Highest Paying Job On IT?
-
I prefer Holy Grail overall, but some of Brian is probably amongst Pythons finest moments. My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. That kills me every time, and is on par with the killer rabbit of Holy Grail IMHO. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Christian, Obviously I've ruffled your feathers enough for one day! >> Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept.. Well, for the third time, let me state it clearly (although I doubt you or anyone can claim it has not been clear from the start) - I would accept ANY one verified claim of faith healing. Just one. Simple, verified data, based on more that the testimony of the recipient. Despite your attempts to tell me what I would and would not accept, and despite my stating clearly a number of possible conditions, we still arrive at the same point. You have twice claimed to have 'proof' of faith healing, and when challenged you have eventually backed down, stating that (a) you don't see the point in offering any proof, because it wouldn't be accepted and (b) that's not really your main point anyway, since the REAL point is the 'gift of tongues'(or, presumably, any of the other gifts bestowed by the holy spirit - prophecy, for example. I assume you believe in the power of prophecy? Wait ... lets not go there - I feel another long string of posts coming!!). From this, I conclude that (a) you yourself are not in posession of, and have never been given, verified evidence to support claims of faith healing, and (b) you also don't feel this is really the issue. Fine, lets agree then that you have no PROOF of faith healing (plenty of testimony from friends perhaps, and even personal experience, but no verifiable data), and you can stop throwing it into the discussion at random intervals as you have done in the past. Do we agree that this concludes any rational discussion of your knowledge of faith healing, or do you wish to continue this point - perhaps offering some evidence ? >> I'm not talking about a state of mind or an idea, and to be honest you are so >> deliberately ignoring what I DO say that I wonder why I'm bothering Well, sorry if I'm ignoring what your saying - I must admit that I don't think I'm ignoring you, but perhaps we are just drifting too far apart at the moment. My understanding is that you are trying to say the only proof that is unassailable is 'internal' proof. If you KNOW it to be true, then that is all that matters. I was trying to point out, via the 'bin Laden' example, that self belief can be both dangerous and misguided. In other words, rather than question the 'unassailablity' (is that a word?) of internal beliefs, I tried to demonstrate that to ignore outside evidence and focus only on an internal belief system is a potentially dangerous path.
Obviously I've ruffled your feathers enough for one day! Apparently you have as little a life as I do - I spent the work day answering you between coding, now I'm at home doing battle with CCmdTarget, and you're still posting. >> Yes, but which one ? The ONLY one you would truly accept.. Well, for the third time, let me state it clearly (although I doubt you or anyone can claim it has not been clear from the start) - I would accept ANY one verified claim of faith healing. Just one. Simple, verified data, based on more that the testimony of the recipient. Come now, you're honestly claiming if I produced, for example, the record of a persons death in a hospital while connected to life monitoring equipment, and resurrection an hour or so later when prayed for, you wouldn't claim the machine was broken ? When you say verified you open several cans of worms - verified by whom, verified how, etc. No, you wouldn't accept it, you're only saying this because you assume it does not exist. On the other hand, you're claiming this would be more proof to you than being healed yourself ? Despite your attempts to tell me what I would and would not accept, and despite my stating clearly a number of possible conditions, we still arrive at the same point. You have twice claimed to have 'proof' of faith healing, and when challenged you have eventually backed down, stating that (a) you don't see the point in offering any proof, because it wouldn't be accepted and (b) that's not really your main point anyway, since the REAL point is the 'gift of tongues'(or, presumably, any of the other gifts bestowed by the holy spirit - prophecy, for example. I assume you believe in the power of prophecy? Wait ... lets not go there - I feel another long string of posts coming!!). Whoa. When on EARTH did I back down ? ON the contrary, I pursued the fact that if you want proof it is available to you individually, and that personal experience is the only proof that is likely to convince you. From this, I conclude that (a) you yourself are not in posession of, and have never been given, verified evidence to support claims of faith healing, and (b) you also don't feel this is really the issue. Fine, lets agree then that you have no PROOF of faith healing (plenty of testimony from friends perhaps, and even personal experience, but no verifiable data), and you can stop throwing it into the discussion at random intervals as you have done in the past. Do we agree that this concludes any rational dis
-
My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. Juniper berries. :-D What about the scene where one of the men wants to have babies. "Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?" "Don't you oppress me." Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
Yeah, that's a good one too. I finally split my DVD rip of that movie tonight to fit onto CDR's so I can back it up. Come to think of it, I may watch it now... Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
"I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. " Yes, but I have faith that logic alone will ultimately fail to provide the complete answer. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
Logically, you might be right! I prefer to take the approach that questions of 'faith' continue to underly so many problems and issues, and the relentless application of logic offers a cleaner future. I'd rather ask "why" instead of simply agreeing 'okay' - but that's just me, I guess! Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Hi, Today, whiled I was coding some telnet stuffs, all of a sudden, I was stuck how much my doing job pays. I know that any job's paying depends on many factors, but I wanna know which one is the blowing job on IT industry. I guess I should design my career path at these times. I'm 25-year old engineer and have 3-year of professional Windows programming experience. So I wanna ask you guys which career path would make me paid most? Money, especially for me, means almost everything.(All of my family depends on my earning.) Personally I want myself being a able-engineer, but in reality my situation want me more money :-( So, one simple question. Which career path will make me most money? What would you suggest?.. Regards, Ryan -p.s If this posting sucks, sorry..Pardon me.. I don't remember whose signature this is, that.."Money talks, but all mine ever said was good bye."
