Sunday, December 6, 2020

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 7 topics

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 06 03:22PM +0100

using namespace std;
using void_task = packaged_task<void()>;
using task_ptr = shared_ptr<void_task>;
deque<task_ptr> dq;
dq.emplace_back( make_shared<void_task>( bind( []() {} ) ) );
auto front = dq.pop_front();
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 06 04:06PM +0100

How should I do the dequeuing ?
 
#include <future>
#include <deque>
 
using namespace std;
 
using void_task = packaged_task<void()>;
using task_ptr = shared_ptr<void_task>;
using task_queue = deque<task_ptr>;
 
template<typename F, typename ... Args>
void enqueue( task_queue &dq, F &&f, Args &&...args )
{
dq.emplace_back( make_shared<void_task>( bind( forward<F>( f ),
forward<Args>( args ) ... ) ) );
}
 
task_ptr dequeue( task_queue &dq )
{
return dq.pop_front();
}
 
int main()
{
auto l = []( int &a )
{
++a;
};
deque<task_ptr> dq;
int i = 0;
enqueue( dq, l, i );
task_ptr pTask = dequeue( dq );
}
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 06 07:11AM -0800

On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 16:23:02 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
 
Not saying what you want to do and all #includes are missing and likely
most of code too. That is what you always do ... but it is wrong. So all we
can tell are simple syntax errors but your compiler tells that as well.
 
> using task_ptr = shared_ptr<void_task>;
> deque<task_ptr> dq;
> dq.emplace_back( make_shared<void_task>( bind( []() {} ) ) );
 
That line can't be just like that It has to be inside of function.
 
> auto front = dq.pop_front();
 
You plan to create void variable using auto? That does not work.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 06 04:22PM +0100

>> auto front = dq.pop_front();
 
> You plan to create void variable using auto? That does not work.
 
The dequeued entity should be a task_ptr.
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 06 07:28AM -0800

On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 17:23:15 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
> >> auto front = dq.pop_front();
 
> > You plan to create void variable using auto? That does not work.
> The dequeued entity should be a task_ptr.
 
I do not get what you mean ... deque::pop_front is void:
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque/pop_front>
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 06 04:38PM +0100

>> The dequeued entity should be a task_ptr.
 
> I do not get what you mean ... deque::pop_front is void:
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/deque/pop_front>
 
Sorry, I didn't check the docs and thought that it returns
the frontmost element.
 
So this way everything is o.k.:
 
#include <future>
#include <deque>
#include <utility>
 
using namespace std;
 
using void_task = packaged_task<void()>;
using task_ptr = shared_ptr<void_task>;
using task_queue = deque<task_ptr>;
 
template<typename F, typename ... Args>
void enqueue( task_queue &dq, F &&f, Args &&...args )
{
dq.emplace_back( make_shared<void_task>( bind( forward<F>( f ),
forward<Args>( args ) ... ) ) );
}
 
task_ptr dequeue( task_queue &dq )
{
task_ptr front = move( dq.front() );
dq.pop_front();
return front;
}
 
int main()
{
auto l = []( int &a )
{
++a;
};
deque<task_ptr> dq;
int i = 0;
enqueue( dq, l, i );
task_ptr pTask = dequeue( dq );
}
"Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Dec 06 09:36AM -0800

On Sunday, 6 December 2020 at 17:38:53 UTC+2, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Sorry, I didn't check the docs and thought that it returns
> the frontmost element.
 
> So this way everything is o.k.:
 
May be. Why you have those shared_ptrs instead of having
deque<void_task> directly.
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Dec 06 07:40PM +0100

>> So this way everything is o.k.:
 
> May be. Why you have those shared_ptrs instead of having
> deque<void_task> directly.
 
I don't want to move the task-parameters.
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 06 11:38AM -0600

I spent about 3000 hours creating the x86utm operating system that
executes x86 based virtual machines using a very excellent x86 emulator.
It executes the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compiler
using x86 emulation.
 
x86 language ≡ von Neumann architecture ≡ UTM ≡ RASP Machine
It is common knowledge that all x86 based programs are computationally
equivalent to UTMs for every computation that does not require more
memory than they have.
 
