the voice of Satan recorded. One in Genesis, one in Job, and one when Satan is temping Jesus in the wilderness during his 40 day fast. What does Satan say?   1) Genesis paraphrased: "Eve, God's not being good enough to you. He's withholding His blessing by keeping the fruit from this tree from you." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A1-5&version=KJV;NIV   2) Job paraphrased: "God, you're being too good to them. They love you because you bless them. Take away their blessing and they will curse you to your face." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A8-12%2C+Job+2%3A1-6&version=KJV;NIV   3) Temptation of Jesus paraphrased: "All of this world has been given to me. Bow down and worship me and I will give it to you. I will be better to you than God." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A7-9%2C+Luke+4%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV   Even more summarized:   1) God's not good enough to you. 2) God, you're too good to them. 3) I'll be better to you than God.   Satan is underhanded. He strikes where we are weakest and he goes to the hilt. In the book of Job passages above God gives him per- mission to do harm to Job's family and what does Satan do?   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A13-19&version=KJV;NIV   [In summary] Satan, in one hour, brought all this to bear against Job: 1) Verse 14, all donkeys and oxen stolen 2) Verse 15, servants tending them were killed by the sword 3) Verse 16, servants tending sheep and the sheep, were struck and burned up and killed by a type of lightning 4) Verse 17, all camels were stolen, and killed those tend- ing to the camels 5) Verse 18-19, all of his sons and daughters (10 in all) were killed by a type of tornado attacking the house where they were having an annual celebration (something like a birthday party).   When God gives Job license in Job 2 to do harm to Job's health:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A7-9&version=KJV;NIV   [In summary] Satan afflicts Job with painful sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head, leaving only his wife alive at his side who, having seen all of this tragedy, cries out against him saying, "Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!"   Think of the love man has for his wife, and how Satan even used that love against Job. Satan had killed all of his sons and his daughters, taken every piece of property he had, burned up or killed all his servants (and think about organizing that attack against Job, with one bit of permission given Satan by God, he went out and influenced entire neighboring communities to rise up against Job and steal everything he has in a single hour on a single day, that's tremendous coordination and authority to refine his goals of attacking job to such a fine timescale), but Satan left his wife alive. Why? Satan knew of man's weakness with regards to his wife.   Remember Eve? Did Satan come to Adam and try to deceive him about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? No. He couldn't. Adam knew God, saw Him create the animals, was there and saw God's full authority and power in play. Satan could not have deceived Adam, so he went to Eve testing his only possible recourse to see if Adam, who loved his wife, would be moved by her to then sin for her, rather than by prompting of another he doesn't love.   There's a verse in Genesis where Moses at one point was willing to die with all of the people God rescued out of Egypt. God had be- come angry with the people for their railing against Him for not immediately bringing them into a seemingly safe land, thinking in their heart God was going to lead them to the wilderness to die, not realizing God had plans and power and authority to sustain them with or without natural resources in the land.   God says to Moses, "Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation." Now we know from later scripture that God had a plan all along for the salvation of mankind, and that there were certain things which had to come to pass. So, why would God say such a thing? It wasn't because it was His true heart's in- tent, but to teach us something. How does Moses respond?   Moses said, "But now, please forgive their sin -- but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."   Here we see Moses willing to die along with his people rather than suffer under an unjust God.   Supporting verses:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32%3A7-14%2C31-32&version=NIV;KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+14%3A11-20&version=NIV;KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+9%3A12-14&version=NIV;KJV   I think this is what Adam did for Eve. Adam would not sin, but saw that Eve had sinned. The Bible records Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then gave some to her hus- band and he did eat:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV   6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.   There's a conveyance there in verses 6-7 of some time. It is not a linear story taking place in one second after another. I believe Adam considered what Eve had done. Adam truly loved his wife and, like Moses, was willing to share her fate and go through what she would not go through with her rather than being alone again, and being apart from her.   Now that's not conveyed directly in the Bible, but when you consider what Moses was willing to do, and that God is not flippant and does not do anything without reason, and then you must realize that what God was doing there with Moses in threatening to start over was a test, a trial, to prove Moses was loyal to his people, and more im- portantly, to the truth and justice of rightness and reputation, then here with Adam we see a similar response.   Remember also that Adam was made fully formed. He didn't have for- mative years. He was raised up in his adult state, beautiful, ful- ly endowed with knowledge and understanding, wisdom and ability, all straight from God's perfect design. Adam's love for his wife would not be like a tainted love, but rather the purest love that a man has ever had for his wife.   We've seen in later centuries what some men will do for their wives, and we can convey that ability to an even more focused form in Adam, that he would've done much more or his wife than most of us would for our own wives because he was of a pure heart at that time before sin, knowing only good and love and peace and joy, and he ached with her as she fell into sin, and his love for her rose up and he made a conscious choice, as did Moses, that he would suffer the same fate as she would, because of his principles, his morals and ethics, and his love.   I've heard that preached before, but I don't know for sure if it is the truth. It follows reason and an understanding of Moses, Adam, and God as given from a wide thinking on the Bible, but it still may be otherwise ... so don't put your faith and trust in it, but do consider it, that God at one point proved Moses to show his heart before all of mankind (as His actions, and the actions of Moses, are recorded in scripture for all of us to read). And given the true and perfect nature of Adam's creation by God, we can only conclude that Adam would not have done incorrect things, but was so moved by his wife that he made a choice.   There's also an argument to be made from Genesis 2:24:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NIV;KJV   24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.   in that verse that says (and they become one flesh) could mean that the fallen nature of Eve in that instant, was translated into Adam also, so that he was weakened due to her sin, and therefore followed Eve into sin.   That possibility exists at least as strongly as the one where he, by his love for Eve, made the conscious choice to follow her into sin and share her fate. Adam may have been overcome by the fallen-in-sin flesh he now possessed by his wife's sin, since they were made one flesh by God, so that he fell because of it.   There is another precedent for this in scripture, which is in the book of Job, where Satan kills all of Job's family, but leaves his wife alive. Why? It may be that there's a connection between the two, and when God said:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A6&version=NIV;KJV   6 The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."   he gave Satan a command. Yes, Satan has limits. God is still in control! In this case, God said you must spare his life, and yet Satan did not spare his children, nor his servants (save those few who would come and report the tragedy), nor his property, nor even his full health. But he did save his wife alive.   It may be that this joining of the flesh makes them one physical life here in this world, which is why marriage is so important to God and to us, and why God decreed no divorce, and Jesus said in Matthew 19 that all re-marriages before the death of one's spouse is adultery.   It all ties together and is logical, but it requires considerable thought to recognize it, to see it, to understand it.   The great preachers and evangelists from old would say repeatedly statements like, "I've studied the Bible for decades, yet every time I pick it up I find something new, something I hadn't noticed before."   God is inexhaustible, and the knowledge contained in the Bible is full of subtlety and nuance to take to task teams of Biblical scholars working in unison and agreement for decades, yet at the same time, a five year old could understand the general message, and our need of salvation.   -- Rick C. Hodgin

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): May 30 11:57AM In article <915d9146-2dad-4ba4-a58b-76f3b438cb18@googlegroups.com>, Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: ... >What did Jesus say about him?   Somebody needs to get back on their meds...   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A44&version=NIV;KJV   Creepy Freakazoid.   > [Jesus, speaking to the highly religious Jews who could not > recognize Him or hear His words -- read the whole chapter]   Make America Great Again.   > and abode not in the truth, because there is NO TRUTH IN > HIM. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for > HE IS A LIAR, and THE FATHER OF it [lies].   Bananas.   >People make hats about this:   Goofball.     >https://www.ebay.com/itm/FAITH-FACTORY-Baseball-Cap-RED-Satan-is-a-Big-Fat-Liar-Embroidered-One-Size-/232756573816   Paranoid Freak.   >I have one from a few years ago that reads simply, "Satan is a liar."   Seriously deluded.   >we actually hear the voice of Satan recorded. One in Genesis, one in >Job, and one when Satan is temping Jesus in the wilderness during his >40 day fast. What does Satan say?   More than a few screws loose.   > you. He's withholding His blessing by keeping the fruit > from this tree from you." > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A1-5&version=KJV;NIV   There is no such thing as an ugly woman -- there are only the ones who do not know how to make themselves attractive. -- Christian Dior   > love you because you bless them. Take away their blessing > and they will curse you to your face."   >https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A8-12%2C+Job+2%3A1-6&version=KJV;NIV   Crackpot.   > been given to me. Bow down and worship me and I will give > it to you. I will be better to you than God."   >https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A7-9%2C+Luke+4%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV   Crank.   >Even more summarized:   Off Topic.   > 1) God's not good enough to you. > 2) God, you're too good to them. > 3) I'll be better to you than God.   Screwball.   >Satan is underhanded. He strikes where we are weakest and he goes >to the hilt. In the book of Job passages above God gives him per- >mission to do harm to Job's family and what does Satan do?   Loonball.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+1%3A13-19&version=KJV;NIV   Weirdo.   > were killed by a type of tornado attacking the house > where they were having an annual celebration (something > like a birthday party).   Whacko.   >When God gives Job license in Job 2 to do harm to Job's health:   Beyond hope.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A7-9&version=KJV;NIV   A village in Indiana is missing its idiot.   > at his side who, having seen all of this tragedy, cries out > against him saying, "Are you still maintaining your integrity? > Curse God and die!"   Breadbags on the soles of her shoes.   >refine his goals of attacking job to such a fine timescale), but >Satan left his wife alive. Why? Satan knew of man's weakness >with regards to his wife.   NutJob.   >Adam, so he went to Eve testing his only possible recourse to see >if Adam, who loved his wife, would be moved by her to then sin for >her, rather than by prompting of another he doesn't love.   Paranoid Freak.   >their heart God was going to lead them to the wilderness to die, >not realizing God had plans and power and authority to sustain >them with or without natural resources in the land.   Seriously deluded.   >were certain things which had to come to pass. So, why would God >say such a thing? It wasn't because it was His true heart's in- >tent, but to teach us something. How does Moses respond?   Bananas.   >Moses said, "But now, please forgive their sin -- but if not, >then blot me out of the book you have written."   Make America Great Again.   >Here we see Moses willing to die along with his people rather than >suffer under an unjust God.   Loonball.   >Supporting verses:   Crackpot.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32%3A7-14%2C31-32&version=NIV;KJV > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+14%3A11-20&version=NIV;KJV > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+9%3A12-14&version=NIV;KJV   NutJob.   >saw that Eve had sinned. The Bible records Eve ate from the tree >of the knowledge of good and evil, and then gave some to her hus- >band and he did eat:   Não roube. O governo não gosta de concorrência.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3%3A6-7&version=NIV;KJV   Creepy Freakazoid.   > 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized > they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made > coverings for themselves.   Weirdo.   >like Moses, was willing to share her fate and go through what she >would not go through with her rather than being alone again, and >being apart from her.   Breadbags on the soles of her shoes.   >test, a trial, to prove Moses was loyal to his people, and more im- >portantly, to the truth and justice of rightness and reputation, >then here with Adam we see a similar response.   Beyond hope.   >all straight from God's perfect design. Adam's love for his wife >would not be like a tainted love, but rather the purest love that >a man has ever had for his wife.   Crank.   >conscious choice, as did Moses, that he would suffer the same fate >as she would, because of his principles, his morals and ethics, and >his love.   Whacko.   >and perfect nature of Adam's creation by God, we can only conclude >that Adam would not have done incorrect things, but was so moved by >his wife that he made a choice.   A village in Indiana is missing its idiot.   >There's also an argument to be made from Genesis 2:24:   Screwball.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2%3A24&version=NIV;KJV   More than a few screws loose.   > 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united > to his wife, and they become one flesh.   Goofball.   >the fallen nature of Eve in that instant, was translated into Adam >also, so that he was weakened due to her sin, and therefore followed >Eve into sin.   Off Topic.   >and share her fate. Adam may have been overcome by the fallen-in-sin >flesh he now possessed by his wife's sin, since they were made one >flesh by God, so that he fell because of it.   Somebody needs to get back on their meds...   >book of Job, where Satan kills all of Job's family, but leaves his >wife alive. Why? It may be that there's a connection between the >two, and when God said:   Seriously deluded.   > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A6&version=NIV;KJV   Breadbags on the soles of her shoes.   > 6 The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your > hands; but you must spare his life."   NutJob.   >Satan did not spare his children, nor his servants (save those few >who would come and report the tragedy), nor his property, nor even >his full health. But he did save his wife alive.   Bananas.   >God and to us, and why God decreed no divorce, and Jesus said in >Matthew 19 that all re-marriages before the death of one's spouse >is adultery.   Whacko.   >It all ties together and is logical, but it requires considerable >thought to recognize it, to see it, to understand it.   A village in Indiana is missing its idiot.   >statements like, "I've studied the Bible for decades, yet every >time I pick it up I find something new, something I hadn't noticed >before."   Somebody needs to get back on their meds...   >scholars working in unison and agreement for decades, yet at the >same time, a five year old could understand the general message, >and our need of salvation.   Loonball.   -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RepInsults