I would say my job is highest profile and paying job in the IT world. I recently received a letter via snail mail addressed to the Manager of the Internet. Since assuming this role I have Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and most Fortune 500 CEO's paying me Protection Money. If they don't I will just turn off the Internet. Also I now have all the girls chasing after me. Unfortunately there can only one Manager of the Internet. If you want the job you must defeat me in combat. None of this Nancy Boy gun play shit either. Just you and me, each with the following weapons. A jar of Vegemite :vegemite: and a spoon, a carton of Coopers Sparkling Ale and a bottle of Bundy Rum and some Coke. Now we have 6 hours to finish this off. Whoever has finished everything first or has the least leftovers after the 6 hours has finished wins. Vomiting is an automatic forfeit. Who's on for the title? ;P Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
-
I can agree that the mission is doomed to failure - I have previously had a long discussion with Christian along the lines that 'faith' and 'logic' oppose each each other in fairly strong ways. I have no illusions about my ability to convince a strong 'believer' to change their minds - any more than I feel I can present a logical argument strong enough to convince someone with multiple personality disorder that they are, in fact just one person, not two (or more). From their perspective - a purely internal one, unsubstantiated in any way by objective measurement, they ARE multiple people. I just like to watch Christian fall back on his "inner beliefs", and force him to continually admit that his reality and 'evidence' is available to him only, and is purely subjective. That's enough of a 'victory' for me, and all I can reasonably hope to achieve. I will take your suggestion regardling the importance of 'faith' under advisement, and get back to you on that one. I think there are enough examples of the ability to live a good life without the need to involve faith - and a fairly bad life with 'faith' (did someonoe say "bin Laden" ??), and therefore it seems to me to be a largely optional activity at this time! >> will be those who rely on logic who will be far more surprised by 'the truth' >> than those who rely on faith I must say that the history of the last 1000 years appears to a continuous crumbling of faith in the face of logic - I see little evidence that this trend will reverse in the near future. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
I've been reading along, and wondering where I should join in. This looks like as good a spot as any. Mike, you believe that logic and faith are contradictory. I must admit that your statement is true for a lot of people. (Your example of the Mormons is one I would agree with.) However, I'm sure you'd like to know that there are people (I try hard to do this) who use logic to the point where it cannot prove or disprove anything more, then have faith that the rest (of whatever the subject happens to be) is true. (The majority of our population does this quite often when it comes to medicine, science, and other 'expert' topics.) Applying that process to the Bible, I end up doing the following sort of thinking. As far as historical and legal methods of verifying statments go, the Bible comes out sqeaky clean (read some of Josh McDowell's books if you're curious). Other issues that the Bible speaks on have either proven the Bible true, or are unprovable (though people may strongly wish otherwise). So, since the things which can be objectively be proven end up agreeing with the Bible, I take the next step by believing the rest. As far as interpretation goes, context is a really important issue that people overlook way too often when reading portions of the Bible. When a large group of people lets the Bible interpret itself, there ends up being only minor disagreement over issues that aren't explicitly discussed by the Bible (i.e. whether tounges are still valid today or not). However, when one of these not-explicitly-covered topics becomes a focal point of their religious stand, they aren't actually caring enough about what the Bible says anymore. At that point, they're listening to a leader or group of leaders instead. I know you'll have all sorts of comments, and I'll do my best to have a well-reasoned, logical argument. If I look like I'm resorting to "inner beliefs" rather than external evidence, call me on it and I'll either point out something I'd skipped or alter my opinion. John
-