Here is H_Hat (computational equivalent to the Linz Ĥ) being correctly
decided by DebugTrace() (computational equivalent to the Linz H).
 
http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
 
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.
 
The following is fully executable code and its complete execution trace
is provided below.
 
This is the generic halt deciding criteria:
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
> were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.
 
This is the specific halt deciding criteria for this computation:
Whenever an execution trace includes a function call to the same
function from the same machine address without any intervening
conditional branch instructions in-between:
Trace lines 13-21 shown below specify infinite recursion.
 
Actual debug trace of H() deciding halting on H_Hat()
 
Input to Microsoft C compiler, output is from generated COFF object
file. Execution trace is from an x86 emulator.
 
#define HALT __asm hlt
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
else
HALT
}
 
int main()
{
H((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
HALT;
}
 
_H_Hat()
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
[000005f1](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000005f4](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[000005f7](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[000005fb](02) 7404 jz 00000601
[000005fd](02) ebfe jmp 000005fd
[000005ff](02) eb01 jmp 00000602
[00000601](01) f4 hlt
[00000602](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000604](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000605](01) c3 ret
 
_main()
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370
[00000622](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000625](01) f4 hlt
[00000626](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000627](01) c3 ret
 
Output_Debug_Trace() Trace_List.size(20)
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370 ----CALL [00000370]
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370 ----CALL [00000370]
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370 ----CALL [00000370]
The PRIOR Instruction Specifies Infinite Recursion: Simulation Stopped:
Number of Instructions Executed(2777)
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 06 10:55AM -0600

On 12/6/2020 10:39 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
 
> I say that you're correct in that the cases which defeat deciders are
> often trivial and can be analyzed to show that they either halt or do
> not halt.
 
Such as the following case provided below:
 
> What has not been shown that those cases can be somehow correctly
> analyzed *by the decision functions themselves* which they target and
> defeat.
 
This statement does not make sense to me within the context of the
reasoning that I carefully explain below:
 
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.
 
http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
 
Just in case your knowledge of software engineering is abysmal I will
give you this little hint whenever an execution trace includes a
function call to the same function from the same machine address without
any intervening conditional branch instructions in-between:
 
(trace lines 13-21 shown below) THIS IS INFINITE RECURSION !!!
 
Actual debug trace of H() deciding halting on H_Hat()
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
else
HALT
}
 
int main()
{
H((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
HALT;
}
 
_H_Hat()
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
[000005f1](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000005f4](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[000005f7](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[000005fb](02) 7404 jz 00000601
[000005fd](02) ebfe jmp 000005fd
[000005ff](02) eb01 jmp 00000602
[00000601](01) f4 hlt
[00000602](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000604](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000605](01) c3 ret
 
_main()
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370
[00000622](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000625](01) f4 hlt
[00000626](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000627](01) c3 ret
 
Output_Debug_Trace() Trace_List.size(20)
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
The PRIOR Instruction Specifies Infinite Recursion: Simulation Stopped:
Number of Instructions Executed(2777)
 
On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
> halted is indeed a non-halting computation.
 
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
> were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.
 
Because of the above (halt deciding) criterion measure conditionals that
are a part of the halt decider and not a part of the user code are
correctly excluded when determining the non-halting behavior of the user
code.
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 06 10:23AM -0600

On 12/6/2020 10:03 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> vacuous.
 
> The impossibility of a halt decider is a mathematical theorem. There is
> no need to back that up with further reasoning. It is true.
 
Find the actual mistake in my correct refutation of the Peter Linz proof
Knucklehead !!!
 
Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.
Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company.
 
http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
 
 
Just in case your knowledge of software engineering is abysmal I will
give you this little hint whenever an execution trace includes a
function call to the same function from the same machine address without
any intervening conditional branch instructions in-between:
 
(trace lines 13-21 shown below) THIS IS INFINITE RECURSION !!!
 
Actual debug trace of H() deciding halting on H_Hat()
 
 
void H_Hat(u32 P)
{
u32 Input_Halts = H(P, P);
if (Input_Halts)
HERE: goto HERE;
else
HALT
}
 
 
int main()
{
H((u32)H_Hat, (u32)H_Hat);
HALT;
}
 
 
_H_Hat()
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
[000005f1](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[000005f4](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
[000005f7](04) 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
[000005fb](02) 7404 jz 00000601
[000005fd](02) ebfe jmp 000005fd
[000005ff](02) eb01 jmp 00000602
[00000601](01) f4 hlt
[00000602](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
[00000604](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000605](01) c3 ret
 
_main()
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370
[00000622](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000625](01) f4 hlt
[00000626](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000627](01) c3 ret
 
 
Output_Debug_Trace() Trace_List.size(20)
[00000610](01) 55 push ebp
[00000611](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000613](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[00000618](05) 68e0050000 push 000005e0
[0000061d](05) e84efdffff call 00000370
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
[000005e0](01) 55 push ebp
[000005e1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[000005e3](01) 51 push ecx
[000005e4](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[000005e7](01) 50 push eax
[000005e8](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[000005eb](01) 51 push ecx
[000005ec](05) e87ffdffff call 00000370
The PRIOR Instruction Specifies Infinite Recursion: Simulation Stopped:
Number of Instructions Executed(2777)
 
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com>: Dec 06 10:49AM -0600

On 12/6/2020 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> any intervening conditional branch instructions in-between:
 
> Except that the abpve rule is a bit flawed, as it needs to include ALL
> forms of conditional execution, including an indirect jump or call, and
 
In this case there are zero control flow instructions in-between, thus
making this point entirely moot for the current computation.
 
> needs to include ALL instructions in the loop, not just 'User' instructions.
 
> There are gaps in your traces that hide those conditionals.
 
On 11/27/2020 9:02 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> A computation that would not halt if its simulation were not
> halted is indeed a non-halting computation.
 
On Saturday, November 28, 2020 at 2:00:28 PM UTC-8, olcott wrote:
> Every computation that would not halt if its simulation
> were not halted is by logical necessity a non-halting computation.
 
Because of the above (halt deciding) criterion measure conditionals that
are a part of the halt decider and not a part of the user code are
correctly excluded when determining the non-halting behavior of the user
code.
 
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
 
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Dec 06 12:29PM

Advent of Code
https://adventofcode.com/2020
 
One programming problem a day, until Christmas. I don't know how
well-known it is; it's popular among my coworkers.
 
So far this year, not very interesting problems, but just /having/ a
well-defined and smallish problem, with test data, can be refreshing.
 
I find C++ a good choice for solving these. You'd think a language
like Python would be better fit, but I've found no use for it yet.
Perhaps that's just a sign my Python is rusty.
 
On the other hand, if you used C you would have to reinvent a lot of
wheels.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 06 12:55PM

On 06/12/2020 12:29, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> https://adventofcode.com/2020
 
> One programming problem a day, until Christmas. I don't know how
> well-known it is; it's popular among my coworkers.
 
Please don't push your Christian agenda here; we have enough fruit loops doing that already.
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 06 10:15AM -0500

On 12/6/20 7:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> well-known it is; it's popular among my coworkers.
 
> Please don't push your Christian agenda here; we have enough fruit loops
> doing that already.
 
Said the man who pushes his obscene, vulgar, anti-Christian agenda here.
 
There's so much more than you acknowledge today, Leigh. Your future can
be bright. Full of love to those around you. Full of hope and
affirmation of security and a future. Full of inner peace, love, and joy.
 
You're missing it, Leigh, and you're doing so in support of the purposes
of raging hatred spewing out toward others.
 
-----
Your life is not your own.
You are dominated right now by hateful masters using you.
 
They have blinded you to their presence as they literally usurp your
life, your future, your birthright, your heritage, all opportunity God's
given you to gain for yourself and others in eternity.
 