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 04:58AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:37:10 AM UTC-4, fir wrote: > the most reason he is imbecile is that he dont understand things > that all 99% of people understoods.. most importants are some > things about rational thinking   fir, you don't understand that I used to be of the mindset you say I am today unable to be a part of. I used to ONLY think the way you do. I used to have your thoughts, your beliefs, your mindset toward the things of this world.   But that all changed when I met Jesus and asked Him to forgive my sin. At that point, my flesh-only existence was replaced with a new flesh+spirit existence, and everything about me changed.   That is why I NO LONGER think the way the world does, or move the way the world does. I now move by the guidance from God. And if I'm being honest, I fail a lot at it. I am no great master. I still make mistakes daily, but I do not desire to make mistakes, and there are times when I pull it together and make a good run of it for a time, but sin is always there at the door and unless I am truly focused continually upon serving God I do make mistakes on a regular basis. And, even some real doozies at times.   But it is not my desire to be that man any longer, and each failing causes me to get back up, press back into God, seek His face before me even more strongly, etc.   The Bible teaches why the difference exists between those who are being saved and those of the world who are not. It has to do entirely with the spirit nature.   Those who still have their sin charged to THEM do not have a spirit. Their spirit died in Adam's original sin, so that all we have here in this world is our flesh. But when we come to Jesus and ask Him to forgive our sin, our sin literally goes away from us, and the condemnation that went with that sin also goes away from us, and our spirit comes alive, and we are then restored to the way God intended for us to be before sin entered in and destroyed us. We then begin to see and learn and know things anew, with a literal new existence, a new source of input guiding us.   I've tried to describe it to people before, and the best analogies I have are from science fiction movies. The first is Seven of Nine from Voyager, and how she is able to receive communication through the Borg implants in her head. She is able to receive subspace communication, for example, and it is translated into her thoughts.   The other is Optimus Prime in Transformers, when he was killed and the kid brings him the allspark thing and puts it in his chest and Optimius kind of wakes up but is not back to his old self. The aging SR-71 Decepticon nearby, who had made a choice not to be evil, recognizes he is a prime and sacrifices his own life to give him his heart thing, which they put into Optimus. In that moment, all of the machinery that inhabited the SR-71 becomes integrated into Optimus Prime's body, so that he is then able to fly and have the power he did not have before.   We can understand both of those things from the science fiction point of view, but what happens in the physical life of a man is even more significant.   The born again individual (John 3) has new eyes, new ears, is able to understand old things differently, as well as understand new things not possible to understand previously, because they are now discerned and understood through the spirit, but not through the flesh.   This necessarily changes a person from within, a type of literal rewiring takes place which reshapes their life.   This is all part of the process of salvation, and God has put up a hard barrier between those who are being saved, and those who are not being saved. This entire world is presently being tested and tried. Bad things are allowed to move forward in our society to promulgate, to manifest, to become widespread and well-known, so that each of us are tempted by that evil to see how we respond to it. Will we embrace it with open arms? Or will we hold to our scruples and morals and ethics and say, "No. I don't want any part of that."   For all who will seek the truth, seek rightness, righteousness, holiness, purity, who do not go running toward sin like it's candy, they are those whom God reaches out to and draws in to His Son so they can be forgiven and be saved.   He literally tries the reins of each person's heart, examines their literal thoughts, their literal intents, the reasons why they've done what they've done, and He sees straight past the outer facades into the truth and real heart of the matter.   God knows who are His, who will be His, and who will never be His. And the gospel message is hidden from those who will not be saved because it is an inner drawing of the spirit which moves a person to come to Christ (John 6:44). It is not by my words, or the words of any Christian, but God uses the words we speak, which are His words, in concert with that inner-drawing, to bring each person to salvation who hears the message and will be saved.   If you can hear His voice in your core, in your heart, rejoice and be exceedingly glad. Jump up and down and shot for joy! Because it is God Almighty reaching into your life to save you.   > this moron simply rejects that as a specially trained monkey (specially trained to avoin fundaments of reason)   It seems this way because I have been changed, and that change gives me a perspective and understanding you do not yet possess. But if you will come to Christ and ask forgiveness for your sin, then you too will be changed and we will be able to rejoice in our salvation together because then you will know.   It's why the song Amazing Grace, written by a former slave trader who was saved later in life, has these lyrics:   "I once was lost, but now am found [now am saved by Jesus]. Was blind, but now I see."   Before being saved he was blind to the truth. But after being saved and having the new spirit nature, now he knows the truth and sees rightly.   You can too. All of us can. All we have to do is come to Jesus and ask Him to forgive our sin and He will ... if we are sincere, and such a drawing is only made possible by God Himself drawing you from within (John 6:44).   -- Rick C. Hodgin

gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack): May 30 11:59AM In article <5e3022c0-f606-494f-b47a-70e5986683f7@googlegroups.com>, Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: ... >I am today unable to be a part of. I used to ONLY think the way >you do. I used to have your thoughts, your beliefs, your mindset >toward the things of this world.   Screwball.   >But that all changed when I met Jesus and asked Him to forgive my >sin. At that point, my flesh-only existence was replaced with a >new flesh+spirit existence, and everything about me changed.   NutJob.   >it for a time, but sin is always there at the door and unless I am >truly focused continually upon serving God I do make mistakes on a >regular basis. And, even some real doozies at times.   Madonna ha avuto una figlia. L'ha chiamata Maria Lourdes. La placenta era firmata Dolce & Gabbana.   La cantante ha dichiarato che non sposera' il padre della piccola. La legge americana, infatti, non consente di sposare piu' di una persona alla volta. -- Panfilo Maria Lippi, "TABLOID TABLOID"@"Mai Dire Gol"   >But it is not my desire to be that man any longer, and each failing >causes me to get back up, press back into God, seek His face before >me even more strongly, etc.   Seriously deluded.   >The Bible teaches why the difference exists between those who are >being saved and those of the world who are not. It has to do entirely >with the spirit nature.   Bananas.   >for us to be before sin entered in and destroyed us. We then begin >to see and learn and know things anew, with a literal new existence, >a new source of input guiding us.   Crackpot.   >from Voyager, and how she is able to receive communication through >the Borg implants in her head. She is able to receive subspace >communication, for example, and it is translated into her thoughts.   Goofball.   >of the machinery that inhabited the SR-71 becomes integrated into >Optimus Prime's body, so that he is then able to fly and have the >power he did not have before.   Off Topic.   >We can understand both of those things from the science fiction >point of view, but what happens in the physical life of a man is >even more significant.   Crank.   >things not possible to understand previously, because they are now >discerned and understood through the spirit, but not through the >flesh.   Somebody needs to get back on their meds...   >This necessarily changes a person from within, a type of literal >rewiring takes place which reshapes their life.   Paranoid Freak.   >to it. Will we embrace it with open arms? Or will we hold to our >scruples and morals and ethics and say, "No. I don't want any >part of that."   Loonball.   >holiness, purity, who do not go running toward sin like it's >candy, they are those whom God reaches out to and draws in to His >Son so they can be forgiven and be saved.   Breadbags on the soles of her shoes.   >literal thoughts, their literal intents, the reasons why they've >done what they've done, and He sees straight past the outer facades >into the truth and real heart of the matter.   More than a few screws loose.   >of any Christian, but God uses the words we speak, which are His >words, in concert with that inner-drawing, to bring each person to >salvation who hears the message and will be saved.   Beyond hope.   >If you can hear His voice in your core, in your heart, rejoice and >be exceedingly glad. Jump up and down and shot for joy! Because >it is God Almighty reaching into your life to save you.   Creepy Freakazoid.   >> this moron simply rejects that as a specially trained monkey (specially trained >to avoin fundaments of reason)   Make America Great Again.   >you will come to Christ and ask forgiveness for your sin, then you >too will be changed and we will be able to rejoice in our salvation >together because then you will know.   Whacko.   >It's why the song Amazing Grace, written by a former slave trader >who was saved later in life, has these lyrics:   Weirdo.   > "I once was lost, but now am found [now am saved by Jesus]. > Was blind, but now I see."   A village in Indiana is missing its idiot.   >Before being saved he was blind to the truth. But after being >saved and having the new spirit nature, now he knows the truth and >sees rightly.   Breadbags on the soles of her shoes.   >ask Him to forgive our sin and He will ... if we are sincere, and >such a drawing is only made possible by God Himself drawing you from >within (John 6:44).   Goofball.   -- You are again heaping damnation upon your own head by your statements.   - Rick C Hodgin -

"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 05:23AM -0700 On Wednesday, 29 May 2019 18:56:10 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > germinated? Or even God Himself by the power of His own Holy > Spirit.   > I do not remove the possibility because I know the power of God.   I do neither. Cite, where have I been removing any possibilities? I just tell that scientific theory and statistics of scientific research both say that grandchild's likelihood of getting particular chromosome from particular grandparent is 1/4. So it matches with scientific theory, no indications of biases in any way. Therefore scientific theory just works, no difference of what you believe. But backwards people like you argue that science is lying! I do not claim that I know that God does not exist. I claim that I lack belief that God exists. God may still exist, but science is still totally correct and useful without any prayers in practice and chances of a kid getting particular genetic disease or eye color or what not are still totally accurate statistically.   Snipping your "same reply".   > > > which prevents us from seeing Him moving as He is moving.   > > :D *..* and lack of answer. "God somehow needed that > > waste for something." :D   Snipping your empty threats. You are not set to menace people neither in name of God nor Satan. Also it is laughably pathetic to intimidate your discussion partners when you can't answer a question.   > > reproducible and survivable systems that have no apparent need > > for to constantly intervene or to drive those processes.   > Agreed. But, they were explicitly designed to be that way.   That can't be anyhow ruled out to be false neither is anything showing it to be true.     > That information is information about a natural formation. It's > essentially data based on what exists. This is different from the > information present in DNA, as it is part of an engineered system.   Engineering you assume dogmatically here. How do you know that natural formation wasn't engineered?   > based machine which translates that 3-slot sequence into a protein > chain that's then mechanically folded into the proper shape to be > used for internal cell component construction.   And ... so what? Water in river can also flow through caves and riffles and merge to bigger rivers.   > It's far more than just raw data that becomes information in a giv- > en context. It is an entire system setup that takes the raw data > in the DNA, and wields it properly to produce life.   Ok, the dogma is that alive beings are engineered because Bible says so.   > at some point prior Darwinian-like evolution would've caused the > first sentient species to rise up, which then seeded the rest of > the universe with an engineered design ... still denying God.   Appearances are often wrong and can only give indications for further research. Your retelling of what your dental doctors have quote-mined from Dawkins is pitiful. Read what Dawkins has actually said. Repeating lies of others is still lying.   > somewhere in Africa. I do not know the exact dates or years from > their finding, but it's summarized here:   > https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/   That is political site. Post nih.gov or other such scientific site to scientific studies. There has been tons of research about it and science says that Mitochondrial Eve did live 99 000 - 148 000 years ago while the Y-Chromosomal Adam did live 120 000 - 156 000 years ago. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032117/ It can still be they were at same time but it wasn't 5000 years ago.     > The Bible timeline places creation ...   Bible is apparently inaccurate there. No wonder, it is written, translated retold, rewritten and so on by fallible people.     > No. This is not evolution. This is adaptation. It is using the > existing genome and selecting desirable traits from each generation > to feed into the next.   But ... evolution *is* a method of adaptation of populations?   > Evolution teaches that a non-dog became a dog at some point. That > has never been seen to happen. Cannot happen. And is the position > that denies God.   It did. Dogs still give fertile offspring with wolves and coyotes so these had common ancestors not many millions of years ago just the populations have drifted away from each other by adaptation, particularly evolution and dogs also as result of human breeding these.   Similarity is with lot of species like that brown bears, grizzlies and polar bears can give fertile offspring (but not very fit to live in natural conditions of either parent). These are all known facts and if you doubt it then go research yourself. If your understanding of Bible contradicts with it then apparently your understanding is wrong.   > God did design DNA ...   Nowhere written in Bible. Also do not tell me about Bible, I'm quite certain I know it better than you. Explain me of what we can all easily see in actual reality.   > of years and created a primordial soup with the basic building blocks > of life which then came alive and today we have all the forms of life > on this planet.   Another Weekly Top Five. Theory of Evolution does tell nothing about how life started on planet Earth nor about anything that was before of that. It tells how species have likely formed through hundreds of millions of years lasted adaptation to different and varying environments here. You take and read up before you start to argue with something.   Your dental doctors from answersingenesis are most evil liars flat-earth geocentrists. Do not parrot them, look at actual sources. I won't buy anything from flat-earth geocentrists since equipment to prove it wrong is cheap enough and calculations are easy enough. Same way I do not read any Intelligent Design sites. One of their 6 best "proofs of God" is Cambrian Explosion. How could it happen half billions of years ago if world is supposedly only 5000 years old? :D Science should have coherent world model and so whatever they do is not science but just lying.   > That is the evolutionary view that is not possible. Adaptation to > environmental factors are possible, as we see everyday.   > Two completely separate things.   How so? Let's take grizzlies and polar bears. If they live separately for millions of years then their genomes drift away from each other so lot that their offspring aren't fertile anymore (like horses and donkeys) and finally so lot that they don't give offspring (like foxes and wolves). It is just plain logical.   Sure, it could not happen with 5000 years but 5000 years is clearly not enough for 100 base pairs per generation to produce genetic differences so large as horses and donkeys have. However all evidence shows that 5000 years of age is incorrect.     > Christians are called to teach the things of God. If you will not > read them or hear them ... that's upon you. I posted them explicitly > to teach you the truth about God and God's design of all things.   Your Bible itself is far better and far more logical and interesting than you in teaching its wisdom.   > You would do well to re-read what I post, and place emphasis on it.   You would likely do service to your God by not talking in His name.   > > also the reasons why.   > If you seek to learn the truth, you can ask questions about it. All > of your questions can and will be answered.   At least withhold answers of intimidation, menace and threats in name of your God, His Son, angels and/or enemies. I trust I have less to fear from those than you have, merely since I have done less disservice to them.   > > Some people just are more selfish and often choose to do unjust things > > (using whatever excuse).   > It is always sin.   None of the 613 commandments forbids to be selfish and unjust (in general sense) so it is not sin. If the act committed selfishly and unjustly doesn't violate any of the commandments then it is not transgression against divine law of Bible.   > excess. Others would NEVER gamble, but don't mind stealing some- > thing if they can justify it.   > All of it is sin. ...   Your position deviates from Bible and also didn't answer to anything I wrote. Yes, stealing is sin. Can't find anything about gambling, alcohol is only forbidden to priests going to minister (Leviticus 10:8–9). Fanaticism does not cause people to steal, drink alcohol or gamble. It causes good people to commit far worse crimes than that.   > > beings needs me for anything I'm here but I don't need any middle-men.   > It's not religious propaganda. It is teaching you the truth about > the Biblical teaching.   Your truth is certainly skewed. You even did not reply to my questions in some posting:   How can a non-Christian transgress against divine laws of Christianity? My position is that Non-Christian can't like sparrow, dolphin, bear or elephant can't.   Why none of the actual Christians follows the 613 commandments in Bible? So they all sin and have to constantly ask forgiveness from Jesus?   About divine law Deuteronomy 25:7-9: And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother. Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her; Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.   Just obscure to extreme. My brother fortunately has son so I don't need to marry his wife if he dies. But if he did not have son and died? Estonian laws don't allow me to have two wives. Should she then take off my shoe and spit in my face?   > If you do not want to learn the truth, that is your choice.   You avoid discussing majority of points I raise. Even "I do not know" would be fine but not your weird threats and misquotes from scripture (that I don't believe).   > to His plans in moving mankind forward. Does it happen like that? > I don't know, but I'm not prepared to say coldly, flatly, that it > does not, and that instead it is all just random.   Exactly. So why to deny that if God does not intervene then science is correct? Also it would be pointless to add that disclaimer into every scientific article, especially since co-authors of it may be of different religions, don't you think? > > > ing between the multitude to pull out the one He desires.   > > Again that "God somehow needs it, but regardless God does it" > > non-answer.   Snip continued non-answer.   > > know if God does it or does not do it?   > Nor should they factor God out completely if they don't know if God > does it or doesn't do it.   I have repeatedly told that I do not factor out any of gods completely. I only say that most things what they claim that God did most likely wasn't that by evidence that we have. It can be that it still was that. It is like criminal analysis. We may find only things that indicate that it was accident. In reality it may be was murder but we didn't find any evidence of it. Therefore we pick what we can ... and that means our conclusion will be that it was accident. Why I dislike the dental doctors of yours is that they avoid researching or finding evidence. Instead they quote mine the articles from real scientists, your "servants of Satan" and misrepresent others research. > God is intimately involved with mankind's entire history.   None shown anywhere besides the stories in Bible. Was He in First World War? Was He in Second? Will He show up in Third? I doubt it.     > This is where science fails. It denies possibility in favor of the > "political view" that they want to have about the universe.   > It is wholly wrong to do this.   It is always correct not to waste but to pursue simplest and cheapest of solutions that works. The simple physical laws do something regularly and predictably.   By your belief He has already given us all those things that work perfectly without any compensation from His side needed. So science shows you where you should not bother Him with prayers for additional aid and where you should pray (if you want to be "lucky" and go against set rules of nature).   By my belief praying is pointless and so I simply don't go against rules of nature ever. IOW if you want to get rich with gambling then build casino and own it. I won't, casinos are legal evil.   > > imperfect that needs constant manual driving and divine > > interventions?   > Sin introduced the imperfections.   Nothing indicates that anything changed 5000 years ago. Your worshipping of Sin feels ill, sorry.   > we do not yet understand, but are part of His whole design. We > may never understand parts of those things here in this world, but > He has promised we will in eternity.   Again dodge and blah-blah. World wide flood is impossible, splitting sea is impossible, turning sticks to snakes is impossible, Moon staying still in sky is impossible, woman turning into salt statue is impossible. God did use only spectacularly and clearly impossible interventions. Unfortunately none evidences besides of your Bible story have left of those.   > the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, and it is true. > People cannot place value on Jesus dying 2,000 years ago to save us > here today. It's not possible to the flesh.   You are not Jesus. You are Rick C. Hodgin. I talk about you. I see lot of good in teachings of Jesus. I see none in yours.   > truth is found, not in our flesh, which is why you cannot see value > or goodness or truth or anything worthwhile in my arguments, and > look at me only as a religious spammer.   No, you are worse. Jesus is fine. Your God is fine and I enjoyed reading Bible. I have done it several times because I read too fast and sometimes have nothing worthy under hand to read. However you discredit it in my eye with your nonsense and lies.     > He did, but the ones He told us to watch out for are those who do > not teach properly about Him. They are the ones who are carnal, > who teach worldly ways as if they were spiritual ways.   Exactly you. Fruitless guy considering everybody around him as servants of Satan and then describing our savior as menace and threatening with Him. If there is Satan (I consider it unlikely) then you are what I would imagine its servant would look like.     > > I explained that I follow the guidance. It suggests to ignore you. > > So how you explain it?   > "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."   I did not ask how I can find God. I asked why God in the "word of God" suggested to ignore you? You have been wolf in sheep's clothing and false prophet. I still don't ignore you since I still hope that somewhere inside of you is some spark of goodness left and you can be saved out of your misery.   > ever, even though God destroyed the Nephalim, some of their DNA did > propagate beyond the flood, most likely through Noah's son's wives, > but regardless it did affect our genome.   There are no indications of it in genome.   > > > city, which parents, what time, etc.   > > I also meant that. That angels drive the breeding of humans. Sorry for > > my bad English.   Snip dogmas, you can't reason. You read somehow from Bible that God and His angels actively participate in every rape, adultery and incest ... and so be it. Can be but I don't buy it.   > here on this Earth, only about ~4400 years of which were post-flood, > meaning a time when the Earth was more vulnerable and the genetic