We have reached an end again, I feel - my final words (feel free to offer your own closing remarks - how could anyone hope to stop you!!) - you appear to be accepting my main argument almost in totality! As you were forced to do, you have had to move into the world of INTERPRETATION (debationg the meaning and use of the word 'deaconess') in order to refute my quotes. This doesn't make you right, or me right - we may both be wrong. All I am demonstrating is that you CANNOT show objective proof of the bible's validity - your interpretation differs from mine, and probably from everyone elses' also. God must have been having a lot of trouble wiht the grammer checker when he wrote the bible. >> Well, as I have often noted, my interpretation requires God to act, so unless >> I was hell bent on deluding myself deliberately, my interpretation is proven >> by the fact I believe God made a promise and I have personal proof that He >> kept it You offer two simple choices for your own faith : (1) god exists, has given your specific promises via the bible, and delivered in the contract. (2) you are subject to some form of delusion. We will just have to disagree, I feel, as to which of these two outcomes is more likely!! (but I'd just like to add that being deluded is not that same as being unintelligent, so don't feel bad!) >> And still elude the majority today, as the Bible prophecied. Indeed Jesus >> asked of His return 'will I find faith on the Earth ?' >> ... >> Deliberate illiteracy and lack of faith are not God's fault. If the world was ' >> perfect under mens control there would be no point in Jesus coming back You must be very happy to be amongst the chosen few, who have been able to see through the confusion. Undoubtedly the rest of us poor fools will live to regret the way we snicker at those who know "the truth" that somehow eludes us. Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Boy, this discussion is getting messy. Hopefully, I can add some calmness to the discussion, though I won't be surprised if the reverse happens. First, I'd like to say that subjective arguments based on experience are never convincing. People can interpret them as hallucinations, misunderstandings, gullibility, miracles, demonic trickery, or a bunch of other things. Arguing from experience doesn't help much when trying to prove or disprove a statement or group of statments (the Bible in this case). So, Mike, since you're having such a hard time with Christian, maybe you'd like to start over with me? Maybe we'd get somewhere, maybe not. I sure sounds interesting, though. John P.S. Christian, I'm confused on how you claim that the Bible doesn't teach that Noah's flood was global? (Free ammo, Mike. ;))
-
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
Good idea, Steven. I just hope I don't stick my foot in my mouth, since I already offered to discuss things with Mike... John
-
My favourite is the guy on the hill who had a vow of silence. Juniper berries. :-D What about the scene where one of the men wants to have babies. "Where's the foetus going to gestate, in a box?" "Don't you oppress me." Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I accept that this was tongue in cheek, but at what point did I equate Islam with violence ? By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to speed up your binary tree sorting.... I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people who don't want it. I don't even do any graphics programming at the moment, my PC is not even configured for GDI+. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
> By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to > speed up your binary tree sorting.... It seems to me you have been smoking the same stuff as Chris when he sent out the CP Newsletter urging all of us to use HTML e-mail. Why am I always left out of these new-drug tests? :-) But seriously, how the ... could you use GDI+ to speed up a binary-tree sorting? I'm _really_ looking forward to a code snippet! > I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people > who don't want it. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I use STL daily. If people don't wan't it, perhaps they don't want (or even know) C++ at all? But there is a _crucial_ difference, the STL parts of the std C++ lib. is an _international_ standard, ISO. As a sidenote ANSI also accepted it without furhter ado. Perhaps GDI+ hasn't been sufficiently standardized just yet? Perhaps it will never be since it only adress one (1) platform (Win32), and as such its design is pretty mediocre. /Mike
-
Mike, about two years ago I spoke this exact same argument to a Christian friend of mine. Then my wife decided to rededicate her life to Jesus, and gave me a book by Josh McDowell so that I could see that she was not crazy. I read the book so that I could defeat the arguments and keep her from doing this, but instead the book changed my life. I did not come to faith through any supernatural experience. God in His wisdom understands that I would not ever truly believe without objective physical proof, and so to bring me, and other people like me (including you) to Him, such proof exists. If you really want to see the proof, and are not just boasting to see it because you believe it doesn't exist, I suggest that you begin by reading Lee Strobel's 'A Case for Christ.' If you have a wish list on Amazon.com add it, and I will be happy to purchase it for you. From there you can examine the evidence that Jesus is real, and Jesus is God as deep as you want to take it. Other than this offer, I cannot really continue any kind of argument, since I am wholly unqualified to participate in the type of discussion that will reach you. So I defer to the experts. Let me know if you'll take me up on my offer. Otherwise, God Bless and have a good day. Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in it to make him stumble -- 1 John 1:9-10