You are being robbed blind and stripped of everything, and they who are
doing this are preying on your love and embrace of sin to accomplish it.
They hate you, and they want to see you destroyed in Hell. And today,
they are having a full-on, 100% victory and success in their efforts.
They have wasted you and the sad thing is, you are loving every minute
of it ... today.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 06 04:30PM

On 06/12/2020 15:15, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> You are dominated right now by hateful masters using you.
 
> They have blinded you to their presence as they literally usurp your life, your future, your birthright, your heritage, all opportunity God's given you to gain for yourself and others in eternity.
 
> You are being robbed blind and stripped of everything, and they who are doing this are preying on your love and embrace of sin to accomplish it.  They hate you, and they want to see you destroyed in Hell.  And today, they are having a full-on, 100% victory and success in their efforts. They have wasted you and the sad thing is, you are loving every minute of it ... today.
 
And Satan invented fossils, yes? Spammer?
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 06 12:41AM -0500

On 11/27/20 11:51 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> doesn't as its existence as predicated on the Bible being fact: the
> Bible is demonstrably fiction irregardless of your delusions to the
> contrary.
 
The difference is there's a spiritual component to our lives. The
person in unrepentant sin is unaware of that part of our existence. The
closest thing to it they can know is something like goosebumps at a
great performance.
 
That part you don't know, that you're blind to, that you're unwilling to
give the smallest ear to, is the part you need, and the part which
affirms that which you do not accept today.
 
As I've told you before, I was an atheist, making fun of Christians
under my breath, thinking they were lunatics for believing in some
crutch. But when God showed up in my life, and I felt the pull of the
spiritual components, it absolutely overwhelmed my prior flesh-only
existence, to the point that 16+ years later, I am still focused
continually, daily, ongoing, without hesitation, without apology,
without remorse, on my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
 
-----
The part I need help with on Open GL is texturing with the high quality
you have on your display. Whenever I load a texture and generate
mipmaps and put them onto texture coordinates on some object, they lose
resolution.
 
I see applications like OBS, Blender, and your design studio, all having
absolutely crisp textures. But I just don't know what I don't know to
make it happen, so I'm asking for help.
 
I asked previously on the comp.graphics.algorithms group:
 
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.graphics.algorithms/c/6g61QzuLRHk
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 05 11:38PM -0800

On 12/5/2020 9:41 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> make it happen, so I'm asking for help.
 
> I asked previously on the comp.graphics.algorithms group:
 
>     https://groups.google.com/g/comp.graphics.algorithms/c/6g61QzuLRHk
 
Are your textures a power of 2?
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 05 11:40PM -0800

On 12/5/2020 9:41 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> make it happen, so I'm asking for help.
 
> I asked previously on the comp.graphics.algorithms group:
 
>     https://groups.google.com/g/comp.graphics.algorithms/c/6g61QzuLRHk
 
https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/articles/dynamic-resolution-rendering-on-opengl-es-2.html
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 06 12:01PM

On 06/12/2020 05:41, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
>>> Leigh, if you were compromised by aliens, if unbeknownst to you they had taken control of your mind and body, and were guiding you into harmful things, destructive things to you and those around you, would you want to know?  Would you want to be restored to self-determination, to autonomy, to not being used and abused by intruders with wicked and harmful intent?
 
>> Difference there is that aliens might actually exist whilst your god doesn't as its existence as predicated on the Bible being fact: the Bible is demonstrably fiction irregardless of your delusions to the contrary.
 
> The difference is there's a spiritual component to our lives.  The person in unrepentant sin is unaware of that part of our existence.  The closest thing to it they can know is something like goosebumps at a great performance.
 
Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
 
> That part you don't know, that you're blind to, that you're unwilling to give the smallest ear to, is the part you need, and the part which affirms that which you do not accept today.
 
And Satan invented fossils, yes?
 