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 06:05AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 8:24:06 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > neither in name of God nor Satan. Also it is laughably pathetic > to intimidate your discussion partners when you can't answer a > question.   I do not threaten anyone. Here is the content you removed. It is not a threat in any stretch. It is a teaching. Today, you cannot see that God is moving in your life, but the teaching here is that yes, He is moving in your life daily:   You will find out one day exactly how much God was involved in your life. The Bible said, "He causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust."   People everywhere are kept from Satan's attacks. God restrains Satan from destroying everybody. During the upcoming tribulation that restraint will be withdrawn and the Bible says that if the mere seven-year period of time were not shortened, nobody would have survived, but for the sake of the elect (believers in that time), the time would be shortened.   Angels are messengers sent to assist those who will inherit sal- vation (sent by God). This assistance takes on many forms.   These are Bible verses translated into normal text writing by me here. Here are the citations:   You will find out one day exactly how much God was involved in your life. The Bible said, "He causes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A45&version=NIV;KJV   45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.   The rest of it is a conveyance of that general concept. We learn in the book of Job that Satan has boundaries given him by God. Satan cannot just move as he wants, but only as God allows:   https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+2%3A6&version=NIV;KJV   6 The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life."   Satan's on a rope. A short rope. He cannot interfere with a person's life more than God allows.   ----- Your posts are too long to reply to. Please break them down into smaller posts that can be replied to in pieces.   Also, if you continue to snip my reply content summarizing it with some alternate explanation than it was intended, I will stop replying to you.   I have no goals in harming anyone, or doing anything underhanded such as issuing threats. Everything I post is a teaching, and/ or a warning, regarding the person's missing knowledge, or be- havior that is contrary to that which God calls us to.   -- Rick C. Hodgin

