- [Jesus Loves You] More Biblical proof discovered by archaeologists - 11 Updates
- How to deal with running out of stack space? - 8 Updates
- shared pointer question - 1 Update
- Namespace scopes and function implementation confusion - 1 Update
- Overload by return type - 1 Update
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jun 24 11:33AM > From Fox News: > https://www.foxnews.com/science/city-gate-from-time-of-king-david-discovered-israel > A dig related to Biblical history and King David. I always laugh when Christian apologists use the term "archaeological evidence for God". That's a conceptually completely asinine term. There *cannot* be archaeological evidence of God, because archaeology deals with what people did in the past, not with the existence deities. It all boils down to the argumentative fallacy of "thing X described in the Bible really happened, therefore *everything* that the Bible says is true". Rather obviously just because a book describes an event that actually happened doesn't mean that *everything* the book says is true. There are literally hundreds of thousands of books of fiction that mention real-life events, like wars, kings, rulers, countries, and so on. Just because they mention real-life events has zero consequences on whether everything else these books say is true or not. |
| rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com: Jun 24 05:08AM -0700 On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:33:54 AM UTC-4, Juha Nieminen wrote: > evidence for God". That's a conceptually completely asinine term. > There *cannot* be archaeological evidence of God, because archaeology > deals with what people did in the past, not with the existence deities. I didn't say "archaeological evidence for God." I said "Biblical proof," and that means the Bible text is being proven accurate as they unearth artifacts from that time period with the names and events which all correlate to indicate specific things that didn't have physical evidence previously now do. > It all boils down to the argumentative fallacy of "thing X described in > the Bible really happened, therefore *everything* that the Bible says > is true". The word of God is like a lion, Juha. You do not need to defend a lion. You simply release it. It will defend itself. > real-life events, like wars, kings, rulers, countries, and so on. > Just because they mention real-life events has zero consequences on > whether everything else these books say is true or not. To believe what a book says, any book, is not wise. You have to put the book to the test. It is there, in those tests that you begin to have confidence in the book's authority on its subject matter, be it a book on physics concepts, or a religious text. And, there are even some religious texts which have authority on which they speak, but you have to look to other sources as well to see if there's a reason there why what that book says is hap- pening is explained. When you examine the Bible, you'll find the truth. You may even find what Napoleon found about it (English translation begins about half-way down, search for "One day,": https://biblehub.com/library/schaff/the_person_of_christ/napoleon_bonaparte.htm -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jun 24 02:39PM +0100 > find what Napoleon found about it (English translation begins > about half-way down, search for "One day,": > https://biblehub.com/library/schaff/the_person_of_christ/napoleon_bonaparte.htm And Satan invented fossils, yes? /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "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@gmail.com: Jun 24 11:31AM -0700 On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > And Satan invented fossils, yes? Satan tried to re-define what fossils are because laboratory evidence reveals to us what they are. He's spent billions of dollars on educational efforts, movies, over decades, to try and convince the general public that fossils are the result of billions of years of some timeline. The truth is more intereseting: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/ Dinosaur bones found with DNA, soft tissue, red blood cells, and more: https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/bones/ Nobody can force you to see the truth, Leigh Johnston. You have to be willing to see it. This is exactly how people will condemn themselves on Judgment Day. It's not because God judges them and casts them into Hell. He's already made the way back to eternal life by His Son. It will be because people put their hands over their ears, and ran around in circles yelling "Blah blah blah blah blah" like a five-year old, rather than hearing what was being shown them for their true knowledge, which in this case leads to exactly the salvation of their eternal soul from the punishment of sin in Hellfire. You're gonna miss it, Leigh if you don't take those hands off your ears. :-( -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Jun 24 12:15PM -0700 > > And Satan invented fossils, yes? > Satan tried to re-define what fossils are because laboratory > evidence reveals to us what they are. Hi Rick, Could I ask if you have a university degree, and if so in what subject? The reason that I'm interested is that you write as if you were uneducated, and had no facility for critical thinking. Thanks, Daniel |
| rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com: Jun 24 12:27PM -0700 On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 3:15:42 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > Could I ask if you have a university degree, and if so in what subject? The > reason that I'm interested is that you write as if you were uneducated, and > had no facility for critical thinking. Read my reply to Leigh, Daniel, as it applies to you as well. It applies to many people who move about in this world likewise, be- ing unwilling to seek the truth, but only to follow the flow of hate and ignorance with regards to the true teachings of the Bible. Even when I was an atheist, deep down I still wanted to know the truth. I wasn't content to just assume I was right based on what I'd read in a textbook somewhere, or seen in a movie. I always wanted to know the foundation of the statements being made, to see the evidence, to understand the methodology, so I could judge for myself if what they concluded was true. For example, I learned even in school that radiometric carbon dating isn't accurate. It has characterized things we know came from the 1800s, for example, as being over 25,000 years old. And parts taken from one portion, and parts from another, have yielded widely different target date ranges, varying by 10s of thousands to 100s of thousands of years. Scientists assume a lot when they use dating technologies, and these assumptions cannot be proven. It, therefore, removes the possibility of them being relied upon scientifically, especially when there is evidence or theories to the contrary which refute it. The truth is there, Daniel. If you want to seek it you can. Just pick a direction and begin looking for it. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jun 24 09:23PM +0100 > it. > The truth is there, Daniel. If you want to seek it you can. > Just pick a direction and begin looking for it. "In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?" "I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied. "How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil." "Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say." |
| Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>: Jun 24 01:25PM -0700 > deep down I still wanted to know I wasn't content to just assume I was > right based on what I'd read in a textbook somewhere, or seen in a movie. Well, I wouldn't recommend basing your understanding of the world on what you saw in a movie :-) But thanks for answering my question (by omission). It is what I thought. Be well, Daniel |
| rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com: Jun 24 02:59PM -0700 On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:25:14 PM UTC-4, Daniel wrote: > [snip] You can find fault with man, but the one Christians point you to is not a man like us, but a different kind of man. He did not have original sin. He was not under the same constraints on His relationship with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit that we are. His relationship (as a man) with God was full, for he was God. You won't find fault with Him. You won't find error in Him or His ways. You will only find absolute stunning brilliance beyond words, beyond an ability to describe it. All of God's ways are like that. It is to Him I point you, Daniel, so that you can be saved by Him, not by me, but by Him and His perfect sacrifice at the cross, an atoning death given to you in your place so that you won't have to die and face judgment, but only pass on from this sinful physical existence to the eternal sin-free one He restores us to. ----- You can deflect and mock and move in all manner of directions away from God, but you can't do it forever. Your time on this Earth is finite, and God ultimately owns the final determination about where you will spend eternity. Deflecting the argument onto me will only give you temporary com- fort that will be completely erased from your existence on Judgment Day. I advise you to seek the truth today, for it is only here in this world where we can be saved, because it is only here in this world where Jesus came to save us. We must receive His free gift of total forgiveness and salvation here, and we are not promised tomorrow. Today is the day of each person's salvation. Tomorrow we might not be here. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com: Jun 24 03:14PM -0700 On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 4:24:09 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively > evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]" -- > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect I always though the Dunning-Kruger effect was what was seen when disruptors are used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0s4emWeyA Just more evidence my mental faculties are insufficient. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Jun 24 11:22PM +0100 > forgiveness and salvation here, and we are not promised tomorrow. > Today is the day of each person's salvation. Tomorrow we might not > be here. And Satan invented fossils, yes? /Flibble -- "Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin "You won't burn in hell. But be nice anyway." – Ricky Gervais "I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who doesn't believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens." – Ricky Gervais "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." |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jun 24 04:05PM +1200 On 24/06/2019 09:07, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > She always seemed to have a little problem with this. I tried to get her > to change way back in the following thread: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c++/kAz1VAxD2lI/hm6BMuEJAQAJ If everyone ignored rude posters, they might mend their ways. There's no reason for bad behaviour other than pigheadedness. -- Ian. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Jun 24 08:03AM +0200 >> the pagefine on creation of the stack. I.e. the address-range is logi- >> cally allocated but not physically until the pages are written. > If you are going to reply to my posts, don't snip the attributions. If you are going to reply to my posts, strip the attributions. Otherwise I consider you as rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jun 24 10:36AM +0200 On 24/06/2019 08:03, Bonita Montero wrote: > If you are going to reply to my posts, strip the attributions. > Otherwise I consider you as rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 I'm sorry, but if /you/ are wanting to join in a Usenet group, then /you/ should follow the conventions of Usenet that were established some forty years ago and which are followed by the huge majority of people here. You don't get to change the rules. However, I am sure plenty of people will comply with your request by simply not replying to you, and we expect you to do the same by not replying to others without proper attributions. I will certainly welcome you back to the group when you have dropped your unusual selfish and utterly pointless attitude. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Jun 24 11:21AM +0200 > However, I am sure plenty of people will comply with your request by > simply not replying to you, ... LOL; it won't make a difference because people think it's more important to tell something than to sanction this gewgaw. |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jun 24 03:12PM >> alloc) and over-commit? >With overcommit the pages arent subtracted from the pagefile on >allocation. Hence may not be available, causing the process to recieve a fatal (if uncaught) signal. |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Jun 24 09:25PM +0200 > Nothing. Almost all implementations of C++ use a stack structure to > store local variables, and many of them do so using a hardware stack, > but the standard says almost nothing about such issues. C and C++ allow recursions. And recursions aren't possible without a stack. |
| Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>: Jun 24 01:09PM -0700 >> If you are going to reply to my posts, don't snip the attributions. > If you are going to reply to my posts, strip the attributions. > Otherwise I consider you as rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 *plonk* -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg): Jun 24 09:30PM > If you are going to reply to my posts, strip the attributions. > Otherwise I consider you as rude!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 Why is that, Bonita? -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0 |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jun 24 11:28AM > either. We can use shared_ptr to std::array or std::vector like we > use just plain std::array or std::vector when we need non-shared > array. The size of an std::array needs to be known at compile time. I think it's probably very rare to need a shared pointer to a compile-time array that's being nevertheless being allocated dynamically at runtime. I suppose it's not inconceivable, but rare. As for allocating an std::vector dynamically, and having a shared pointer to it... Unless you *really* need the functions provided by the class, why would you want this double indirection? If all you need is just an array of values and pretty much nothing else from it (other than being able to index it), why add needless overhead by using a dynamically allocated std::vector? >> provide, such as its various assign() functions, size(), empty(), >> and so on and so forth.) > On the ultra rare cases (when that matters) Not so ultra rare. If you are eg. reading data from a file using std::fread(), for instance, you often need a temporary array to read into. If you are reading the *entire* file into the array, the size of that array is only known at runtime. In this (not so "ultra rare") case std::unique_ptr<[]> might be a slightly more lightweight solution than std::vector (especially since in this case you are probably using a primitive type, and you probably don't need the array initialized because you are filling it with data anyway), with little to no drawbacks, if you don't need anything that std::vector provides. > step back and to investigate why we are allocating/releasing arrays > in such very busy loop and/or we may want to take a step forward > and to consider non-standard things like alloca() or VLA for array. Besides it being non-standard, you'll be burdening the stack with a potentially very large amount of data. It would be bad if you run out of stack space. |
| Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>: Jun 24 11:07AM >>> Why should it fail? >> Because Data is not an inner class of AClass? > Ah, you refer to the 'const Data&'. No. operator<() is not a member function of AClass::Inner, because AClass::Inner isn't a class at all. operator<() a member function of ANamespace::Data. It thus feels extremely counter-intuitive to define it as a member function of AClass::Inner, which is not a class of any kind. Incidentally, this won't compile: bool AClass::Inner::operator<(const Inner& rhs) const but this does: bool AClass::Inner::operator<(const AClass::Inner& rhs) const |
| rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com: Jun 24 01:11AM -0700 On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 5:39:07 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote: > > any more articles posted by David Brown, either in this or > > any other newsgroup. > Please explain why any of us should care about that? So when people see a post ending with a response from David Brown, regular readers will know that the person David responded to didn't even read the post, and that David's replies may be wrong, yet not corrected, due to the outright shunning. It also lets David know the influence he's having on people in case he cared about how negatively he affects other people, and wants to seek to change. I also stopped reading David's replies some time ago. -- Rick C. Hodgin |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment