Highest Paying Job On IT?
-
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
-
>> 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 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. Fair enough. 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. Sounds like a good place to start when we get down to it. As a preliminary notice, I like to start where our legal system is supposed to start -- "innocent until proven guilty". In other words, I give a document the benefit of the doubt until it is proven faulty. So, if somebody could show solid (not subjective) evidence that statements in the Bible (as understood by a normal reading) are wrong, I'd have to dramatically alter my faith. Well, I take an interest in many things. Same here, in fact your list is quite similar to mine! (Though we probably have different interests within those areas.) In regard to your second to last paragraph, I would say that the reason you would choose the Bible (Christianity) in your 'unlikely' 'conversion to faith' would be that it is the one foundation for faith that really stands up to honest testing. (But of course, that's what we'll be discussing. :)) Perhaps you should try "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan. This best sums up my views that human strengths can overcome human weakness. Ok. After a quick internet search and a couple of reviews, I think I understand where you're coming from. It also focuses us on the real heart of our conflict. Your world-view stems from an evolutionary viewpoint where the concept of God (religion) is a no longer needed (if it ever was) stepping stone in human evolution. My world-view comes from a Biblical viewpoint where God created the world, making us responsible to Him whether we want to be or not. Somewhere along the line, we would have had to discuss this in some fashion, so bringing it up by mentioning your general opinion of things was a very good idea. John P.S. Are you getting any email notifications of my posts? I keep having to check the boards, since I'm not getting any.
-
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
When the Bible says the flood covered the 'face of the earth', the same words are used exactly to say that Cain was banished from the 'face of the earth'. Which is consistent with the belief that the flood could well have covered the area in which God was dealing with man. 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'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.
[binary sorting using GDI+] >> looking forward to a code snippet! It was written without a smiley since your original post lacked a smiley. I hoped that you'd understand that if your original comment was a joke, this was also. I left my smiley out in case you were serious. > I'm sorry, is all humour lost on you ? Absolutely not! :-) I'm sorry if I offended you, it was never my intention. As you suspected, my post wasn't to be taken too seriously, it was just the lack of smileys that got me into rant-mode. :-) It might also be that I'm a not too frequent visitor here, whey I couldn't possibly know you're an "STL zealot". Good to know though, and now I'll remember it! :-) Cheers, /Mike