Steven and John, (I'm answering you both in one post just to speed things up!) Thanks for the offer to debate this further, but I'm afraid it will have to wait! As I am sure you can see from the volume of posts between Christian and myself, there is no short discussion to be had here. Unfortunately I have to leave it for now - more pressing matters have arisen. I WILL bring this up again at some stage (when Christian least expects it ?!?!), so keep your ammo dry. Just to set the stage a little, I have read Josh McDowell, but I find him unconvincing (apologies to your wife!), to say the least. If you want to see a few counter arguments, try these : http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/jury/chap5.html I have not personally read Strobel, but that's because it seems pretty well discredited as an objective work (he hides far too much behind the "I was a skeptical journalist" routine). With so much to read, I try to rely on reviews to get an idea of what is likely to bring something new to the discussion, and Strobel does not (on a skim read) seem to offer that. A quick counterpoint : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/strobel.html Thanks for the offers to exchange views - I'll get back to it! For now, let me just say I have more faith in humans that in any god we have invented, despite events like the WTC. ---------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
I've been reading along, and wondering where I should join in. This looks like as good a spot as any. Mike, you believe that logic and faith are contradictory. I must admit that your statement is true for a lot of people. (Your example of the Mormons is one I would agree with.) However, I'm sure you'd like to know that there are people (I try hard to do this) who use logic to the point where it cannot prove or disprove anything more, then have faith that the rest (of whatever the subject happens to be) is true. (The majority of our population does this quite often when it comes to medicine, science, and other 'expert' topics.) Applying that process to the Bible, I end up doing the following sort of thinking. As far as historical and legal methods of verifying statments go, the Bible comes out sqeaky clean (read some of Josh McDowell's books if you're curious). Other issues that the Bible speaks on have either proven the Bible true, or are unprovable (though people may strongly wish otherwise). So, since the things which can be objectively be proven end up agreeing with the Bible, I take the next step by believing the rest. As far as interpretation goes, context is a really important issue that people overlook way too often when reading portions of the Bible. When a large group of people lets the Bible interpret itself, there ends up being only minor disagreement over issues that aren't explicitly discussed by the Bible (i.e. whether tounges are still valid today or not). However, when one of these not-explicitly-covered topics becomes a focal point of their religious stand, they aren't actually caring enough about what the Bible says anymore. At that point, they're listening to a leader or group of leaders instead. I know you'll have all sorts of comments, and I'll do my best to have a well-reasoned, logical argument. If I look like I'm resorting to "inner beliefs" rather than external evidence, call me on it and I'll either point out something I'd skipped or alter my opinion. John
John, Look a little further down the thread to see my reply to your offer. Interested, but not right now. Cannot agree with you about Josh McDowell, or that the bible has been verified in any substantial way, but that's the heart of this discusion, right?! -------------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
-
Steven and John, (I'm answering you both in one post just to speed things up!) Thanks for the offer to debate this further, but I'm afraid it will have to wait! As I am sure you can see from the volume of posts between Christian and myself, there is no short discussion to be had here. Unfortunately I have to leave it for now - more pressing matters have arisen. I WILL bring this up again at some stage (when Christian least expects it ?!?!), so keep your ammo dry. Just to set the stage a little, I have read Josh McDowell, but I find him unconvincing (apologies to your wife!), to say the least. If you want to see a few counter arguments, try these : http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/evidence.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/jury/chap5.html I have not personally read Strobel, but that's because it seems pretty well discredited as an objective work (he hides far too much behind the "I was a skeptical journalist" routine). With so much to read, I try to rely on reviews to get an idea of what is likely to bring something new to the discussion, and Strobel does not (on a skim read) seem to offer that. A quick counterpoint : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff\_lowder/strobel.html Thanks for the offers to exchange views - I'll get back to it! For now, let me just say I have more faith in humans that in any god we have invented, despite events like the WTC. ---------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."