 
> As I've told you before, I was an atheist, making fun of Christians under my breath, thinking they were lunatics for believing in some crutch.  But when God showed up in my life, and I felt the pull of the spiritual components, it absolutely overwhelmed my prior flesh-only existence, to the point that 16+ years later, I am still focused continually, daily, ongoing, without hesitation, without apology, without remorse, on my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
 
I don't give a fuck if you are a lapsed atheist; it has no bearing on my agnostic atheism.
 
 
> -----
> The part I need help with on Open GL is texturing with the high quality you have on your display.  Whenever I load a texture and generate mipmaps and put them onto texture coordinates on some object, they lose resolution.
 
If you want my help then you must first do two things:
 
1) Renounce Christian fucktardary.
2) Stop spamming this newsgroup with (1).
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 06 10:08AM -0500

On 12/6/20 7:01 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> The closest thing to it they can know is something like goosebumps at
>> a great performance.
 
> Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
The evidence doesn't come from us. We testify to the change we have
within. You can observe the changes in our lives without. We stop
doing the sinful things we did previously. We now give glory and honor
and praise unto God, etc. But none of that is proof for you because
people can lie and we could be faking it all.
 
The proof comes from within from God Himself when you set your sights on
the truth. He brings you personal proof that you can relate to.
 
The testimony videos on YouTube of the changed nature stemming from
being born again are replete with examples of this.
 
> If you want my help then you must first do two things:
 
> 1) Renounce Christian ..tardary.
> 2) Stop spamming this newsgroup with (1).
 
I hope you realize what an incredible hypocrite you are. Here you cry
out for me to stop telling people that Jesus loves them, that they have
sin and will wind up in a literal lake of literal burning fire for
literally all eternity, and that there's a free way out of it (which is
to set your sights on the truth and seek it) ... all the while you
insist upon spamming this group with your version of anti-that.
 
You spam the group with the antithesis of the message God commands us to
bring. You bring rage and hate and vulgarity and insults and obscenity,
yet in your twisted-in-sin mind that's okay. You can be rude and
hateful and demeaning and everyone around you must just accept it
because you are asserting yourself and you have that right!
 
You are unwilling to see, Leigh. It's why it's all completely foreign
to you.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 05 11:34PM

On 05/12/2020 23:09, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
>> Only if you renounce Christian ..tardary and stop spamming this newsgroup with same.
 
> Do you realize that you spam this newsgroup with your obscene version of atheism?  How do you think the people here feel about you writing consistently with such vulgarity?
 
> I will say this:  I love you, Leigh.  Jesus loves you.  You are loved.
 
So you are Gay? Sorry mate but you aren't my type: I only fuck cute toned/muscular guys in the arse, not batshit crazy over the hill god botherers like you.
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 05 06:31PM -0800

On 12/5/2020 3:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> consistently with such vulgarity?
 
>> I will say this:  I love you, Leigh.  Jesus loves you.  You are loved.
 
> So you are Gay? Sorry mate but you aren't my type:
 
Afaict, saying I love you does not make somebody Gay. Saying I love you
to a pet, does not mean you are a person who sleeps with pets.
 
[...]
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Dec 06 12:35AM -0500

On 12/5/20 6:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 05/12/2020 23:09, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> I will say this:  I love you, Leigh.  Jesus loves you.  You are loved.
> So you are Gay?
The one English word "love" has multiple definitions.
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love
 
transitive verb
1 : to hold dear : cherish
 
-----
In the original Greek, as in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world...":
 
https://biblehub.com/greek/25.htm
 
Original Word: ἀγαπάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: agapaó
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ap-ah'-o)
 
Definition: to love
 
Usage: I love, wish well to, take pleasure in, long for;
denotes the love of reason, esteem.
 
--
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.REMOVETHISBIT.co.uk>: Dec 06 11:21AM

On 06/12/2020 02:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
 
>>> I will say this:  I love you, Leigh.  Jesus loves you.  You are loved.
 
>> So you are Gay? Sorry mate but you aren't my type:
 
> Afaict, saying I love you does not make somebody Gay. Saying I love you to a pet, does not mean you are a person who sleeps with pets.
 
So humans are the pets of non-existent gods? Okay.
 
/Flibble
 
--
😎
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)