"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: May 30 06:09AM -0700 On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 8:24:06 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote: > > information present in DNA, as it is part of an engineered system.   > Engineering you assume dogmatically here. How do you know that > natural formation wasn't engineered?   There's a movie which conveys this concept in detail:   Programming of Life http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s   > > used for internal cell component construction.   > And ... so what? Water in river can also flow through caves and > riffles and merge to bigger rivers.   You're not understanding. You'll have to get to a place where you can recognize the difference between natural processes and engineered or designed processes before we continue.   Please watch the movie above. It's in English, so you may need to get someone to help you translate. It's the best movie I've found to convey the information stored in DNA as a design to date.   -- Rick C. Hodgin

"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 30 06:55AM -0700 On Thursday, 30 May 2019 16:05:35 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > is not a threat in any stretch. It is a teaching. Today, you > cannot see that God is moving in your life, but the teaching here > is that yes, He is moving in your life daily:   The question was why are there millions of sperms in one ejaculation.   > You will find out one day exactly how much God was involved in > your life. The Bible said, "He causes the rain to fall on the > just and unjust."   So that is answer why are there millions of sperms in one ejaculation or warning that God is very powerful?   > mere seven-year period of time were not shortened, nobody would > have survived, but for the sake of the elect (believers in that > time), the time would be shortened.   So that is answer why are there millions of sperms in one ejaculation or warning about powerful Satan and upcoming tribulation that brings nothing good to neither believers nor non-believers?   > Angels are messengers sent to assist those who will inherit sal- > vation (sent by God). This assistance takes on many forms.   So that is answer why are there millions of sperms in one ejaculation or warning about powerful angels? Etc.   So I stand on my position: You are not set to menace people neither in name of God nor Satan. Also it is laughably pathetic to intimidate your discussion partners when you can't answer a question.   > Your posts are too long to reply to. Please break them down > into smaller posts that can be replied to in pieces.   Break them yourself. Not hard for me to reply as I type 4 times faster than speak so why should I break them?   > Also, if you continue to snip my reply content summarizing it > with some alternate explanation than it was intended, I will > stop replying to you.   Or run away, your choice. Fir would be happy, I would be not.   > such as issuing threats. Everything I post is a teaching, and/ > or a warning, regarding the person's missing knowledge, or be- > havior that is contrary to that which God calls us to.   Then if you don't know an answer to something then say so, don't replace it with your doomsday scenarios and threats. I can not fear anything that I don't even believe it exist but you certainly should if you believe that it exists.

Back to top

Undefined Behaviour

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 05:29AM -0700 > resource limits, accept and correctly execute 2 that program.?   > I choose to believe that it's not I who could be considered obtuse > here. ;-)   I'm sorry for the choice of phrasing in my last message. I was frustrated. Let me see if I can do better here.   Your statements miss an important distinction. The statement you quote is a requirement /on the implementation/. It is not a requirement /on the program/. The question I am trying to answer is whether the /program/ has defined behavior. The standards don't say what the /implementation/ should do, but they do say what the /program/ should do. The behavior /of the program/ is well defined (in the abstract machine, in case that needs saying). What you're saying is we don't know what program /execution/ will do. And that's right: we don't know what will happen when the compiled program actually runs. But we do know what the /program/ should do, as described in the various semantic descriptions for the different program elements, which means the behavior /of the program/ is well defined, not undefined. A particular program execution can fail at any time for any number of reasons. That doesn't change whether the /program/ has defined behavior.     > Not sure if I quoted the clarifying but non-normative note also > earlier.   > But read it a few times, please.   I have read it, probably dozens of times, but certainly more than a few. I also have thought carefully about the question here, considering not just this statement but also other relevant parts of what the standards say about conformance and definedness of behavior. Both the C standard and the C++ standard talk about behavior in terms of what happens in an abstract machine. It's meaningless, or at least pointless, to talk about "undefined behavior" in the actual machine. Behavior being defined means we know what the program /should/ do, not what running the program /will/ do. We never know what running a program /will/ do. If we know what a program /should/ do, then the program has defined behavior, no matter what happens during program execution.

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 30 06:37AM -0700 > On Friday, 10 May 2019 14:26:22 UTC+3, Tim Rentsch wrote:   >> Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> writes:   >>> On Sunday, 28 April 2019 18:56:06 UTC+3, Tim Rentsch wrote: [...] > that fully correct program is allowed to do whatever when the > unspecified resource limits of conforming implementation / > execution environment are exceeded.   I don't see anything new in what you're saying here. We agree that a program (any program) might do anything at all when the compiled program is executed. That doesn't change whether the behavior /of the program/ is defined or not. The problem with your interpretation is that it leads to ridiculous conclusions. The idea of a strictly conforming program would be meaningless. Or the meaning of "undefined behavior" would be different in C than it is in C++. Either way, in C++ the notion of "undefined behavior" would be useless: if a program execution does what we expect, then we would have "defined" behavior, otherwise we would have "undefined" behavior. The idea of "defined behavior" would apply not to programs but only to program executions. A given compiled program might have "defined behavior" today and "undefined behavior" tomorrow. If a program run goes wrong, a statement that there is "undefined behavior" would give no new information; it sounds like it's saying something but actually it doesn't tell us anything that we didn't already know. It seems pretty unlikely that this kind of useless definition is what was intended.   Please see also my recent response to Alf's posting in this thread.

Back to top

C and C++ Training in Chennai

"Softlogic Academy Pvt. Ltd" <softlogicseo@gmail.com>: May 30 03:08AM -0700 C++ is a derivate of C programming language undergoing C C Plus Plus Training in Chennai equips to learn and understand other programming language or operating system at ease and certification in any or both of these programming languages increases the probabilities of placement opportunities.   https://www.slajobs.com/c-c-plus-plus-training-in-chennai/

Back to top

offsetof

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: May 29 06:18PM -0700 > assert(q == &a); > }   > [...]   How about emulating offsetof() using a static member function? (Disclaimer: please excuse my writing C style casts instead of C++ style casts.)   class Derived : public Base { Inner inner; public: Inner* GetInner() { return &inner; } static Derived* OwnerOf(Inner* inner){ alignas( Derived ) unsigned char it[ sizeof (Derived) ]; unsigned delta = Derived::offsetof_inner( (Derived*) it ); return (Derived*)( (char*)inner - delta ); } private: static unsigned offsetof_inner( Derived *d ){ return (char*)&d->inner_ - (char*)d; } }; I like this approach better than using a private base class. AFAICT it has well-defined behavior (no accesses, and no non-static member functions, with the "synthesized" pointer to a Derived). No diagnostics from g++ or clang. Produces good code with g++ at level -O1.

Back to top

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.