Thanks for the offer to debate this further, but I'm afraid it will have to wait! As I am sure you can see from the volume of posts between Christian and myself, there is no short discussion to be had here. Unfortunately I have to leave it for now - more pressing matters have arisen. I WILL bring this up again at some stage (when Christian least expects it ?!?!), so keep your ammo dry. Ammo? Uh, oh. *runs out to find some* ;) If you want to see a few counter arguments, try these... Well, I see a few problems with both of those, but my first question is -- where are you starting from in your attempts to prove/disprove the Bible? (i.e. What are you assuming estabilishes truth? If logic, then who's? If evidence, then who's interpretation of it? (Just having a little fun, though they are mostly-serious questions. :)) BTW, the ground floor / foundation is the correct place to start when establishing the validity of a set of documents, and that would be the Old Testament. The NT had to fit with the teachings of the OT before anyone was to accept it as from God. Starting in the NT only helps us discover whether the text really says what it says, and whether it fits with the other things we can discover through our imperfect attempts at digging up the past. I have not personally read Strobel, but that's because it seems pretty well discredited as an objective work (he hides far too much behind the "I was a skeptical journalist" routine). With so much to read, I try to rely on reviews to get an idea of what is likely to bring something new to the discussion, and Strobel does not (on a skim read) seem to offer that. I must say that that's a rather unsatisfactory way to go about it, although I must resort to that as well sometimes. The tendency for all people is to find the reviews that fit with what we'd like to hear. Even if you found a review that didn't fit your current beliefs, how would you know that any of them were valid? Anyone can misquote or missapply a quote. The only way to know is by reading the original. Thanks for the offers to exchange views - I'll get back to it! Ok. For now, let me just say I have more faith in humans that in any god we have invented, despite events like the WTC. Hmmm... *isn't sure what you're having "faith" in, since humans are a messy bunch that contradict each other all the time* John
-
> By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to > speed up your binary tree sorting.... It seems to me you have been smoking the same stuff as Chris when he sent out the CP Newsletter urging all of us to use HTML e-mail. Why am I always left out of these new-drug tests? :-) But seriously, how the ... could you use GDI+ to speed up a binary-tree sorting? I'm _really_ looking forward to a code snippet! > I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people > who don't want it. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I use STL daily. If people don't wan't it, perhaps they don't want (or even know) C++ at all? But there is a _crucial_ difference, the STL parts of the std C++ lib. is an _international_ standard, ISO. As a sidenote ANSI also accepted it without furhter ado. Perhaps GDI+ hasn't been sufficiently standardized just yet? Perhaps it will never be since it only adress one (1) platform (Win32), and as such its design is pretty mediocre. /Mike
> By the way, you really should be using GDI+ to > speed up your binary tree sorting.... It seems to me you have been smoking the same stuff as Chris when he sent out the CP Newsletter urging all of us to use HTML e-mail. Why am I always left out of these new-drug tests? But seriously, how the ... could you use GDI+ to speed up a binary-tree sorting? I'm _really_ looking forward to a code snippet! I'm sorry, is all humour lost on you ? > I'd have thought it was STL I push a lot to people > who don't want it. I can't speak for anyone but me, but I use STL daily. If people don't wan't it, perhaps they don't want (or even know) C++ at all? But there is a _crucial_ difference, the STL parts of the std C++ lib. is an _international_ standard, ISO. As a sidenote ANSI also accepted it without furhter ado. Perhaps GDI+ hasn't been sufficiently standardized just yet? Perhaps it will never be since it only adress one (1) platform (Win32), and as such its design is pretty mediocre. I'm not sure if you're trolling now or not. Of *course* GDI+ only is going to work on Windows, it's not part of any standardisation I know of. I *am* an STL zealot, check out any thread on containers in the forums. I also love GDI+, and always mention it as being a solution to problems like loading/saving bitmaps. But apart from that, my post was a joke. I strongly suspect you're going to tell me yours was too, but I couldn't be sure by reading it. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Boy, this discussion is getting messy. Hopefully, I can add some calmness to the discussion, though I won't be surprised if the reverse happens. First, I'd like to say that subjective arguments based on experience are never convincing. People can interpret them as hallucinations, misunderstandings, gullibility, miracles, demonic trickery, or a bunch of other things. Arguing from experience doesn't help much when trying to prove or disprove a statement or group of statments (the Bible in this case). So, Mike, since you're having such a hard time with Christian, maybe you'd like to start over with me? Maybe we'd get somewhere, maybe not. I sure sounds interesting, though. John P.S. Christian, I'm confused on how you claim that the Bible doesn't teach that Noah's flood was global? (Free ammo, Mike. ;))
I'm willing to accept the possibility it was, if such explanation includes a description of where Cain was banished to. I don't believe the BIble says this conclusively though. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Thanks for the offer to debate this further, but I'm afraid it will have to wait! As I am sure you can see from the volume of posts between Christian and myself, there is no short discussion to be had here. Unfortunately I have to leave it for now - more pressing matters have arisen. I WILL bring this up again at some stage (when Christian least expects it ?!?!), so keep your ammo dry. Ammo? Uh, oh. *runs out to find some* ;) If you want to see a few counter arguments, try these... Well, I see a few problems with both of those, but my first question is -- where are you starting from in your attempts to prove/disprove the Bible? (i.e. What are you assuming estabilishes truth? If logic, then who's? If evidence, then who's interpretation of it? (Just having a little fun, though they are mostly-serious questions. :)) BTW, the ground floor / foundation is the correct place to start when establishing the validity of a set of documents, and that would be the Old Testament. The NT had to fit with the teachings of the OT before anyone was to accept it as from God. Starting in the NT only helps us discover whether the text really says what it says, and whether it fits with the other things we can discover through our imperfect attempts at digging up the past. I have not personally read Strobel, but that's because it seems pretty well discredited as an objective work (he hides far too much behind the "I was a skeptical journalist" routine). With so much to read, I try to rely on reviews to get an idea of what is likely to bring something new to the discussion, and Strobel does not (on a skim read) seem to offer that. I must say that that's a rather unsatisfactory way to go about it, although I must resort to that as well sometimes. The tendency for all people is to find the reviews that fit with what we'd like to hear. Even if you found a review that didn't fit your current beliefs, how would you know that any of them were valid? Anyone can misquote or missapply a quote. The only way to know is by reading the original. Thanks for the offers to exchange views - I'll get back to it! Ok. For now, let me just say I have more faith in humans that in any god we have invented, despite events like the WTC. Hmmm... *isn't sure what you're having "faith" in, since humans are a messy bunch that contradict each other all the time* John
>> Ammo? Uh, oh. *runs out to find some* Figuratively speaking, of course!:) >> Well, I see a few problems with both of those ... I offered the links not as conclusive or compelling arguments necessarily, but simply to demonstrate that good old Josh is not without his critics. There are plenty of other, more detailed counter arguments available in book form, and on the net. >> where are you starting from in your attempts to prove/disprove the Bible? Actually, at the risk of sounding like I'm splitting hairs, I'm not trying to prove or disprove the bible at all. My point is that it is a very SUBJECTIVE work, almost completely lacking in OBJECTIVE measurements. As such, you can read what you like into it. If it truly is a largely subjective work, then it is a poor basis for any discussion that tries to seek objective evidence, since by it's very nature it is wide open to interpretation. In fact, interpretation at several levels is completely necessary to even read the bible! As Christian pointed out, translating it to English is still a contentious issue, 2000 years after it was written. To answer your question with a question, why do people assume that if some part of the bible (let's say Noahs Arc) can be found to be true, then the entire bible is true? From what I can discover, Nostradamus was almost certainly a true, living 16th century person - that doesn't make his Quatrains true, or his claims of prophesy. If Noahs Arc is ever discovered (despite fradulent claims to the contrary, it has not), it would prove only that the story has some basis in fact. It then becomes a question of interpretation just how much of the story is considered literally true, and how much is distortion, invention, etc. And doesn't taht mean I'm saying it's virually impossible to prove, without doubt or interpreation, that the bible is factual ? - yes, that's what I'm saying. It will ALWAYS be a worjk that requires interpreation by humans, and humans will make of it what best suits them. >> Starting in the NT.. Well, I don't actually start in the NT - this only came up because both yourself and Steven mentioned specific books dealing with the question of the 'historical Jesus'. I agree this is only part of the story - it's in this current conversation because both of you put it there! When we get down to this for real we can start at 'the start', if you like. >> I must say that that's a rather unsatisfactory way to go about it... Well, I take an interest in many things. Amongst the books I'd l
-
I'm willing to accept the possibility it was, if such explanation includes a description of where Cain was banished to. I don't believe the BIble says this conclusively though. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
Christian, Just wanted to take this opportunity to try and 'cool' things down. The thread from the other day was overheating, and I'm sure I either started the fire, or substantially fanned the flames. Apologies... Not backing away of the substance of the things we've discussed, but I accept that the style and delivery can and should be more subtle. It's just so easy to get sucked into the whole "right/wrong" style. I can and will do better. When time permits, I'd still like to pursue various issues : (a) Women and the bible - I let it go at the time, but I disagree that my quotes were given in a context that lost their meaning. I believe that these are quotes that stand largely on their own - placing them back into the full chaper does little if anything to change the meaning (an opinion, of course ...) (b) Bible accuracy, and the nature of the bible itself - a "Standards Manual", a "Reference Guide", a "Users Manual", a "White Paper", or all of the them. (c) Faith healing - With or without your personal experiences (you seem to be keeping the details private - fair enough, you don't have to tell me or anyone anything in a public forum like this!!) For now, the debugger is waiting, so if/when we resume it will NOT be now. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's Bon Jovi who are the problem."
-
Christian, Just wanted to take this opportunity to try and 'cool' things down. The thread from the other day was overheating, and I'm sure I either started the fire, or substantially fanned the flames. Apologies... Not backing away of the substance of the things we've discussed, but I accept that the style and delivery can and should be more subtle. It's just so easy to get sucked into the whole "right/wrong" style. I can and will do better. When time permits, I'd still like to pursue various issues : (a) Women and the bible - I let it go at the time, but I disagree that my quotes were given in a context that lost their meaning. I believe that these are quotes that stand largely on their own - placing them back into the full chaper does little if anything to change the meaning (an opinion, of course ...) (b) Bible accuracy, and the nature of the bible itself - a "Standards Manual", a "Reference Guide", a "Users Manual", a "White Paper", or all of the them. (c) Faith healing - With or without your personal experiences (you seem to be keeping the details private - fair enough, you don't have to tell me or anyone anything in a public forum like this!!) For now, the debugger is waiting, so if/when we resume it will NOT be now. ----------------- Reg : "Well, what Jesus blatantly fails to appreciate is that it's Bon Jovi who are the problem."
Just wanted to take this opportunity to try and 'cool' things down. The thread from the other day was overheating, and I'm sure I either started the fire, or substantially fanned the flames. Apologies... Fair enough, I accept both your apology and my fair portion of blame. Not backing away of the substance of the things we've discussed, but I accept that the style and delivery can and should be more subtle. It's just so easy to get sucked into the whole "right/wrong" style. I can and will do better. When time permits, I'd still like to pursue various issues : (a) Women and the bible - I let it go at the time, but I disagree that my quotes were given in a context that lost their meaning. I believe that these are quotes that stand largely on their own - placing them back into the full chaper does little if anything to change the meaning (an opinion, of course ...) Well, I'd be happy to discuss that whenever you like, by examining the entire chapters as well as examing how those verses fit with others in the Bible to give an overall coherent picture. (b) Bible accuracy, and the nature of the bible itself - a "Standards Manual", a "Reference Guide", a "Users Manual", a "White Paper", or all of the them. I tend to assume it is what it claims to be, we can discuss that too, if you'd like. (c) Faith healing - With or without your personal experiences (you seem to be keeping the details private - fair enough, you don't have to tell me or anyone anything in a public forum like this!!) I thought I hinted at my experiences, to be honest I wasn't specific because I have no physical proof I can point to, and I wanted to explore the fact that the only proof that is unassailable is personal experience. For now, the debugger is waiting, so if/when we resume it will NOT be now. Yeah, my connection points are working ( thanks to Norm ) but they aren't getting the parameter I was hoping for ( my BSTR seems to have turned into an int ). Whenever you like. I'm a bit low on energy today, I'm off work to await a call to pick my wife up from hospital and I've only just stopped cleaning and sat properly at the PC ( as opposed to just posting as I walked past ) Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
I'm willing to accept the possibility it was, if such explanation includes a description of where Cain was banished to. I don't believe the BIble says this conclusively though. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
I have never heard of Cain's banishment as a problem for Noah's Flood being global. I'm curious what the possible problems are. Anyway, Cain was banished to nowhere in particular, but ended up in Nod (somewhere east of Eden) and built a city named Enoch. (Genesis 4:16-18) Cain being born before Seth, that leaves ~1426 years for Cain to live there before the flood. (Check Genesis 5:6-29, then 7:6.) John